Both Joe and I have very specific feelings about this entire scandal. Neither of us would ever discount the evil that has occurred in the Church. Nor would we ever "discredit" or minimize the pain felt by victims. However, there are also very specific reasons the Church handles things the way it does. Does that mean that the Church is wrong or somehow perpetrating evil? I don't think so.
I read an article from News Blaze (not really sure how credible they are) about Father Lawrence Murphy, the Wisconsin Priest who supposedly abused more than 200 deaf boys.
The article is filled with outlandish statements, and inciting words. And, like ABC News, plenty of misstatements of fact, and unanswered leading questions. The article references a NY Times article about the scandal, and Mr. Kays likes to reference the almighty word of the Times' as the definitive answer for guilt and also for what punishment is just. (Which strikes me as a bit odd...don't we have some other system for determining guilt and administering punishment?)
I find it interesting that Kays at first attempts to malign the now deceased priest as some sort of super con-artist who found all the right loop-holes to fool the Church. He (Kays) even says "One senses that the Doctrine of Faith was never aware of how urgent this matter truly was." That's correct, sir. The Church in fact didn't know how "urgent" this matter was. Mr. Kays urges his readers to "meticulously read" the documents to understand how Father Murphy was not defrocked.
Yes, perhaps Mr. Kays should heed his own advice. "It's been known since 1955 that this priest ....was a sexual predator." Nice. Thanks for playing the semantics game to benefit your anti-Catholic position, Mr. Kays. Maybe he should take a look at when the article, and the Times' makes mention of anyone stepping forward. 1974. Some victims made 'wanted' posters. By the way, that was 1974. NOT 1955. Or 1960, when a named victim says that the priest began to abuse him. No. 1974. So what happened in 1974, when the archbishop found out? He removed him from that position. Did I also mention that at the time the civil authorities discredited the accusations? (That's not to excuse the behavior, but where is the uproar against the police and prosecutor for not doing their job?)
So, in 1996, when Bishop Weakland wrote the vatican to look into the matter, the response was not what he wanted. Yes, the Vatican decided that it would not pursue the issue, because it was too stale. (We have the same thing here in the US. It's called a statute of limitations. Something bad happen to you? report it. didn't report it in time? Can't do anything.) By the way, did you pay attention to when the Vatican heard about this? That would be 1996. about 40 years after this began, and at least 22 years since it ended. Then, after the Vatican had the *audacity!* to follow the laws, they decided that Fr. Murphy should be given forgiveness. (the outrage!) Is my sarcasm showing?
Anyway, I can now move on to the real point of this post. The Pope's "involvement."
You see, Mr. Kays, the NYTimes, and all kinds of other media, wants you to believe that the Pope knew about this from day one. That Fr. Murphy in fact, wasn't a con-artist. That the Pope covered it up. Shuffled a priest around so he could "have more victims." Or help out his "buddy." The writer says just as much. "The motives of both the archbishop and the Vatican were to brush this dirt under the rug." "We get a good idea of how the Church conducts their business. In secrecy. With leniency." Then, SNAP leader, Peter Isley gets a say of just how 'bad' the Vatican is, as he proclaims that this scandal "is as bad as it can get and as high as it can get."
Yes, the Pope did it! he knew all along! He shuffled this priest around! Since 1996! You know, when the priest was 70, retired, and very ill. Yes, the Pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger) should have done something, right? Uhhh, like what? It's my understanding that the victims now have "nothing be contempt for the Catholic Church." What exactly was the appropriate response to a charge like this against a 70-year old priest, who hadn't any reports of other abuse since the "statute of limitations" ran out? Defrock him? What would that solve? The damage was done. These victims were very likely not going to be made whole by such action. Maybe not have a proper funeral, as Mr. Kays seems to think would have been appropriate? Again, what solution would this have been?
Tell me, what should the Cardinal have done? It wasn't even as though he could go to the Wisconsin authorities and report him; they had already done their investigation years before! Oh, but there is revenge! Mr. Kays points out that the day of reckoning has finally come for these victims, because now the truth is out, and they can....do what exactly? What are they looking for? I found nowhere in the article anything that said these victims were dedicating their lives to the furtherance of programs to help prevent clerical abuse. I didn't find anything that said they wanted an apology from the Pope. No. But these poor victims sure are being used by anti-Catholic media and groups like SNAP to further their smear campaign against our Holy Father! I just find it hard to believe that these groups are doing anyone any good by their continual assault against the Pope and the Vatican...unless their real goal is to further their agenda. But I'll leave that to you to decide.
Pray for the Holy Father, that the awful smearing be stopped. Also, pray for these poor victims, that they may come to find peace in the Lord.
Posted by: Brian
UPDATE***
LGT ABC News. Take it with a grain of salt ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment