• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vatican defends handling of Wisconsin priest

ludahai

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,116
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
link

It seems that, despite the claims of some, that the Vatican did NOT know about this case until two decades after it happened.

Two decades later, when the Vatican first heard about the case, the Congregation suggested the canonical trial that had been initiated against Murphy by his diocese in 1996 be suspended because he was dying, Levada wrote. Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, led the Congregation at the time.
Click to expand...

The diocese actually had a canon law trial pending on his death.

In an article on his diocesan Web site, Brundage points out that because he had never received the instruction to suspend the trial, Murphy actually died as a defendant in a church criminal trial.
Click to expand...

While the article says diocesan officials took no action against him (other, presumably than change his mission which we already know about), the police didn't take any action either.

In his article, dated March 26, Levada wrote that Murphy should have been defrocked in the 1960s and 70s for his "egregious criminal behavior." But he noted that when accusations first arose in the 1960s and 70s, police and diocesan officials took no action against Murphy.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that some people using this case to attack the Vatican is little more than a witch hunt and is really a lot to do about nothing.
 
ludahai said:
link

It seems that, despite the claims of some, that the Vatican did NOT know about this case until two decades after it happened.



The diocese actually had a canon law trial pending on his death.



While the article says diocesan officials took no action against him (other, presumably than change his mission which we already know about), the police didn't take any action either.



Seems to me that some people using this case to attack the Vatican is little more than a witch hunt and is really a lot to do about nothing.
Click to expand...

From your article:
Levada did not mention that a letter the former Cardinal Ratzinger sent to bishops in 2001 explaining the new policies, noting that "Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret."
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I'm sure the current pope is being wrongly attacked. Sorry, I don't buy this BS asserted by Levada.
 
aps said:
From your article:

Oh yeah, I'm sure the current pope is being wrongly attacked. Sorry, I don't buy this BS asserted by Levada.
Click to expand...

1. This case was from the 90s and the Vatican didn't know about it until the man was already dying.

2. You have no evidence for any of your assertions.
 
ludahai said:
1. This case was from the 90s and the Vatican didn't know about it until the man was already dying.

2. You have no evidence for any of your assertions.
Click to expand...

Oh, and you have evidence for your assertions?
 
ludahai said:
Already presented... now, where is your evidence that the Vatican knew about this priest's behavior before the 1990s?
Click to expand...

Can you provide my post where I said that the Vatican knew about this before the 1990's? I don't recall making that allegation.
 
winston53660 said:
Well if the Vatican say so it must be true;)
Click to expand...
And if a reporter says so it must be true, right? Where or who do we start believing? Based on your logic, no one can be trusted.
 
WITI-TV, MILWAUKEE - Should the Pope resign over the Vatican's handling of a Milwaukee clergy sex abuse case? A Marquette University Professor says yes.

Did Milwaukee County's Former District Attorney know about the abuse and fail to prosecute? Some victims say yes.

Only a day after Archbishop Jerome Listecki addressed the scandal, the conversation heats up.

Marquette Professor Daniel Maguire is a former priest and he is calling for the Pope's resignation. "A cover up is a cover up is a cover up. This Pope was advised as the information was available to the Vatican in the 1970's."

Former Milwaukee Priest Lawrence Murphy sexually abused 200 deaf boys from 1950-1974, but was never removed from the priesthood before his death in 1998.

Meanwhile abuse victims are criticizing Milwaukee County's Former District Attorney, saying documents prove his office knew of the abuse before the statute of limitations expired. SNAP director Peter Isely says, "The church and him shared a common understanding that priests don't get prosecuted."

Former Milwaukee County DA E. Michael McCann says he wishes he could have prosecuted Murphy, but his hands were tied. "Yeah, I wish we could've of course. But I don't set the statue of limitations."

The Judicial Vicar of the Milwaukee Archdiocese at the time of this case says he doubts that the Pope knew specifically about the Father Murphy case.

Catholic Abuse: Former Milwaukee priest calls for Pope's resignation - WITI
 
Last edited:
aps said:
Can you provide my post where I said that the Vatican knew about this before the 1990's? I don't recall making that allegation.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to you specifically. Another poster in an earlier thread claimed exactly that. I was more referring to that than to you specifically.
 
American said:
And if a reporter says so it must be true, right? Where or who do we start believing? Based on your logic, no one can be trusted.
Click to expand...

And every criminal defendant that proclaims innocence is innocent:lol:
 
Khayembii Communique said:
WITI-TV, MILWAUKEE - Should the Pope resign over the Vatican's handling of a Milwaukee clergy sex abuse case? A Marquette University Professor says yes.
Click to expand...

1. Your point?
2. Why should the Pope resign over something that he didn't even know about when he was a cardinal?

Ever heard of canon law? The Church has procedures to deal with things like this. Canon law trials are typically held at diocesan level, NOT at the Vatican, especially for a mere priest.
 
1. Your point?
2. Why should the Pope resign over something that he didn't even know about when he was a cardinal?

Ever heard of canon law? The Church has procedures to deal with things like this. Canon law trials are typically held at diocesan level, NOT at the Vatican, especially for a mere priest.
Click to expand...

My point was the bolded part.
 
ludahai said:
Presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty?
Click to expand...

Okay fair enough. I do think there is reasonable doubt though as to the church's dealing with pedophile priests in the past to cast suspicion.
 
.... The Catholic Church sure is a weird place. All that dogma that gets pushed out directly to priests and most Catholics agree with it and know about it and support it and everybody knows what is going on. 200 kids get molested over a few years and nobody in the Vatican has ever heard of it.
 
Justabubba should have published the entire article as below instead of merely providing a link to it.

In advance of the Pope’s “pastoral letter” to Irish Catholics, the Vatican has put out a propaganda statement through the broadcasting and media instruments it controls. The statement is followed by questions from Vatican functionaries.

The statement was made by Monsignor Charles J Scicluna. Msgr. Scicluna is the Pope’s “hard man” – the “promoter of justice” of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He is effectively the prosecutor of the tribunal of the former Holy Office, whose job it is to investigate the crimes the Catholic Church considers as being the most serious of all including crimes against the sixth Commandment (“thou shall not commit impure acts”) committed by a cleric against a person under the age of eighteen.

Charles J. Scicluna explaining why Catholic priests rape and sexually molest minors

Q: How many (pedophile priests) have you dealt with so far?

A: Overall in the last nine years (2001-2010) we have considered accusations concerning around three thousand cases of diocesan and religious priests, which refer to crimes committed over the last fifty years.

Q: That is, then, three thousand cases of paedophile priests?

A: No, it is not correct to say that. In more or less 60 per cent of the cases, it is a question rather of acts of ‘efebofilia’, that is to say, of physical attraction for adolescents of the same sex. 30 per cent involve relations with heterosexual adolescents and the remaining 10 per cent is real pedophilia, that is to say, of a sexual attraction for prepubescent children.

This statement is incredible. Efebofilia is a fancy word for the sexual attraction of an older man for an adolescent boy. It suggests that the Vatican condones pederasty, the sexual molestation or rape of adolescent children and that it distinguishes this from the “real” pedophilia, presumably the rape of babies. Scicluna goes on to suggest that this 10% – “real” pedophilia is lower than the incidence of sexual crime in the Protestant and Jewish faiths and in the family. He then asks why these institutions are not similarly being held to account.

By engaging in statistical manipulation and counter accusation the Vatican is doing what every child molester in denial does – seeking to turn itself – the abuser, into the victim. No-one is fooled
 
While it is true to say that other Christian faiths and Jewish faith may have similarly committed Pedphilic acts against children, in all those instances the culprits were brought to justice through the criminal court system.

They are not many instances of Catholic (priests) being arraigned before the courts of justice.

Primarily as those that organize this religion prefer to punish such pedophiles themselves.
The act of repentance, or the ordering to mutter some meaningless phrases a number of times is hardly justice.

NOBODY, be they 'vicar of christ' or otherwise is above the LAW of the LAND.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
My point was the bolded part.
Click to expand...

And the Marquette professor has access to information the Vatican doesn't? How would HE know what the Vatican knew in the 1970s. Does he have any evidence? First, the Vatican says it didn't know. Second, there is no evidence that they did know. Third, there is no REASON for them to know under the rules that were in place at the time.
 
winston53660 said:
Okay fair enough. I do think there is reasonable doubt though as to the church's dealing with pedophile priests in the past to cast suspicion.
Click to expand...

The Vatican admits to not taking action when it learned of this in the 1990s, but it also gave the reasons. There was no point in forcing a canon law trial on a priest when he would pass away before the conclusion of such a trial. Furthermore, this article notes that a local canon law trial (the proper jurisdiction for this matter) was pending on his death.

So, what is wrong with the way the Vatican handled this?
 
ludahai said:
And the Marquette professor has access to information the Vatican doesn't? How would HE know what the Vatican knew in the 1970s. Does he have any evidence? First, the Vatican says it didn't know. Second, there is no evidence that they did know. Third, there is no REASON for them to know under the rules that were in place at the time.
Click to expand...

I don't think either of us are in a position to say that there is no evidence that they did know.

And I don't really care enough about this to look into it and show that you're wrong, so I'll let others do it for me. :2wave:
 
Hatuey said:
.... The Catholic Church sure is a weird place. All that dogma that gets pushed out directly to priests and most Catholics agree with it and know about it and support it and everybody knows what is going on. 200 kids get molested over a few years and nobody in the Vatican has ever heard of it.
Click to expand...

We don't agree with the molestation of children. That this priest did this in the Confessional is absolutely inexcusable. I don't know anyone who defends the behavior. It is not defensible.

Once again, people don't seem to understand how the structure of the Church works. Priestly violations such as this are to be handled by diocesan Church authorities in accordance with Canon Law. According to this article, there WAs a Canon Law trial pending at the diocesan level when the priest died.

Without proof that the Vatican knew, you can simply assume that they knew, especially when structurally, there is absolutely no reason for them to know.
 
ludahai said:
We don't agree with the molestation of children. That this priest did this in the Confessional is absolutely inexcusable. I don't know anyone who defends the behavior. It is not defensible.

Once again, people don't seem to understand how the structure of the Church works. Priestly violations such as this are to be handled by diocesan Church authorities in accordance with Canon Law. According to this article, there WAs a Canon Law trial pending at the diocesan level when the priest died.

Without proof that the Vatican knew, you can simply assume that they knew, especially when structurally, there is absolutely no reason for them to know.
Click to expand...

Let's take a wider view of this type of transgression. I don't think anyone knows the full extent of this. Probably hundreds or thousands of priests involved in this despickable act.

How many did the church turn over to the local police? Why does this church think it is above the law.

If it wasn't for politics these leaders would probably be charged with RICO violations, like mafia leaders and all thrown in jail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom