The case involved Fr Lawrence Murphy, who worked at a school for the deaf in Milwaukee from 1950 to 1974. In the early 1970s, multiple allegations of sexual abuse against the priest were made to civil authorities, who investigated but never brought charges. He was placed on a leave of absence for a while and later returned to pastoral ministry in the Diocese of Superior, where he worked until 1993.
The Times story said that according to documents it obtained from lawyers involved in a lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, then Archbishop Rembert Weakland in 1993 hired a social worker who interviewed Fr Murphy and reported that the priest had admitted his acts, had probably molested about 200 boys and felt no remorse. The archbishop placed restrictions on Fr Murphy's ministry.
Archbishop Weakland wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger about the case in 1996 because he thought it might involve "solicitation in the confessional", a sin which because of its gravity involved the doctrinal congregation.
Later in 1996, the doctrinal congregation told Wisconsin bishops to begin a canonical trial of Fr Murphy, the Times article said. But it said that process was halted after Fr Murphy wrote directly to Cardinal Ratzinger, saying that he had repented and was in poor health, and that the allegations went beyond the Church's own statute of limitations for such crimes.
When Archbishop Weakland met in 1998 with Cardinal Ratzinger's assistants at the doctrinal congregation official, he failed to persuade them to allow a trial that could lead to the defrocking of Fr Murphy.
Jesuit Fr Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said the Fr Murphy case was a "tragic" one that "involved particularly vulnerable victims who suffered terribly from
what he did".
Fr Lombardi pointed out, however, that the Vatican was only informed of the case more than two decades after the abuse had been reported to diocesan officials and the police. He noted that civil authorities had dropped their investigation without filing charges.
The Church's canonical procedures in such cases do not envision "automatic penalties", but recommend that a judgment be made, not excluding removal of a guilty priest from the priesthood, Fr Lombardi said.
"In light of the facts that Fr Murphy was elderly and in very poor health, and that he was living in seclusion and no allegations of abuse had been reported in over 20 years, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith suggested that the Archbishop of Milwaukee give consideration to addressing the situation by, for example, restricting Fr Murphy's public ministry and requiring that Fr Murphy accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts," Fr Lombardi said.
"Fr Murphy died approximately four months later, without further incident," he added.
Since 2002, the Church has instituted a broad overhaul of how it handles these situations for the safety of all. However, it is not fair to criticize how a case was handled in 1998 while using current policies.
It needs to be understood too that not everything gets reported to the Vatican, not because of secrecy, but because that is the structure of the Church, that is, the bishops and cardinals have a sense of autonomy to govern their areas accordingly. Did I mention the Catholic Church has over a billion members?
7 comments:
You are a true defender of the faith! May peace be with you and your family always!
Thanks for spelling this out for me. While I never doubted the Holy Father for one second it is handy to have some facts if someone questions me.
When it comes to sexual abuse, a kid is safer on average with a Catholic priest than in a public school.
The procedures of Canon Law are to determine the guilt of a priest of serious wrong-doing within the internal structures of the Church. This has NOTHING to do with whether or not someone goes to the civil authorities.
The procedures of the Church are to give the greatest freedom to the accusers and the accused; thus, the secrecy and privacy. If this involves the "seal of confession" it is even more protected, for the rights of all the faithful, as well as the priest.
We don't 'get it' in this country that someone is innocent until proven guilty; Canon Law, if it followed correctly, does give the benefit of the doubt to the accused until he is shown to be guilty.
Then, sanctions, punishment and even laicization can take place.
The secular media don't get it.
It's not a "cover up"; nobody prevents anyone from going to the police, unless its a stupid act of some bishop or priest, which is NOT the law of the Church, but an individual's own decision.
A couple of points to add:
According to the documents the bishop wrote Rome because under canon law the statute of limitations had expired and he needed Rome's okay to proceed with the investigation. He got it.
Much has been made because the accused was buried in his vestments. a) the accused was ACCUSED, not convicted. b)the bishop had strongly requested the funeral rites for the accused to be private and the casket to be sealed for the funeral rites.IT WAS THE ACCUSED'S FAMILY WHO REJECTED THESE REQUESTS, so if you have problems with this action blame them, not the Church.
The instigator of the NYSlimes' spin-job is an attorney from the Twin Cities who (surprise!!) is collecting 33%++ of settlements paid by the Church to victims.
He's also working on suing the Church itself, vicariously through B-16, and (I surmise) plans on taking the Sistine Chapel as his cut.
In the Murphy case, it SEEMS as though the destruction of B-16 is being advanced, though slightly, by no less than Rembert Weakland, OSB, disgraced ex-Archbishop of Milwaukee.......
........who waited TWENTY YEARS to bring a Canon Law trial against Murphy.
Yes, indeed, it was decades ago. And yes, the civil authorities failed to prosecute. But one wonders why they would, in a situation where the representatives of Christ on earth were being called into question.
You can't claim the benefits of the secrecy and privacy within the Church, as Nazareth Priest does, and fail to recognize the power when individuals within the church do wrong. They are representing the church, yes? Even when they are failing as fallible humans. Thus, the church has to pay the price.
I'm an attorney, as is the author of this blog. Certainly he can explain to his readers the concept of agency.
Archangel suggests we blame the family for letting him wear his vestments to his grave. Well, what would you imagine a family faced with such shame would do? Deny and bury it. Literally. They wanted him to be a good man. But he was not. Only the church had the power to take his priestly identity away.
And Dad, a lawyer on contingency getting one-third of the award, if a case is won, is standard. Do you work on contingency? Do you put in years on a case, risking not making a penny?
Yes, these terrible actions took place a long time ago. Yes, the man is dead. But are you all praying for the little boys who went into the confessional to the representative of Christ on earth, and were molested there? Are you weeping for their lost innocence?
THAT is the very picture of Christ.
Post a Comment