Let's set the record straight: A defense of Pope Benedict Pt.4

In my previous three installments I spoke about, Crimen Sollictationis, the landmark John Jay study, and the issue of sexual abuse within the larger context of American society.  In this installment I will be speaking specifically about the case of Fr. Murphy which was at the heart of the most recent allegations made against Pope Benedict.

The case of Fr. Murphy: (For further reference read this article Pope Benedict a Monster and this one, Fr. Raymond di Souza's response to the New York Times

• Fr. Murphy was a priest at the St. John's School of the Deaf from 1963 to 1974. 
• During his span there it is believed that he abused 19 boys.  ( Various media outlet's report that Fr. Murphy might have abused as many as 200 boys, but these claims have not been verified)
• During the 1970's his victims complained to the police.  Despite these claims there were no trials.  At first glance this can be seen as a deliberate attempt by the Vatican to cover up, but it is important to note under Crimen Sollicitatonis it was the local diocese's responsibility not the Vatican's to deal with these cases
• In the 1970's Fr. Murphy was removed from the school by the diocese.  He was not reassigned to any other pastoral duties. 
• He moved in with his mom and would occasionally say mass and conduct retreats for deaf people since he specialized with this population.
• There were no more allegations made during this period
• In 1995 almost 20 years after the reported cases some of the lawyers and victims of Fr. Murphy contacted then Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland
• In 1996 Weakland sent the complaints to the CDF.
• In 1997 Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone Cardinal Ratzinger's deputy advised that a canonical trial be held against Fr. Murphy. This is the official, legal way of removing a priest from ministry permanently
• In January of 1998 Fr. Murphy sends a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger requesting to "live out his final days in peace".
• This request is rejected by the Bishop of the diocese of Superior. The decision for a trial is brought forward.  If convicted Fr. Murphy would have been defrocked.
• Unfortunately in 1998 Fr. Murphy died during the trial held against him
• The New York Times article dealing specifically with the Fr. Murphy case is mostly based on two questionable sources, the lawyers who have a civil suit pending currently in the Diocese of Milwaukee and disgraced archbishop, Rembert Weakland
• Weakland is currently in hot water for his mishandling of the sex abuse cases in his diocese. 
• Weakland has also been charged of using over $450,000 as hush money to silence a former homosexual lover who was blackmailing him
• Weakland was the same archbishop who was in charge in handling Fr. Murphy's case.  It was his mishandling of this case and others that led to the explosion of sex abuse cases in his diocese.
• Interestingly during the same day as the New York Times article was being published in March 10' a series of demonstrations were held in Rome against the pope.  This coincidence is striking given the fact that how could American activists be in Rome at the same exact time as the New York Times article was being published?  I am not a conspiracy theorist, but given The New York Times liberal, anti Christian bias it is not surprising.  It was a deliberate, and concentrated smear campaign. right smack in the middle of the Easter season

 It is important to note that Cardinal Ratzinger or Cardinal Bertone did not mishandle this case out of deliberate negligence or mal intent. They were adhering to the statutes of Crimen Sollicitationis which placed the responsibility of these cases under the jurisdiction of the local bishops. The greater question to ask is why didn't archbishop Weakland or his predecessors handle these cases in a more efficient manner? Also why did it take over 20 years for these cases to be revisited by lawyers? Why was the Vatican's response so slow?

One can make the allegations that the Vatican's response was too slow for the Fr. Murphy case. But this is mostly a procedural issue not an issue of malintent or deliberate concealment.  International institutions of all types have procedural issues.  Just take for example our criminal court system, it takes often time years for a case to be heard not mentioning the countless hours involved in paper work, jury selection, and other pre trial proceedings.  I wholeheartedly agree that the Vatican needs to improve the way it handles and deals with information processing , but this does not mean that the Vatican was deliberately trying to cover up for Fr. Murphy.

Ultimately we all have a shared responsibility in this crisis because if we all would have lived and practiced our faith in the true way that Christ intended, this type of evil would not have been tolerated; bishops would have been held accountable, corrupt priests would have been defrocked, and many victims would have been spared the unspeakable horror of abuse. Whenever we abdicate our moral and civil responsibilities our entire society, religion, and world suffers.  It is up to us, "we the people" to fight for our faith, to fight for our culture, to fight for our country.  Unfortunately most people today are content to live their lives in quiet mediocrity watching "Dancing with Stars","American Idol' or other sporting events.  While we are conveniently anesthesizing ourselves, somewhere, someplace a grave injustice is being committed.  Weather we like it or not evil never sleeps.

In my next installment I will speak about the specifics of the Fr. Hullerman case, which is the other case at the heart of the recent allegations against Pope Benedict.