MORE OBJECTIVE REPORTING REGARDING FATHER MURPHY

"The archbishop of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, apologized repeatedly Tuesday night for the way his archdiocese handled an abusive priest and he defended the Vatican which has come under fire for not disciplining or defrocking the man.

"Mistakes were made in the Lawrence Murphy case," said Archbishop Jerome Listecki at the end of a special holy week mass at St. John's Cathedral in Milwaukee.

"The mistakes were not made in Rome in 1996, 1997 and 1998. The mistakes were made here, in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s, by the Church, by civil authorities, by Church officials, and by bishops. And for that, I beg your forgiveness in the name of the Church and in the name of this Archdiocese of Milwaukee."

The now-deceased Murphy is believed to have molested up to 200 boys.

The Vatican says it did not know about the abuse until 20 years after civil authorities investigated and later dropped the case.

However, a recent New York Times story alleged that top Vatican officials, including the future Pope Benedict XVI, failed to act despite warnings from several American bishops.
Jeff Anderson, a lawyer who obtained internal church paperwork, said it "shows a direct line from the victims through the bishops and directly to the man who is now pope."

In his comments Tuesday night, Listecki attempted to shift the blame away from the Pope.

"The Holy Father does not need me to defend him or his decisions," he said. "I believe, and history will confirm, that his actions in responding to this crisis swiftly and decisively and his compassionate response to victims (and) survivors speak for themselves."

Listecki added that measures have now been put in place in his diocese and across the country to protect children from predatory priests.

"Still, we know it is not words, but actions that will demonstrate our resolve," he said. "And, in some ways, regardless of what I say tonight or any other time, our critics will say it is not enough.

"But that cannot and will not prevent me from making every possible effort at moving forward toward healing and resolution with those who have been harmed, and determined to make sure nothing like this can ever happen again."
CNN

It looks to me as though, while CNN wants to appear objective in their reporting, they have failed the test once again. As evidence I offer the quotes from the story posted below:

"However, a recent New York Times story alleged that top Vatican officials, including the future Pope Benedict XVI, failed to act despite warnings from several American bishops.
Jeff Anderson, a lawyer who obtained internal church paperwork, said it "shows a direct line from the victims through the bishops and directly to the man who is now pope."
In his comments Tuesday night, Listecki attempted to shift the blame away from the Pope."

The New York Times can allege anything it wants. The question is whether the allegations are true. The statement in the article is misleading because it does not address the question of veracity, it just prints the accusation with no follow up. Then it goes a step further. To lend credence to the accusation from the Times it prints another accusation, again with no follow up. I've read the papers this attorney is referring to and they don't paint the clear and unassailable picture of papal guilt that he would like us to believe they do. You can read them yourself here.

"These priests have been allowed to abuse children for years. And with the man who is now the pope knowing about what Father Murphy alone was doing, and not doing anything about it? He needs to resign. He has no business being in the position he is in," said Donald Marshall, who said he was abused once during one of Murphy's regular visits to the Lincoln Hills School, a juvenile detention center in Irma in northern Wisconsin.

CNN prints an emotional outburst from someone that claims to have been abused as a child accusing the Pope of complicity in a crime that hasn't been proved, and further, by the accounts of those involved and the document trail, he was only tangentially involved in the whole process. His involvement resulted in the case against Father Murphy being reopened by suspending the statute of limitations required by Church law and clearing the way for further action. That was about all he could do. Unless, of course, one believes that the accused in any trial should be considered guilty and then forced to prove his innocence. If you believe that then I suppose you would expect the Pope to act unilaterally and condemn the man. But that isn't how justice works.

It seems to me that, as is usual in these abuse cases, the ones claiming abuse demand justice and expect it to be carried out by the most unjust of methods. They can't have it both ways.

Another question. How come when I watch the news or read the paper I never see the name of the accused splashed all over until an indictment has been handed down. The media seems to always go out of their way to protect the rights of the accused. But not this time.

The media and the attorneys are trying to convict the Pope and by extension the Church in the courtroom of public opinion. They don't really care if there is an indictment or a trial. They are not looking for justice, rather for the destruction of the one institution that stands in the way of complete moral decay.