A Look at the Accusations Against the Pope Concerning Milwaukee

Sources: Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys - NYTimes.com,

The Pope and the Wisconsin sex abuse scandal: I smell a stitch-up – Telegraph Blogs,

The Vatican's DA on sex abuse: 'False and slanderous charge against the pope' | National Catholic Reporter,

CNS STORY: Vatican defends action in case of Wisconsin priest abuser,

Untangling the confusion about the Church,

A Response to Christopher Hitchens' The Great Catholic Coverup (full version with references)

Preliminary Notice:

This article is in no way seeking to claim that any people claiming abuse in this case were lying, or that their suffering was unimportant.  Rather, since the accusation was, in effect, that the Vatican refused to take action against an abuser priest, the purpose of this investigation is whether or not the Vatican did refuse to act.

Introduction

There seems to be a concerted effort to distort elements of the Sexual Abuse scandal into a personal attack on the Pope which accuses him of being personally responsible for the actions which concealed the abuse of youth.  The current charge against this Pope is the claim that, when he was head of the CDF, he refused to defrock a priest guilty of sexual abuse.

There's a lot of ridiculous rhetoric out there, calling for the impeachment and arrest of the Pope.  This of course is the typical mob behavior of the internet.  There are also less drastic but equally wrong assertions that the current Pope ignored these issues.

The Problems with the Milwaukee charge:

Let's start with this example from the New York Times:

The Wisconsin case involved an American priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at a renowned school for deaf children from 1950 to 1974. But it is only one of thousands of cases forwarded over decades by bishops to the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led from 1981 to 2005 by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is still the office that decides whether accused priests should be given full canonical trials and defrocked.

In 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger failed to respond to two letters about the case from Rembert G. Weakland, Milwaukee’s archbishop at the time. After eight months, the second in command at the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican’s secretary of state, instructed the Wisconsin bishops to begin a secret canonical trial that could lead to Father Murphy’s dismissal.

But Cardinal Bertone halted the process after Father Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger protesting that he should not be put on trial because he had already repented and was in poor health and that the case was beyond the church’s own statute of limitations.

“I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood,” Father Murphy wrote near the end of his life to Cardinal Ratzinger. “I ask your kind assistance in this matter.” The files contain no response from Cardinal Ratzinger.

So let's consider some facts here.  The accused worked for the school from 1950-1974, and was accused of events from 1963-1969.  Pope Benedict XVI was made a bishop in 1977, and became head of the CDF in 1981… in other words, he was not even a bishop at the time the priest in question resigned from this school.  It was twelve years after the time of the last allegation that Pope Benedict XVI would be head of the CDF.  The allegation was brought to his desk in 1996… almost thirty years after the time of the last of the events the individual was accused of.  In 1997 we know the defrocking process had begun with permission of the CDF  In his letter (written in January 1998), the priest claimed Weakland was not following the rules in play at this time and said he repented of what he had done.  The priest died in August 1998.

The Church does not allow ex post facto either

At this time, the events were past both the time of the Church AND the state statues of limitations.  So this isn't a case of hiding the priest from criminal charges, but on how to handle the demand to defrock the priest in question.  We also know that in 2002, in response to urging of now Pope Benedict XVI, the Church brought in new rules which made it easier, not harder, to remove priests accused of these things.

This may seem like mere legalisms, but this is important.  Most nations in the world reject the concept of ex post facto laws.  A law can be reformed in response to a weakness, but one cannot apply a law passed after the investigation starts to an event which is being investigated before the new law comes into being.  You can't blame the CDF for not applying laws which came into effect in 2002 over a decision made in 1998

If the CDF Gives Permission to go Forward, How Does it Obstruct?

The interesting thing is, despite the claim that the article makes that they never heard back from the CDF, we do see in the NYT collection of letters this response, dated 5/12/97:

We have very recently received word From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome that we have permission to prosecute this case in the Church's courts despite the fact that the time limitations have run out. Therefore, the case will proceed to a conclusion and final decision. Please be aware that this type of process is probably the most complicated procedure that we do and that "it will take some time, perhaps a year or more, to complete. Also, please be aware that we are trying. to achieve justice for all the persons involved. We will be in touch with you in the future. Sincerely,

Rev. Thomas T. Brundage Judicial Vicar Archdiocese of Milwaukee

In other words, despite the claims of stonewalling, we do have the diocese admitting the CDF did give permission to prosecute this case of removing the priest in question from the ministry in 1997.  We do have a notice that this case could take a year to resolve once it was begun.  The priest wrote to now Pope Benedict XVI (in January) and died on 8/21/1998.  So less than nine months after this appeal, the priest was dead.

It is false however to assert that because the CDF did not immediately and arbitrarily defrock the priest that nothing was done.  We see that the decision to go to trial was made in December 1997.  In a letter dated 1/6/98 the tribunal began and the priest was summoned. 

So despite the request from this priest to put an end to this procedure, the investigation went on.  While the NYT alleges that the CDF called for a "pastoral solution" the letter (dated 5/6/1998) indicates nothing of the sort.  It indicates that the canon in question required consideration of whether the defendant could be be brought to repentance before a juridical act took place.  Indeed we see that a letter to the CDF (May 13, 1998) reports that the point was considered and the juridical act was needed.  In a letter from 5/15/1998 saying that the priest in question would report to the tribunal on 6/30/98 to investigate. 

So the implication that now Pope Benedict XVI buried the case is spurious.  The CDF reminded the investigation of what canon law required and the investigators confirmed to the CDF that a juridical act was the only resort they had left.

Now, on 8/19/98 we see that the diocese had decided to abate the juridical process.  We can see the reason for this in a letter on the same day.  The reason for this action was the priest was dying.  This made the whole issue moot, as defrocking means forbidding the priest to practice their ministry… something they can't do when they are dead.

I found this comment from civil law of interest to help explain the abatement:

Today, the word abatement is most often used for the termination of a lawsuit because of the death of a party. Under the common law, a lawsuit abated automatically whenever a party died. This rule was considered a part of the substance of the law involved and was not merely a question of procedure. Whether the cause of action abated depended on whether or not the lawsuit was considered personal to the parties. For example, contract and property cases were thought to involve issues separate from the parties themselves. They were not personal and did not necessarily abate on the death of a party. Personal injury cases were considered personal, however, and did abate at death. These included claims not only for physical assault or negligent injuries inflicted on the body, but also for other injuries to the person—such as libel, slander, and Malicious Prosecution.

In other words, Fr. Murphy was dying and sexual abuse was personal to the people involved.  So defrocking him was a moot point at this time.

Father Murphy died two days after this letter was issued, on 8/21/98.  Contrary to the orders of the diocese that a private funeral be held, the family of the deceased held a public funeral.

With the accused dead, the case was closed on 9/28/1998.  As I said above, defrocking involves a living priest.  If the accused is dead, the case cannot go forward.

So contrary to accusations from the New York Times, there was no refusal or cover-up.  There was an investigation which would have led to the defrocking of Fr. Murphy if he had not died.  The problem was the laws in place at the time.

Since then, the CDF has made it easier to defrock an accused priest.  However one cannot arbitrarily change a law to suit a whim, so the CDF could not just remove the law which required a longer process.

There is no justification to accuse now Pope Benedict XVI.  The investigation began in 1996 and was brought to the attention of the CDF in 1997, who did not block the procedure at all.

The Failure of Dioceses to Report Prevents the CDF from Knowing of the accusations

Non-Catholics may not realize this, but we don't have Vatican spies roaming the world looking for heretics.  Generally speaking, the Church operates under the principle of Subsidiarity:

the principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level.

—Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The Vatican sets the decrees all the local churches are to follow, but it is normally the bishop who carries these things out.  At this time, it was still required for cases of this nature to be referred to the Vatican.  However, Monsignor Charles J. Scicluna who works on the CDF cases investigating these things tells us:

Between 1975 and 1985, I’ve found that no report of cases of pedophilia involving clergy arrived to the attention of our congregation. However, after the promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law in 1983, there was a period of uncertainty about the list of delicta graviora reserved to the competence of this dicastery. Only with the motu proprio of 2001 was the crime of pedophilia returned to our exclusive responsibility.

In other words, if Father Murphy had been forced to resign in 1974 because of gross sexual misconduct, the diocese had a responsibility to pass this on to the CDF under the 1917 canon law, but did not.  Between 1983 and 2001 there was confusion over who had responsibility, which both explains the confusion in this case and why now Pope Benedict XVI pushed for reforms in this matter.  Msgr. Scicluna tells us that the cases since 2001 consist of:

Altogether in these nine years, 2001-2010, we’ve examined accusations that regard roughly 3,000 cases of priests, diocesan and religious, which involve offenses committed in the last fifty years.

So in 2001, the CDF began receiving cases dating back 50 years.  Indeed, the Msgr. says,

In 2003 and 2004, an avalanche of cases arrived on our desks. Many of them came from the United States, and dealt with the past. In recent years, thank God, the phenomenon is greatly reduced. For that reason, we now try to deal with the new cases in real time.

So what we seem to have is this: In America, there were many cases which were kicked under the carpet.  Once they were brought to the attention of the CDF they began to investigate.  Because there were so many cases from the past 50 years suddenly brought forth, it was certainly overwhelming.

Msgr. Scicluna tells us:

Above all from the United States, which, during the years 2003-2004, accounted for around 80 percent of the total number of cases. For 2009, however, the American share dropped to around twenty-five percent of the 223 new cases reported in the entire world. In recent years, between 2007 and 2009, the average number of cases reported to the congregation from around the world is 250. Many countries report only one or two cases. Therefore, while the diversity and the number of countries involved may be growing, the phenomenon itself is fairly limited. It’s important to remember that the total number of diocesan and religious priests in the world is around 400,000. That statistical reality doesn’t correspond to the perception created when these extremely sad cases take up the front pages of newspapers. [Emphasis added]

So of 3,000 cases, 80% of them were from bishops from the 1950s onward failing in their duty to report the cases.  In 2009 with the backlog cleared, we see there are 250+/- cases to investigate annually (it does not mean all cases are true).

So again, where is the fault of now Pope Benedict XVI?  Far from quashing a case, it seems he was seeking to try to make sure that he did justice in an investigation of a case which was at that time thirty years old when jurisdiction was not clear.

I believe that the Pope's view of these abusers can be found in his Pastoral Letter to Ireland, where he says:

7. To priests and religious who have abused children

  You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals. You have forfeited the esteem of the people of Ireland and brought shame and dishonour upon your confreres. Those of you who are priests violated the sanctity of the sacrament of Holy Orders in which Christ makes Himself present in us and in our actions. Together with the immense harm done to victims, great damage has been done to the Church and to the public perception of the priesthood and religious life.

  I urge you to examine your conscience, take responsibility for the sins you have committed, and humbly express your sorrow. Sincere repentance opens the door to God's forgiveness and the grace of true amendment.

  By offering prayers and penances for those you have wronged, you should seek to atone personally for your actions. Christ's redeeming sacrifice has the power to forgive even the gravest of sins, and to bring forth good from even the most terrible evil. At the same time, God's justice summons us to give an account of our actions and to conceal nothing. Openly acknowledge your guilt, submit yourselves to the demands of justice, but do not despair of God's mercy. [Emphasis added]

This is not the language of one who seeks to cover up.  This shows a strong condemnation over the evil these individuals have done, and the reminder that the guilty must atone for their evil, and submit to justice.

The NYT's Fallacy

The New York Times seems to be making an Argument from Silence fallacy.  Since the CDF under Ratzinger did not have an explicit action to immediately defrock the priest, it was assumed that the CDF chose to do nothing.  This does not logically follow.  It also implies indifference over the abuse, when an actual look at the letters show nothing of the sort.

Conclusion

Let's be clear on something.  What Father Murphy did was wrong and evil.  In this instance the issue was not prosecution at the state level (the statue of limitations had expired).  Nor was it the lawsuit (though it brought the case to the attention of the diocese some 30 years after the events the lawsuits concerned).  The issue was a judicial investigation as to whether Fr. Murphy should be defrocked  The Church followed their laws in order to assure that justice was done.  The accused has rights here, just as the defendant does in civil or criminal court.  So the Church cannot just decree by fiat that a priest is defrocked.  Trials do take time.  Unfortunately it took too much time in this case, but this is not the fault of Pope Benedict XVI, and indeed he pushed for a reform of these laws.

If there is blame to be given in the hierarchy it seems it falls on those who knew of the case and refused to report it to the Vatican.  If this case was known as far back as the NYT claims, and if Msgr. Scicluna tells us that betwen 1975 and 1985 the number of cases submitted to the CDF was zero, it demonstrates a failure to report Fr. Murphy so justice could be done.

However, the fault of the individual in America does not become the fault of the Vatican.  It appears that until 1996, the CDF had no knowledge of it, and once it did learn, it sought to permit the juridical acts to occur.

This is quite the opposite of the accusation the NYT makes that the Vatican "declined" to defrock a priest who was an abuser.

A Look at the Accusations Against the Pope Concerning Milwaukee

Sources: Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys - NYTimes.com,

The Pope and the Wisconsin sex abuse scandal: I smell a stitch-up – Telegraph Blogs,

The Vatican's DA on sex abuse: 'False and slanderous charge against the pope' | National Catholic Reporter,

CNS STORY: Vatican defends action in case of Wisconsin priest abuser,

Untangling the confusion about the Church,

A Response to Christopher Hitchens' The Great Catholic Coverup (full version with references)

Preliminary Notice:

This article is in no way seeking to claim that any people claiming abuse in this case were lying, or that their suffering was unimportant.  Rather, since the accusation was, in effect, that the Vatican refused to take action against an abuser priest, the purpose of this investigation is whether or not the Vatican did refuse to act.

Introduction

There seems to be a concerted effort to distort elements of the Sexual Abuse scandal into a personal attack on the Pope which accuses him of being personally responsible for the actions which concealed the abuse of youth.  The current charge against this Pope is the claim that, when he was head of the CDF, he refused to defrock a priest guilty of sexual abuse.

There's a lot of ridiculous rhetoric out there, calling for the impeachment and arrest of the Pope.  This of course is the typical mob behavior of the internet.  There are also less drastic but equally wrong assertions that the current Pope ignored these issues.

The Problems with the Milwaukee charge:

Let's start with this example from the New York Times:

The Wisconsin case involved an American priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at a renowned school for deaf children from 1950 to 1974. But it is only one of thousands of cases forwarded over decades by bishops to the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led from 1981 to 2005 by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is still the office that decides whether accused priests should be given full canonical trials and defrocked.

In 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger failed to respond to two letters about the case from Rembert G. Weakland, Milwaukee’s archbishop at the time. After eight months, the second in command at the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican’s secretary of state, instructed the Wisconsin bishops to begin a secret canonical trial that could lead to Father Murphy’s dismissal.

But Cardinal Bertone halted the process after Father Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger protesting that he should not be put on trial because he had already repented and was in poor health and that the case was beyond the church’s own statute of limitations.

“I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood,” Father Murphy wrote near the end of his life to Cardinal Ratzinger. “I ask your kind assistance in this matter.” The files contain no response from Cardinal Ratzinger.

So let's consider some facts here.  The accused worked for the school from 1950-1974, and was accused of events from 1963-1969.  Pope Benedict XVI was made a bishop in 1977, and became head of the CDF in 1981… in other words, he was not even a bishop at the time the priest in question resigned from this school.  It was twelve years after the time of the last allegation that Pope Benedict XVI would be head of the CDF.  The allegation was brought to his desk in 1996… almost thirty years after the time of the last of the events the individual was accused of.  In 1997 we know the defrocking process had begun with permission of the CDF  In his letter (written in January 1998), the priest claimed Weakland was not following the rules in play at this time and said he repented of what he had done.  The priest died in August 1998.

The Church does not allow ex post facto either

At this time, the events were past both the time of the Church AND the state statues of limitations.  So this isn't a case of hiding the priest from criminal charges, but on how to handle the demand to defrock the priest in question.  We also know that in 2002, in response to urging of now Pope Benedict XVI, the Church brought in new rules which made it easier, not harder, to remove priests accused of these things.

This may seem like mere legalisms, but this is important.  Most nations in the world reject the concept of ex post facto laws.  A law can be reformed in response to a weakness, but one cannot apply a law passed after the investigation starts to an event which is being investigated before the new law comes into being.  You can't blame the CDF for not applying laws which came into effect in 2002 over a decision made in 1998

If the CDF Gives Permission to go Forward, How Does it Obstruct?

The interesting thing is, despite the claim that the article makes that they never heard back from the CDF, we do see in the NYT collection of letters this response, dated 5/12/97:

We have very recently received word From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome that we have permission to prosecute this case in the Church's courts despite the fact that the time limitations have run out. Therefore, the case will proceed to a conclusion and final decision. Please be aware that this type of process is probably the most complicated procedure that we do and that "it will take some time, perhaps a year or more, to complete. Also, please be aware that we are trying. to achieve justice for all the persons involved. We will be in touch with you in the future. Sincerely,

Rev. Thomas T. Brundage Judicial Vicar Archdiocese of Milwaukee

In other words, despite the claims of stonewalling, we do have the diocese admitting the CDF did give permission to prosecute this case of removing the priest in question from the ministry in 1997.  We do have a notice that this case could take a year to resolve once it was begun.  The priest wrote to now Pope Benedict XVI (in January) and died on 8/21/1998.  So less than nine months after this appeal, the priest was dead.

It is false however to assert that because the CDF did not immediately and arbitrarily defrock the priest that nothing was done.  We see that the decision to go to trial was made in December 1997.  In a letter dated 1/6/98 the tribunal began and the priest was summoned. 

So despite the request from this priest to put an end to this procedure, the investigation went on.  While the NYT alleges that the CDF called for a "pastoral solution" the letter (dated 5/6/1998) indicates nothing of the sort.  It indicates that the canon in question required consideration of whether the defendant could be be brought to repentance before a juridical act took place.  Indeed we see that a letter to the CDF (May 13, 1998) reports that the point was considered and the juridical act was needed.  In a letter from 5/15/1998 saying that the priest in question would report to the tribunal on 6/30/98 to investigate. 

So the implication that now Pope Benedict XVI buried the case is spurious.  The CDF reminded the investigation of what canon law required and the investigators confirmed to the CDF that a juridical act was the only resort they had left.

Now, on 8/19/98 we see that the diocese had decided to abate the juridical process.  We can see the reason for this in a letter on the same day.  The reason for this action was the priest was dying.  This made the whole issue moot, as defrocking means forbidding the priest to practice their ministry… something they can't do when they are dead.

I found this comment from civil law of interest to help explain the abatement:

Today, the word abatement is most often used for the termination of a lawsuit because of the death of a party. Under the common law, a lawsuit abated automatically whenever a party died. This rule was considered a part of the substance of the law involved and was not merely a question of procedure. Whether the cause of action abated depended on whether or not the lawsuit was considered personal to the parties. For example, contract and property cases were thought to involve issues separate from the parties themselves. They were not personal and did not necessarily abate on the death of a party. Personal injury cases were considered personal, however, and did abate at death. These included claims not only for physical assault or negligent injuries inflicted on the body, but also for other injuries to the person—such as libel, slander, and Malicious Prosecution.

In other words, Fr. Murphy was dying and sexual abuse was personal to the people involved.  So defrocking him was a moot point at this time.

Father Murphy died two days after this letter was issued, on 8/21/98.  Contrary to the orders of the diocese that a private funeral be held, the family of the deceased held a public funeral.

With the accused dead, the case was closed on 9/28/1998.  As I said above, defrocking involves a living priest.  If the accused is dead, the case cannot go forward.

So contrary to accusations from the New York Times, there was no refusal or cover-up.  There was an investigation which would have led to the defrocking of Fr. Murphy if he had not died.  The problem was the laws in place at the time.

Since then, the CDF has made it easier to defrock an accused priest.  However one cannot arbitrarily change a law to suit a whim, so the CDF could not just remove the law which required a longer process.

There is no justification to accuse now Pope Benedict XVI.  The investigation began in 1996 and was brought to the attention of the CDF in 1997, who did not block the procedure at all.

The Failure of Dioceses to Report Prevents the CDF from Knowing of the accusations

Non-Catholics may not realize this, but we don't have Vatican spies roaming the world looking for heretics.  Generally speaking, the Church operates under the principle of Subsidiarity:

the principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level.

—Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The Vatican sets the decrees all the local churches are to follow, but it is normally the bishop who carries these things out.  At this time, it was still required for cases of this nature to be referred to the Vatican.  However, Monsignor Charles J. Scicluna who works on the CDF cases investigating these things tells us:

Between 1975 and 1985, I’ve found that no report of cases of pedophilia involving clergy arrived to the attention of our congregation. However, after the promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law in 1983, there was a period of uncertainty about the list of delicta graviora reserved to the competence of this dicastery. Only with the motu proprio of 2001 was the crime of pedophilia returned to our exclusive responsibility.

In other words, if Father Murphy had been forced to resign in 1974 because of gross sexual misconduct, the diocese had a responsibility to pass this on to the CDF under the 1917 canon law, but did not.  Between 1983 and 2001 there was confusion over who had responsibility, which both explains the confusion in this case and why now Pope Benedict XVI pushed for reforms in this matter.  Msgr. Scicluna tells us that the cases since 2001 consist of:

Altogether in these nine years, 2001-2010, we’ve examined accusations that regard roughly 3,000 cases of priests, diocesan and religious, which involve offenses committed in the last fifty years.

So in 2001, the CDF began receiving cases dating back 50 years.  Indeed, the Msgr. says,

In 2003 and 2004, an avalanche of cases arrived on our desks. Many of them came from the United States, and dealt with the past. In recent years, thank God, the phenomenon is greatly reduced. For that reason, we now try to deal with the new cases in real time.

So what we seem to have is this: In America, there were many cases which were kicked under the carpet.  Once they were brought to the attention of the CDF they began to investigate.  Because there were so many cases from the past 50 years suddenly brought forth, it was certainly overwhelming.

Msgr. Scicluna tells us:

Above all from the United States, which, during the years 2003-2004, accounted for around 80 percent of the total number of cases. For 2009, however, the American share dropped to around twenty-five percent of the 223 new cases reported in the entire world. In recent years, between 2007 and 2009, the average number of cases reported to the congregation from around the world is 250. Many countries report only one or two cases. Therefore, while the diversity and the number of countries involved may be growing, the phenomenon itself is fairly limited. It’s important to remember that the total number of diocesan and religious priests in the world is around 400,000. That statistical reality doesn’t correspond to the perception created when these extremely sad cases take up the front pages of newspapers. [Emphasis added]

So of 3,000 cases, 80% of them were from bishops from the 1950s onward failing in their duty to report the cases.  In 2009 with the backlog cleared, we see there are 250+/- cases to investigate annually (it does not mean all cases are true).

So again, where is the fault of now Pope Benedict XVI?  Far from quashing a case, it seems he was seeking to try to make sure that he did justice in an investigation of a case which was at that time thirty years old when jurisdiction was not clear.

I believe that the Pope's view of these abusers can be found in his Pastoral Letter to Ireland, where he says:

7. To priests and religious who have abused children

  You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals. You have forfeited the esteem of the people of Ireland and brought shame and dishonour upon your confreres. Those of you who are priests violated the sanctity of the sacrament of Holy Orders in which Christ makes Himself present in us and in our actions. Together with the immense harm done to victims, great damage has been done to the Church and to the public perception of the priesthood and religious life.

  I urge you to examine your conscience, take responsibility for the sins you have committed, and humbly express your sorrow. Sincere repentance opens the door to God's forgiveness and the grace of true amendment.

  By offering prayers and penances for those you have wronged, you should seek to atone personally for your actions. Christ's redeeming sacrifice has the power to forgive even the gravest of sins, and to bring forth good from even the most terrible evil. At the same time, God's justice summons us to give an account of our actions and to conceal nothing. Openly acknowledge your guilt, submit yourselves to the demands of justice, but do not despair of God's mercy. [Emphasis added]

This is not the language of one who seeks to cover up.  This shows a strong condemnation over the evil these individuals have done, and the reminder that the guilty must atone for their evil, and submit to justice.

The NYT's Fallacy

The New York Times seems to be making an Argument from Silence fallacy.  Since the CDF under Ratzinger did not have an explicit action to immediately defrock the priest, it was assumed that the CDF chose to do nothing.  This does not logically follow.  It also implies indifference over the abuse, when an actual look at the letters show nothing of the sort.

Conclusion

Let's be clear on something.  What Father Murphy did was wrong and evil.  In this instance the issue was not prosecution at the state level (the statue of limitations had expired).  Nor was it the lawsuit (though it brought the case to the attention of the diocese some 30 years after the events the lawsuits concerned).  The issue was a judicial investigation as to whether Fr. Murphy should be defrocked  The Church followed their laws in order to assure that justice was done.  The accused has rights here, just as the defendant does in civil or criminal court.  So the Church cannot just decree by fiat that a priest is defrocked.  Trials do take time.  Unfortunately it took too much time in this case, but this is not the fault of Pope Benedict XVI, and indeed he pushed for a reform of these laws.

If there is blame to be given in the hierarchy it seems it falls on those who knew of the case and refused to report it to the Vatican.  If this case was known as far back as the NYT claims, and if Msgr. Scicluna tells us that betwen 1975 and 1985 the number of cases submitted to the CDF was zero, it demonstrates a failure to report Fr. Murphy so justice could be done.

However, the fault of the individual in America does not become the fault of the Vatican.  It appears that until 1996, the CDF had no knowledge of it, and once it did learn, it sought to permit the juridical acts to occur.

This is quite the opposite of the accusation the NYT makes that the Vatican "declined" to defrock a priest who was an abuser.

Recommended Article: Bishop Martino on Authority

Untangling the confusion about the Church

There's been a lot of nonsense about certain people claiming that Obama Care was compatible with Church teaching.  Here we have Bishop Martino on the issue.

Most notable is his comments on those who claim to speak in the name of the Church:

I cannot pass over the actions of the Catholic Health Association and an organization called Network, a lobby of American religious Sisters, who said, quite publicly, that what the bishops have taught is false. They said that the legislation does provide an adequate framework for a Catholic to follow his or her conscience about abortion. So, we had a trade organization — the Catholic Health Association — which calls itself “Catholic” and we had religious Sisters who call themselves Catholic, saying, “Sorry, bishops, you got it wrong, here is the teaching of the Church.”

The Lord Jesus Christ, unworthy though the bishops are, called the bishops to lead the people in faith; He did not call anybody in the Catholic Health Association and he did not call any of the Sisters in Network. To boot, those Sisters who signed the Network document said that they speak for 59,000 American Sisters — that would be every last Sister in the U.S. Yet, another grouping of Sisters came out publicly expressing their disagreement with Network. Unfortunately, the claim that these Sisters in Network represent all Sisters is actually what is false, not the teaching of the bishops.

And, of course, people like Speaker Pelosi could not do enough to wave the letter from the Catholic Health Association and the letter from Network to provide cover for Democratic legislators who wanted to waffle in protecting innocent human life. Speaker Pelosi is not called by Jesus Christ to lead the Catholic faithful, any more than the religious Sisters in Network are, any more than the leadership of the Catholic Health Association is.

The bishops are called to teach, sanctify, and govern. But, as I said before, with regard to the Holy Father, if people will not recognize authority, then they cannot lay responsibility at the feet of those to whom they are disobedient. The pope and the bishops are only responsible when their authority is accepted. The then-Cardinal Ratzinger himself has said, in our contemporary world, the word “obedience” has disappeared from our vocabulary and the reality of obedience has been anathematized.

The CHA, the Sisters in Network, Pelosi, Stupak and others who claim their actions are in accord with Church teaching while the Bishops are not are in gross error.  Whether or not one believes in the claims of the Catholic Church, it is reasonable to expect one to understand that the one who has authority to teach in the Church is the Bishop, as successor to the Apostles, and not to whatever politician or dissenting Catholic comes across.

Sure, Pelosi, Stupak and others have the ability to disagree if they choose.  However, they don't have the right to call their opinions Catholic Teaching.

Recommended Article: Bishop Martino on Authority

Untangling the confusion about the Church

There's been a lot of nonsense about certain people claiming that Obama Care was compatible with Church teaching.  Here we have Bishop Martino on the issue.

Most notable is his comments on those who claim to speak in the name of the Church:

I cannot pass over the actions of the Catholic Health Association and an organization called Network, a lobby of American religious Sisters, who said, quite publicly, that what the bishops have taught is false. They said that the legislation does provide an adequate framework for a Catholic to follow his or her conscience about abortion. So, we had a trade organization — the Catholic Health Association — which calls itself “Catholic” and we had religious Sisters who call themselves Catholic, saying, “Sorry, bishops, you got it wrong, here is the teaching of the Church.”

The Lord Jesus Christ, unworthy though the bishops are, called the bishops to lead the people in faith; He did not call anybody in the Catholic Health Association and he did not call any of the Sisters in Network. To boot, those Sisters who signed the Network document said that they speak for 59,000 American Sisters — that would be every last Sister in the U.S. Yet, another grouping of Sisters came out publicly expressing their disagreement with Network. Unfortunately, the claim that these Sisters in Network represent all Sisters is actually what is false, not the teaching of the bishops.

And, of course, people like Speaker Pelosi could not do enough to wave the letter from the Catholic Health Association and the letter from Network to provide cover for Democratic legislators who wanted to waffle in protecting innocent human life. Speaker Pelosi is not called by Jesus Christ to lead the Catholic faithful, any more than the religious Sisters in Network are, any more than the leadership of the Catholic Health Association is.

The bishops are called to teach, sanctify, and govern. But, as I said before, with regard to the Holy Father, if people will not recognize authority, then they cannot lay responsibility at the feet of those to whom they are disobedient. The pope and the bishops are only responsible when their authority is accepted. The then-Cardinal Ratzinger himself has said, in our contemporary world, the word “obedience” has disappeared from our vocabulary and the reality of obedience has been anathematized.

The CHA, the Sisters in Network, Pelosi, Stupak and others who claim their actions are in accord with Church teaching while the Bishops are not are in gross error.  Whether or not one believes in the claims of the Catholic Church, it is reasonable to expect one to understand that the one who has authority to teach in the Church is the Bishop, as successor to the Apostles, and not to whatever politician or dissenting Catholic comes across.

Sure, Pelosi, Stupak and others have the ability to disagree if they choose.  However, they don't have the right to call their opinions Catholic Teaching.

For What It's Worth: Text of Obama's Executive Order

Read more »

For What It's Worth: Text of Obama's Executive Order

Read more »

Stupak de facto Rejects Church Authority and Accuses Bishops of Hypocrisy

Sources: Stupak: Pope doesn't control Catholic lawmakers - Water Cooler - Washington Times,

Stupak Calls Pro-Lifers Hypocrites | Blogs | NCRegister.com,

Stupak says Catholic bishops and pro-life groups hypocrites for condemning health-care vote | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

Stupak had a chance to choose between his faith and his party alliances.  His comments in the post vote fallout show he has made his choice… in favor of his party.  To defend his vote for Health Care against the teachings of the Bishops and the Pope, he has in effect denied their authority to teach what sort of behavior is moral.

Stupak on the Pope's Authority

Let's start with Stupak and his answering of questions on the authority of the Pope.  When questioned in an interview, Stupak demonstrated a gross misunderstanding of things:

PICKET: Do you believe in the primacy of the Pope over in Rome?

STUPAK: Do I believe in the primacy…can you explain that to me?

PICKET: Well considering the Vatican have in terms of the Catholic religion…

STUPAK: The Pope and the Catholic faith does not control Catholic legislators. We must vote reflective of our districts and our beliefs. When I vote pro-life, it happens to be my own personal belief, also my district’s beliefs and the nation's. As the polls show 61 percent of the American people believe we should not use public funds to pay for abortion. I agree with that.

Stupak displays the logical error of equivocation here.  Now it is true that the Pope does not dictate to the politician how to vote.  However, Stupak is bound to carry out his task as a political leader by applying Church teaching to how he views the issue.  If abortion is wrong, then one is not allowed to enable this wrong.  This includes not only the direct voting for abortion rights (formal cooperation) but also making the act of evil possible (material cooperation).

Given the Bishops of the United States had condemned the Senate Bill as being unacceptable, and denounced the option for the "Executive Order" as being inadequate, Stupak cannot claim he did not know that the magisterium of the Church had spoken out against the action he did set out to do.

Stupak on the Bishops

They say the first step to getting out of a hole you have put yourself into is to stop digging.  Stupak, however, seems to have increased the vigor of his shovel based trip to China by attacking the Bishops for hypocrisy.  He has said:

“The [National] Right to Life and the bishops, in 2007 when George Bush signed the executive order on embryonic stem cell research, they all applauded the executive order,” Stupak said in an interview with The Daily Caller.

“The Democratic Congress passed [a bill] saying we’ll do embryonic stem cell research. Bush vetoed it in 2007. That same day he issued an executive order saying we will not do it, and all these groups applauded that he protected life,” Stupak said.

“So now President Obama’s going to sign an executive order protecting life and everyone’s condemning it. The hypocrisy is great,” he said.

Stupak is guilty of the fallacy of the false analogy here [In that the conditions are not the same] and of a Straw Man [the opposition is not to an Executive Order in general, but is based on the lack of protections it will provide compared to law in this situation]. 

In 2007, Bush not only vetoed the embryonic stem cell research, but he also deepened those protections with an executive order.  In contrast, the health care bill does not protect life or conscience, but depends on an executive order which can be overturned (if Obama decides to do so.  Remember Obama's overturning of the Bush Conscience protection and his promise to create a "better" one?  It's been almost a year since he said that…) at any time or ruled unconstitutional, to supposedly do what the Bill will not. 

Jimmy Atkin points out:

To my mind, the addle-headedness of his [Stupak's] comments is great.

President Bush, for all his flaws, vetoed a Bad Bill and then issued an executive order to further protect unborn life.

What Stupak did was vote for a Bad Bill with only a hope that the next pro-abort president (or even Obama himself, or the courts) won’t void the executive order he got in exchange for his vote.

Whatever else, Mr. Stupak does not seem gifted in finding good analogies to back up his charges of hypocrisy.

(emphasis in original)

There is no hypocrisy on the part of the Bishops here.  The Bishops opposed the bill which Bush vetoed.  Bush also created an executive order to prevent evasions.  Stupak voted for a bill the Bishops condemned as contrary to Catholic moral teachings, and relied on the promise of Obama to pass an executive order, when his record on keeping such promises are poor.

Conclusion

Stupak, in denying the Church can judge his actions as immoral, has in effect denied Magisterial authority over his actions.  He may oppose abortion of course.  However, in his responsibility in passing the bill (which passed 219-212.  If he and his bloc had voted against it, it seems this bill would have failed 215-216) he does have to answer for his defiance of casting a vote which enabled policies.

Stupak may have been guilty of a deliberate sell out, or he may have merely been misguided in his trust of Obama (now that the Bill is passed, will Obama keep his promise, and if so in what form?).  However, he is wrong in his accusing the bishops and pro-life groups of hypocrisy.

The whole things smells of excuses on the part of Stupak.  Whether to justify it to his constituents or to justify it to his own conscience, he has done wrong, setting his religious beliefs aside in favor of a party platform.

We will now have to see what Obama does with this.  It is not impossible he will keep his promise to issue an executive order, but his track record is not good.  If Obama fails to keep his promise or passes an executive order which falls short of what is needed to protect life, Stupak will have to share the blame.