BALANCED REPORTING ON THE MURPHY CASE FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

It look's as though we may have found where the real journalists work. Thank you Mr. McGurn for your balanced approach to this story. That's all we're asking for.

"...Martin Nussbaum, a lawyer who is not involved in the Murphy case but who has defended other dioceses and churches in sexual abuse suits, emailed me four interesting letters sent to Murphy from three Wisconsin bishops. These documents are not among those posted online by the Times. They are relevant, however, because they refute the idea that Murphy went unpunished.

In fact, the letters from these bishops—three in 1993 and one in 1995, after fresh allegations of Murphy's misconduct—variously informed the priest that he was not to celebrate the sacraments in public, not to have any unsupervised contact with minors, and not to work in any parish religious education program.

It's accurate to say Murphy was never convicted by a church tribunal. It's also reasonable to argue (as I would) that Murphy should have been disciplined more. It is untrue, however, to suggest he was "never" disciplined. When asked if she knew of these letters, Ms. Goodstein did not directly answer, saying her focus was on what was "new," i.e., "the attempts by those same bishops to have Father Murphy laicized."

...A few years later, when the CDF assumed authority over all abuse cases, Cardinal Ratzinger implemented changes that allowed for direct administrative action instead of trials that often took years. Roughly 60% of priests accused of sexual abuse were handled this way. The man who is now pope reopened cases that had been closed; did more than anyone to process cases and hold abusers accountable; and became the first pope to meet with victims. Isn't the more reasonable interpretation of all these events that Cardinal Ratzinger's experience with cases like Murphy's helped lead him to promote reforms that gave the church more effective tools for handling priestly abuse?"
Wall Street Journal

NEW YORK TIMES LIES- SHOULD WE BE SURPRISED?

"In a statement issued late on Wednesday, the (New York) Times said its reports were "based on meticulous reporting and documents."

"Some of the particulars were confirmed by the Church, and so far no one has cast doubt on the facts we reported," said the Times in the statement issued by spokeswoman Diane McNulty.

"The allegations of abuse within the Catholic Church are a serious subject, as the Vatican has acknowledged on many occasions. Any role the current pope may have played in responding to those allegations over the years is a significant aspect of this story," the newspaper said."
New York Times

The New York Times has now resorted to lying about their lies. Why does anyone even bother with this trash any more?

I have posted below four examples of very serious doubt being cast upon the reporting and the facts at the Times. There are quite a few more. Maybe the Times should have said in their statement that "no one that agrees with us has cast doubt on the facts we reported". At least that would have been one "fact" we could ALL agree on.

I think that I'll stick with Pravda.

"My intent in writing this column is to accomplish the following:

To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;

To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;

...With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In an October 31, 1997 handwritten document, I am quoted as saying ‘odds are that this situation may very well be the most horrendous, number wise, and especially because these are physically challenged , vulnerable people. “ Also quoted is this: “Children were approached within the confessional where the question of circumcision began the solicitation.”

The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct."
Father Thomas Brundage

"...today’s Times presents both a lengthy article by Laurie Goodstein, a senior columnist, headlined “Warned About Abuse, Vatican Failed to Defrock Priest,” and an accompanying editorial entitled “The Pope and the Pedophilia Scandal,” in which the editors call the Goodstein article a disturbing report (emphasis in original) as a basis for their own charges against the Pope. Both the article and the editorial are deficient by any reasonable standards of fairness that Americans have every right and expectation to find in their major media reporting.

In her lead paragraph, Goodstein relies on what she describes as “newly unearthed files” to point out what the Vatican (i.e. then Cardinal Ratzinger and his Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) did not do – “defrock Fr. Murphy.” Breaking news, apparently. Only after eight paragraphs of purple prose does Goodstein reveal that Fr. Murphy, who criminally abused as many as 200 deaf children while working at a school in the Milwaukee Archdiocese from 1950 to 1974, “not only was never tried or disciplined by the church’s own justice system, but also got a pass from the police and prosecutors who ignored reports from his victims, according to the documents and interviews with victims.”

But in paragraph 13, commenting on a statement of Fr. Lombardi (the Vatican spokesman) that Church law does not prohibit anyone from reporting cases of abuse to civil authorities, Goodstein writes, “He did not address why that had never happened in this case.” Did she forget, or did her editors not read, what she wrote in paragraph nine about Murphy getting “a pass from the police and prosecutors”? By her own account it seems clear that criminal authorities had been notified, most probably by the victims and their families."
Cardinal William J. Levada

"Before addressing the false substance of the story, the following circumstances are worthy of note:

• The New York Times story had two sources. First, lawyers who currently have a civil suit pending against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. One of the lawyers, Jeffrey Anderson, also has cases in the United States Supreme Court pending against the Holy See. He has a direct financial interest in the matter being reported.

• The second source was Archbishop Rembert Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee. He is the most discredited and disgraced bishop in the United States, widely known for mishandling sexual-abuse cases during his tenure, and guilty of using $450,000 of archdiocesan funds to pay hush money to a former homosexual lover who was blackmailing him. Archbishop Weakland had responsibility for the Father Murphy case between 1977 and 1998, when Father Murphy died. He has long been embittered that his maladministration of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee earned him the disfavor of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, long before it was revealed that he had used parishioners’ money to pay off his clandestine lover. He is prima facie not a reliable source.

• Laurie Goodstein, the author of the New York Times story, has a recent history with Archbishop Weakland. Last year, upon the release of the disgraced archbishop’s autobiography, she wrote an unusually sympathetic story that buried all the most serious allegations against him (New York Times, May 14, 2009).

• A demonstration took place in Rome on Friday, coinciding with the publication of the New York Times story. One might ask how American activists would happen to be in Rome distributing the very documents referred to that day in the New York Times. The appearance here is one of a coordinated campaign, rather than disinterested reporting."
Father Raymond J. DeSouza

"Rembert Weakland is the emeritus archbishop of Milwaukee, notorious for having paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to satisfy the demands of his former male lover. Jeff Anderson is a Minnesota-based attorney who has made a substantial amount of money out of sex abuse “settlements,” and who is party to ongoing litigation intended to bring the resources of the Vatican within the reach of contingency-fee lawyers in the United States. Yet these two utterly implausible—and, in any serious journalistic sense, disqualified—sources were those the Times cited in a story claiming that, as cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF], Joseph Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, had prevented sanctions against Father Lawrence Murphy, a diabolical Milwaukee priest who, decades before, had abused some 200 deaf children in his pastoral care. This was simply not true, as the legal papers from the Murphy case the Times provided on its Web site demonstrated (see here for a demolition of the Times’ case based on the documentary evidence it made available). The facts, alas, seem to be of little interest to those whose primary concern is to nail down the narrative of global Catholic criminality, centered in the Vatican.

...So, of course, would elementary fairness from the global media. That seems unlikely to come from those reporters and editors at the New York Times who have abandoned any pretence of maintaining journalistic standards. But it ought not be beyond the capacity of other media outlets to understand that much of the Times’ recent reporting on the Church has been gravely distorted, and to treat it accordingly."
George Weigel

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.

FROM THE HORSES MOUTH- THE TRUTH ABOUT THE FATHER MURPHY CASE FROM THE PRESIDING JUDGE

"As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing out of a sense of duty to the truth.


The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.

My intent in the following paragraphs is to accomplish the following:

To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;

To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;

To assert that Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured;

To set the record straight with regards to the efforts made by the church to heal the wounds caused by clergy sexual misconduct. The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history."
Catholic Anchor

The words of Fr. Thomas Brundage, the presiding judge during the abuse case of Father Lawrence Murphy in Milwaukee. Hard as it may be to believe, it seems that the media has not been particularly accurate in its reporting.

VATICAN STATEMENT REGARDING FATHER MURPHY

It is important that people read the following statement from the Vatican without emotion. The application of law, whether by civil or Church authorities, has to be cold and orderly. The law can only be enforced inside the framework established to guide it. Regardless of the sentiment attached to any act the law must be restrained to only the questions laid before it and must act only within it's legal jurisdiction. To step outside these boundaries is to leave the law behind, to see the law destroy itself in a fit of moral outrage which would leave both the guilty and innocent accountable only to the vagaries of emotion and mob justice.

The secular press is trying to tie the Pope to this sex abuse scandal regardless of guilt. The object of their inquisition is not justice but the destruction of the Church and the last barrier to the modernist Marxist Utopia they desire.

Pray for the Pope, the truth, the Church and all of mankind. We are slipping over the edge. As Rome goes, so goes the world.

"The following is the full text of the statement given to the New York Times on Wednesday by Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office.

* * *

The tragic case of Father Lawrence Murphy, a priest of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, involved particularly vulnerable victims who suffered terribly from what he did. By sexually abusing children who were hearing-impaired, Father Murphy violated the law and, more importantly, the sacred trust that his victims had placed in him.

During the mid-1970s, some of Father Murphy's victims reported his abuse to civil authorities, who investigated him at that time; however, according to news reports, that investigation was dropped. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was not informed of the matter until some twenty years later.

It has been suggested that a relationship exists between the application of Crimen sollicitationis and the non-reporting of child abuse to civil authorities in this case. In fact, there is no such relationship. Indeed, contrary to some statements that have circulated in the press, neither Crimen nor the Code of Canon Law ever prohibited the reporting of child abuse to law enforcement authorities.

In the late 1990s, after over two decades had passed since the abuse had been reported to diocesan officials and the police, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was presented for the first time with the question of how to treat the Murphy case canonically. The Congregation was informed of the matter because it involved solicitation in the confessional, which is a violation of the Sacrament of Penance. It is important to note that the canonical question presented to the Congregation was unrelated to any potential civil or criminal proceedings against Father Murphy.

In such cases, the Code of Canon Law does not envision automatic penalties, but recommends that a judgment be made not excluding even the greatest ecclesiastical penalty of dismissal from the clerical state (cf. Canon 1395, no. 2). In light of the facts that Father 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 Father Murphy's public ministry and requiring that Father Murphy accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts. Father Murphy died approximately four months later, without further incident."
Zenit
H/T LaSalette Journey

MORE NEWS ABOUT THE MILWAUKEE SEX ABUSE CASE

Head on over to the Telegraph and read this story. It looks like I'm not the only one that just doesn't trust the motives of the New York Times.

Thanks to Dan Collins for sending me the link to this story.

"In the early 1990s, when I was religious affairs correspondent of The Daily Telegraph, I reported on the American Catholic Church’s terrible failure to address allegations of child abuse. I think I was one of the first journalists in Britain to write about the way pervert priests were being shuffled around US parishes by bishops. So don’t accuse me of being an apologist for the culture of secrecy and cowardice that enabled wicked men to go unpunished.

But something smells fishy about today’s New York Times story implying that Pope Benedict XVI was complicit in the cover-up surrounding the crimes of a Wisconsin priest, Fr Lawrence Murphy, who abused children at a school for the deaf between 1950 and 1974."

THE VATICAN'S SIDE OF THE STORY

This is the Vatican's response to the New York Times story posted below. It basically reiterates the conclusions that I arrived at after reading the documents supplied by the Times. The case was passing through the system in a deliberate, methodical and maddeningly snail like pace. Just like it would in the secular legal system.

But I'm sure we'll be hearing lots about it in the weeks to come.

"The New York Times printed an article on Wednesday in which they alleged that in the 1990s the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), then Cardinal Ratzinger, did not respond to letters of a Wisconsin bishop on the matter of a sexually abusive priest. In an official response to the Times for the article, Fr. Federico Lombardi addressed the specific case and the CDF response.

...Fr. Federico Lombardi released his full response to the New York Times about the “Murphy Case” to members of the press in the Holy See’s Press Office on Thursday. The Vatican spokesman's response was only cited in part in the article from the New York Times.

He underscored that “Father Murphy violated the law and, more importantly, the sacred trust that his victims had placed in him.”

Fr. Lombardi related that victims reported abuses to the civil authorities in the mid-1970’s, but “according to news reports, that investigation was dropped.”

The CDF was made aware of the matter nearly two decades later, he pointed out, adding that the examination of how to address the question canonically was initiated, since the case involved a violation of the Sacrament of Penance.

Fr. Lombardi emphasized in his reply, “It is important to note that the canonical question presented to the Congregation was unrelated to any potential civil or criminal proceedings against Father Murphy.”

“In such cases, the Code of Canon law does not envision automatic penalties, but recommends that a judgment be made, not excluding even the greatest ecclesiastical penalty of dismissal from the clerical state," he explained."
EWTN News

HAVE THEY FOUND THE SMOKING GUN?

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.
NY Times

Wow, so they finally found the smoking gun that can tie the Pope to the abuse scandals. Or have they?

The New York Times did supply copies of all the documents they base this story on at their website. Go read them. I did and I'm not so sure they paint the story the Times would like us to believe.

In reading all of this I came away with the sense that I was reading documents very similar to those I've read in court cases I've been involved with in business. One side is in the right and they are appealing for justice; the other side is in the wrong and I think quite aware of it and they are appealing for mercy. You've got a bunch of lawyers involved trying to figure out the best way to move forward within the strictures of the law.

The only difference is that in this case the accused is a priest, the attorneys are priests and the court is the Church, which on the surface just doesn't seem right, at least in a civil sense. However, this is purely a matter of Canon law that is being discussed and the Church is the legal authority.

Admittedly this case of abuse was handled wrong way back when it happened, in the '50's and '60's. That is where the real problem lies. But then, in this respect it really isn't that much different than most of these cases. The big difference is that, because it passed through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during the Popes tenure there it is seen as a way to finally link him to the scandal.

By the time it got to the CDF and theoretically into the hands of Cardinal Ratzinger how much of a case was there? Reading the documents you start to see the predicament faced by the attorneys. The case had long ago exceeded the statute of limitations of both the Church and the civil authorities. This was addressed by the Church by suspending the statute to allow the trial to move forward. Next they had a problem with the witnesses, all of whom were deaf and presented a barrier to clear communication. Thirdly, Father Murphy is obviously nearing death because some of the documents are concerned with setting up his funeral.

Surrounding all of this is the question of scandal. The Church realizes that the case will open a big can of worms and that prosecution will be extremely difficult. They know they have a priest that is probably guilty but is on the verge of death. So they are trying to weigh the possible good of the trial against the bad.

Based on legal situations I've been in these seem to be pretty normal parts of the process. Because it is child abuse emotions run high. Because it is child abuse and the Church, the sense that justice demands action is even higher. It is after all the Church and it is, or should be, held to a much higher standard than any other organization.

Now, because there is a possibility that the Pope can somehow be tied to it, justice has been thrown out the window and the jackals are circling.

This case is bad because of the numbers of kids potentially involved. It's bad because it was so badly handled from the very beginning. It's bad for the victims because they must feel betrayed and they must feel like they can never get back what they lost. I believe all these things are true.

What it is not true is a condemnation of the Pope or his activities as head of the CDF. And it is not evidence that he was somehow involved in a cover up. It is none of the things that the press and the enemies of the Church will try to paint it as.

What it is is just another sad reminder of how much evil has entered the Body of Christ and how much damage it has done.