The Deacon's Bench

The Deacon's Bench


“Our church will no longer be the personal punching bag of the New York Times”

posted by jmcgee

That’s how Brooklyn’s Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio describes the recent coverage of the pope, in his homily at tonight’s Chrism Mass. 

From the press release:
In his homily to the priests and people of the Diocese of Brooklyn, Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, called upon the priests and people of the Diocese of Brooklyn to stand up with him and “besiege The New York Times. Send a message loud and clear that the Pope, our Church, and bishops and our priests will no longer be the personal punching bag of The New York Times.”

Bishop DiMarzio’s spirited defense of the Holy Father was based on the decision of The New York Times editors to, “Omit significant facts,” and ignore the reality that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Cardinal Ratzinger headed up, did
not have competency over Canonical Trials in 1996. Moreover, Bishop DiMarzio continued “…the priest in question, Father Murphy was in the midst of a Canonical Trial. He died before a verdict was rendered.”

Reflecting on the timing of the stories, DiMarzio stated “Two weeks of articles about a story from many decades ago, in the midst of the Most Holy Season of the Church year is both callous and smacks of calumny!” He continued “This evening, I am asking you to join me making your displeasure known to the editors by letters or emails.”

The rest of the homily is embargoed until 8 p.m.  Stay tuned.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(69)
post a comment
Dana MacKenzie

posted March 30, 2010 at 4:24 pm


I urge everyone to read Jimmy Akin’s post on this matter. It is very enlightening.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/cardinal/



report abuse
 

Frank Otto

posted March 30, 2010 at 5:42 pm


Excellent post. I just sent several thousand emails to the NY times, I suggest everyone else does as well. Here are some addresses
editorial@nytimes.com; circulation@nytimes.com; executive-editor@nytimes.com; digitalsvp@nytimes.com



report abuse
 

kenneth

posted March 30, 2010 at 6:10 pm


Yes, circle the wagons and protect the perverts and their patrons in miters! Outsiders are the enemy! Since the conservative establishment of the church is determined to become the new Scientology of the 21st Century, you ought to at least get some cooler terms than “calumny.” The NYT and the rest of us who aren’t cool with child predation should be declared as “suppressive persons” or “preclear.” If you really want to take it up a notch, have members “disconnect” from friends and family who are critical of the hierarchy in any way.



report abuse
 

Edwin Herdman

posted March 30, 2010 at 7:02 pm


I just followed a link over from Fox News (in turn from the Google aggregator). As a secular person, a trained Lutheran actually, I think the Pope is alright and the facts will probably see him come through in a good light, or at least as perhaps a bit sadder and wiser for this. The Cardinal responsible for dealing with Murphy’s trial has said he wishes he moved faster. Not a lot of space is given in the modern world with quick news to personal growth by public officials, and that’s not entirely a good thing. Certainly a lot of the people in the Church wish they had moved faster, and would act differently now – we have to remember a lot of this went down at a time where parents would scold their kids, or do worse, when told something like this was happening. It was unthinkable and certainly not something you could act on in many cases.
In any case, I think the article’s “us versus them” mentality is doing a disservice to the victims, many of whom right now are asking for recognition and for the Church to help them. Perhaps some want revenge, which the Church will not and really cannot give.
Yet what I see in many places is close to blaming the victims for only now, “decades later,” being able to bring the story to light. If you don’t want to deal with the blemishes of the world, that’s your right but that right to have solace in your own mind does not override others’ right to seek justice.
People who weren’t abused have no right to tell victims to just “take a seat” and continue to endure without a voice.
It’s regrettable that lots of good people have been the victims of jokes and anguish (making them in turn victims) because of this, but unfortunately the job of being in the ministry requires confronting some ugly things. It would be nice if nobody would have to revisit this, but it’s part of the job and if it’s not in the description it ought to be.
If the Church should be in for any condemnation, I would say the line (for me) ends at about where they have had “unworldly” attitudes about sex and life (not my words, but those of the psychologist who interviewed Murphy), and obviously if there was any callous attitude or inaction on doing the right things by the kids – and by church members who really needed help. I don’t mean that the Church must to liberalize and met women officiate or for priests to marry – that’s an internal matter of Church doctrine, as wrong as it may seem – but they do need to become realistic about things.
Some scandal is not the end of the Catholic Church, or the end of religion. Sex abuse of kids was simply not talked about back then and the Church gets it worse because of its reputation having previously been quite good. Predators are found throughout the population, after all, and I would be surprised if there was much statistical variation one way or another in the membership of the Church.
Like Toyota with their recalls, the Church needs to take initiative and show people how they’re turning it around.



report abuse
 

Lorenzo-NY

posted March 30, 2010 at 7:45 pm


I am sick and tired of bishops bashing the press. If not for the media they would have done nothing about abuse and children would still be at serious risk from predator priests. I won’t bother to read the rest of DiMarzio’s Chrism Masss homil. What the deacon posted was enough to convince me it is yet another shameless apology for the institutional Church, in hopes of climbing the clerical ladder and adding a few more tassles to his robes. The pope’s past handling of abuse cases both in his capacity in the Vatican curia and his experience as bishop of Munich raise too many unanswered questions. The pope is not above the law…canon law, the natural law and certainly not God’s law. The NY Times is doing us all a service by digging into this matter and raising questions that cry to heaven for answers. Here on earth, Catholics continue to leave the Church behind and have stopped listening to the likes of DiMarzio and his fellow hierarchs.
And by the way, let us not forget that Benedict has never removed Cardinal Law from his cushy Roman bascilica and $200,000 stipend as as well as his highly influential post on the Vatican congregation that selects bishops all over the world. No bishop has really ever been disciplined for covering up the crimes of abuse of minors. The system protects itself. That is the real underlying scandal. Dorothy Day, a saint of our time, once quipped: ” Sometines you just have to realize that the dirty rotten system is a dirty rotten system.” It sure is!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 30, 2010 at 7:45 pm


Is this really a spiritually uplifting homily, or is it a call to battle? What about all the other newspapers that have reported on priest sex crimes and cover-ups? Are you going to disrupt their email services too? Just wondering if this is part of the “welcome back” advertisements I’ve seen on TV about returning to the Roman Catholic Church. Should I bring a baseball bat or an axehandle with me when I show up at the local parish?



report abuse
 

riverice7

posted March 30, 2010 at 7:59 pm


The Roman Catholic Church is more than Popes and the priests it is the faithful true belief that this church is Jesus’s church, that was founded by a the disciple Peter. Every era in human history has been reflected in the church, greed (Medici Popes),adultery, failure of the priests celibacy vows and now peoples sexual perversions, if the church could outlast 2000 years of human failings it can over come this.



report abuse
 

Paul

posted March 30, 2010 at 8:39 pm


Like Toyota with their recalls, the Church needs to take initiative and show people how they’re turning it around.
Can we have a “Cash for Clunkers” for bishops? Turning in Rembert Weakland would probably pull three whole dioceses out of bankruptcy!
Excitable “kenneth” Troll sounds trolly.



report abuse
 

marymargaret

posted March 30, 2010 at 9:13 pm


The Times is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to authoritative voices. Maybe some would have the editorial staff of the Times take over the papacy. The Times governing our church would be an utter disaster. They lack the necessary humility it takes to attempt to honestly provide spiritual leadership. Case closed.



report abuse
 

Bryan Healy

posted March 30, 2010 at 9:21 pm


The lengths that people will go to defend the New York Times is laughable. It is a newspaper, one of the best at that, but in this particular case, it is wrong.
I invite you to read what Fr. Brundage wrote in response to the New York Times (Father was the judge on the canonical trial for Fr. Murphy):
http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601
Also, the bishop, I believe, can make a case that the newspaper is targeting the church. The newspaper published two stories this week that have been shown to leave out important facts: the story about Fr. “H” in Germany and the story about Fr. Murphy. These stories were then bookended by two scathing pieces by Maureen Dowd, who wrote an article praising the nuns who disobeyed the teachings of the church and supported the healthcare reform act, and then proceeded to write an article stating that the church needs a nun as pope.
So, while maybe the bishop comes across as blunt in his homily tonight, I believe that might be what is needed for regular Catholics to wake up and take notice. Most Catholics are not at home reading Deacon Greg’s blog (although they should be!)



report abuse
 

Bryan Healy

posted March 30, 2010 at 9:26 pm


Also, I believe that some of you need to review the data that was released from the 2009 survey by the USCCB on abuse in the church:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gBosQ4BeAm8kg33Dv0yzRtvtHZBQD9EKMLIG0
Out of 60 million Catholics in the United States, there were six (6) current abuse cases reported in 2009. While six is still six too many, I don’t believe anyone can deny that the church is doing a much better job today protecting children than 10 years ago.



report abuse
 

nickg

posted March 30, 2010 at 9:30 pm


Deacon Kandra, I find it amazing that your hysteria is about what the Times is reporting and not on the egregious sins that people in the Catholic Church committed. Priests, nuns and laypeople have sexually, emotionally and physically abused thousands of girls and boys and you are concerned about the Times getting some minor details wrong. You are almost as pathetic as the Catholic Church. But please, continue defending the Catholic Church and ignore their disgusting/hypocritical behavior, after all, that’s why the Catholic Church is the laughing stock of the world and why Catholics such as myself have kicked the church to the curb and all the pedophiles with it.



report abuse
 

Jamie

posted March 30, 2010 at 10:07 pm


Nick, I suggest that you read the link posted by Bryan which was written by Fr. Brundage. I think you will see that no one is making apologies for the atrocities that these priests did to the children they are supposed to shepard or for the response the church made in response to these abuses by hiding them. People aren’t defending them but they are defending Pope Benedict against the false charges he has been facing in the press.
It’s been a decade since these scandals broke and I challenge you to look at the response the church has made since then and in the protections she has put in place.
I understand your frustrations but I would have to say that you don’t leave Peter because of Judas, meaning you don’t leave the Church that Jesus Christ instituted because of the people in it.



report abuse
 

Patrick

posted March 30, 2010 at 10:10 pm


I was a seminarian in the Catholic Church for four years before I decided that it was not my calling in life. In that time, I witnessed a reality far different from what the media reports. When I told people that I was studying to be a Catholic priest, they sometimes asked me if I was a pedophile.
Such stereotypes are hateful, anti-Catholic, and untrue. These are ideas that are perpetuated by the media. In my time in the seminary, I met many, many Catholic priests. What can I say? Catholic priests are the salt of the earth, the best people I have ever met! It gives me hope that some sacrifice so much in order to do good for the world, and it hurts the entire world when the only return they gain from their service is hatred.
Certainly, there have been deplorable abuses in the Church. But by focusing on the Church’s faults, the media does a disservice to an organization that does much good for the world. Most people don’t see the good, they only see what the media wants them to see. The truth is that pedophilia is rampant throughout society, and it is less prevalent in the Catholic Church than in most other institutions including public schools. Furthermore, these attempts to implicate the pope are clearly agenda-driven and hateful. This is wrong!



report abuse
 

Greta

posted March 30, 2010 at 11:48 pm


If anyone doubts a profound bias against the Catholic Church this again is proven over the last few weeks. It starts with a lie and then continues to repeat the lie over and over. Jimmy Akin and others of course called their bluff, went to the very documents that they were supposed to be basing their story on, and found out there was not a single item of proof in regard to our Pope as stated in the articles. Every Catholic needs to flood emails to the papers demanding a retraction and apology.
Of course the media is the buttboy of the democratic party and the Catholic Bishops spoke out against their boy Obamas healthcare deform plan. They refused to take up the lie that abortion was supported with federal money in the bill, that the Stupak fig leaf was in reality had no meaning, and that there was no protection in the bill for conscience to protect those who do not want to do abortion because of religion from not being forced to by the government stooges. Imagine actually pointing out the democrats were lying on the critical issue of protection of infants from murder. So the democrats had to get their lackey so called catholics to come out and lie and go against their bishops at the price of their souls. This is not tolerated by the left and so they went out lie about the Pope to change the story. Well, we will soon have Good Friday and we can all hope that Christ forgives the sins of these so called catholics, who knew very well what they were doing.



report abuse
 

Marty

posted March 30, 2010 at 11:56 pm


A US Department of Education report found here http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.doc summarizes data from many studies on sexual abuse by educators. In section 3.1.1.1 they summarize the “AAUW data and Shakeshaft secondary analysis” showing that their numbers are drawn from 8th through 11th grade. Then just before Table 5 on page 20 is this quote: “Because of its carefully drawn sample and survey methodology, the AAUW report that nearly 9.6 percent of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career presents the most accurate data available at this time.”
Wait, did I read that right? 9.6%? Yes, that is what it says. So educator sexual misconduct is an epidemic.
By comparison, from here http://www.usccb.org/comm/statisti.shtml there are over 67 million Catholics. Using 1980 population distributions from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0110384.html (1980 is about average for
the period), this gives roughly 4.4 million between 8th and 11th grade. Taking current numbers that about 11,500 people have come forward with abuse complaints against the Catholic church since 1950, for any four year period since then, it would average to less than 850 per 4 year period. That would result in 850 / 4,400,000 or less than 0.02% rate of abuse in the church.
So 9.6% versus 0.02%. And where is the Times focused? On the 0.02% in the Catholic Church, which they hate with true passion.
No one is going to excuse even the 0.02%, but the Times is a ridiculous piece of cage liner for its blatant, shallow, and blinding hatred of the Church.



report abuse
 

John Stabeno

posted March 31, 2010 at 4:05 am


People need to read this with open minds rather than with an axe to grind. Bishop DiMarzio is passionate about this issue and states the church’s failings with regards to it in the past and its intolerance of it now. The only thing that would be more harmful than what has already been done to these children would be for people to think that sexual abuse of children happens just to altar boys and Catholics at the hands of Roman Catholic priests. What I hear the Bishop saying is that society needs to learn from what happened in the Church and how it mishandled this in the past.
The MAJORITY of victims of sexual abuse will never go to a civil court and sue because most perpetrators do not have the deep pockets that lawyers believe the Catholic Church to have. Most victims become victims at the hands of relatives and family friends, coaches and other “bonding” relationships. It is a sin of great magnitude because it takes advantage of trust while severing it at the same time. People who commit these crimes need to charged so in criminal courts, not civil courts. Statutes of limitations need to be lifted for these criminal cases and at the same time, the Church needs to unshackled of its crimes in the past and serve as a beckon for the rest of society to deal openly and efficiently with true scope of this crime committed by people in ALL walks of life.
Bishop DiMarzio is both a wise Bishop and an accomplished social worker. You can see the best of these backgrounds in his homily. He is not defensive or divisive in his comments. He advocates the truth and the pursuit of justice. In this case, he reminds us that justice needs not only be done for the victims of sexual abuse, but also for justice to the Roman Catholic Church. When it is wrong (as it has been and will continue to be in one area or another) it is wrong. But where it is misrepresented and attacked, it also needs to be defended and the truth be known. Enough is enough.



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted March 31, 2010 at 4:05 am


DiMarzio needs to stop the bluster and get his facts straight.
Murphy’s case went to Ratzinger’s congregation because it involved solicitation in the confessional, something that always went to Rome. Ratzinger very definitely had competency over such cases in 1996, for which there also is no statute of limitations.
Murphy was NOT in the midst of a canonical trial when he died; he was in the midst of an administrative process to reinforce prior precepts related to contact with the deaf community, formally removing him from ministry, setting condition for apologies to his victims, etc.
Congratulations to the NYTimes for great research. Keep it up.



report abuse
 

Jim

posted March 31, 2010 at 8:49 am


New York Slimes, isn’t this what we have come to expect from them? This isn’t the first time they got it wrong and I’m sure it will not be the last. The media is out to destroy the Catholic Church. Their timing is perfect during Holy Week. We know who is really behind these attacks. Satan uses humans to carry out his destructive work. Pray for our pope and good priests everywhere.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 31, 2010 at 8:54 am


Sorry, Carolyn, but the priest/judge in charge of the case at the time totally disagrees with you. Try to defend the NY Times, but they have a vendetta against the Church.
It is clear from this article that they don’t understand even the most basic things about the Church and how Her structures and hierarchy work.
It’s not “great research”…it’s research a high school English student working on a term paper would be ashamed of. No understanding of the most basic facts, no attempt to confirm anything with the judge (Fr. Brundage) in charge of the Murphy case in Milwaukee, and no proof at all that the Pope ever had any notice of this case or did anything to slow it or block the process against this sinful priest.
The Church admits when it has screwed up in the past and admittedly, the Church made many errors and mistakes. But that doesn’t mean the Church is guilty everytime someone throws unsupported claims against the wall now. They don’t automatically stick….sometimes they really didn’t do anything wrong. This is one of those cases. The Pope did nothing wrong and the facts have come out over the past couple of days.



report abuse
 

David

posted March 31, 2010 at 9:52 am


I’m writing a letter to the new york times and other media establishments.
You’re welcome to copy it and make it your own
Dear editor of the New York times et al,
I haven’t bought one of your newspapers in a long time. I went to Boston University. I studied Journalism and got good grades. I learned that responsible and ethical newspapers and other media were supposed to be objective, unbiased in reporting the news, self regulating in their ethical standards. Freedom of speech and the press is abused when we lie, exaggerate, engage in historical revisionism, and prejudiced political character assassination of one’s perceived rivals just to sell an exciting story. In the eighties we expected unethical behavior from tabloids like the national enquirer, not so called “responsible” and “ethical” journalists.
If you don’t think your readers, advertisers, and rivals know they are being lied to, guess again. If they haven’t caught on by now they will when I get through writing this to them.
What am I talking about? You are very biased against anyone who isn’t politically correct. You lie about such “enemies,” you exaggerate their faults, and contradict previously written, more positive articles you’ve written about them in the past. If a Muslim school teacher abused a child yesterday you wouldn’t report it. But psychopathic priests who were guilty of committing such crimes 40-50 years ago, when the phenomenon was poorly understood and no one knew how to handle it, make the front page.
If they were falsely accused and exonerated, or there was a misunderstanding about the alleged incident, we won’t that from you. Nor will we hear that pornography addictions lead people to become psychopathic and want to commit crimes to indulge their lust. Likewise, if a school refused to do anything about an atheist homosexual abusing public school children in the 60′s because fifty years ago when such behavior was poorly understood, they had the nerve to believe the guy when he said he was sorry, we wouldn’t hear a peep from you about that either.
We only hear about your enemies, the Catholics, who unlike most other organizations who try and sweep it under a rug and pretend it didn’t happen even after they are caught, are doing to their best to resolve the problems that a few deceased psychopathic priests created by their perverted acts years ago. We don’t hear about Jewish rabbis abusing kids, or protestant ministers, only catholic priests. The fact that school kids now have more to fear from their MARRIED pornography addicted school teacher and relatives than a priest is ignored.
You make me ashamed that I ever studied journalism. You don’t report the facts, and even lie about facts you previously reported truthfully. e.g. Microfilm of contemporary papers from the 40′s show Pius XII was a hero. Now you tell us he was an enemy. Both stories can’t be true. I just hope your readers and advertisers that I’m sending thisto wake up and realize that you have betrayed the fundamental principles of journalism-UNBIASED ETHICAL reporting of the news. Since all you seem to care about is money, I’m going to see to it you start losing subscribers. I know you don’t have the courage to print this yourselves in it’s original unaltered form, so I’ll do it for you, especially if any of your subscribers tell me you published and misrepresented what I’ve said.



report abuse
 

Ben Joseph

posted March 31, 2010 at 9:59 am


Carolyn Disco, You don’t have your facts straight. Please read from the Presiding Judge in the Murphy case: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100032121/the-pope-the-judge-the-paedophile-priest-and-the-new-york-times/



report abuse
 

TAAD

posted March 31, 2010 at 10:10 am


Here is letter from the Judge handling the case against Murphy.
http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601
NO ONE HAS TALKED TO HIM. NOT THE NY TIMES NOBODY!
To Carolyn Disco: IT is a sin to spread your lies! You are defaming the good name of another person and it can never be repaired. How dare you! How dare the NY TIMES spread lies without even talking to the people who have the true information. This is straight out of Hell and those who help continue it are the Devils useful fools.



report abuse
 

Eric

posted March 31, 2010 at 10:57 am


I don’t think most Catholics have grasped the gravity of the situation, otherwise, you wounldn’t see so many retreating into martyr mode.
Where’s the sense of responsibility? The humility?
Also, why single out the NYT? The cover-up is being widely reported across the world. Or is everybody else using the Church as “punching bag”, too?
Accountability is the only way forward, and shooting the messenger (i.e. NYT) is a disservice to the Church.



report abuse
 

Reaganite in NYC

posted March 31, 2010 at 10:58 am


Bishop DiMarzio speaks for millions and millions of Catholics around the country. We mourn what happened to the victims so many years ago, and we applaud the efforts the Church has taken to clean out the rot and put into place outstanding systems to protect the children.
But the New York Times “shot themselves in the foot” with sloppy, shoddy and biased reporting on this matter and severely damaged their credibility. They are a notorious example of “agenda-driven journalism.”



report abuse
 

GBullough

posted March 31, 2010 at 11:02 am


This strikes me rather like Charles Manson complaining that some of the details in the book ‘Helter Skelter’ are inaccurate and show him in a bad light.



report abuse
 

robert epperly

posted March 31, 2010 at 11:55 am


The Times is a very important branch of the luciferian anti-Christ machination that controls the American media. What else would you expect from Satan and his demons. Every major media in the USA is controlled by these people, including unfortunately the printers of our school textbooks. We must wake up and boycott this infernal malignancy that brainwashes even good people. Start by turning off your TV and cancelling your newspaper and magazine subscriptions.



report abuse
 

Tony de New York

posted March 31, 2010 at 11:57 am


‘Murphy’s case went to Ratzinger’s congregation because it involved solicitation in the confessional, something that always went to Rome. Ratzinger very definitely had competency over such cases in 1996, for which there also is no statute of limitations.’
FALSE! FALSE! FALSE!
No bishop had to sent any document related to sexual abuse to the Holy See, least to the congregation of the faith. It was until 2001 when they did.
The case had to do with the confesion that had happen in the 1960′s remember that father Murphy in 1974 was taking out of work. It was until 1996 that the Archbishop Weakland notifice the Congration of the faith about, by this time the priest was dying.
Here documents so u can educate about it:
http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case?ref=europe#document/p29



report abuse
 

stmichael

posted March 31, 2010 at 11:57 am


Catholic are simply the only true religion and the one way to the one true God, from Abraham to Christ and from Peter the fisherman to today Pope, in todays world, man have decided that he no longer need God, priest that betray Christ could be found at the begining of Christ ministry, yes Judas Iscariot, that answer many question, yes, not the Catholic Chruch that commit the crime, the person, an individual and so as the cohort of some Bishop that try to cover up.
It is the Catholic that take the insult on the chin and turn the other, for many years, when ever and what ever some one within the Church did wrong, the media put the blame squarely on the Church, the Catholic Church make up of 1.3 Billion soul and not the only hand full that commit the crime, if within the government, a person working for it commit a crime, does that mean the whole government is condamn? so as the stupility of New York Time, if their case is valid then the USA government should be comdemn for the invading Iraq, everyone knows it is oil that the cause the greed to invade Iraq.
If the Catholic is like the Moslem than, I strongly belive that NYT would not dare to be so daring, they would coward under their desk and a coward they always are, no dout about this, I belive it is time to rise up and maybe act like the Moslem and defend what belong to God and the let those who dare to condemn the Church fear it wrath.



report abuse
 

Mary Ann

posted March 31, 2010 at 12:07 pm


Thank you Bishop DiMazio! I agree Enough badmouthing the Pope and the Catholic Church “NEW YOURK TIMES” We are tired of it and it is time for the people of America to say STOP. Look around and see what kind of world we have created for ourselves. We now live in a sin-sex addictive society. There isenough blame to go around to the entertainment, language,billboards, ads,TV shows, songs, and the daily news reports all these things that try to make us believe that if we behave in this manner we are normal…so quit singling out the Catholic church and the Pope….it is time for the Christians to say “clean up your own doorstep before you start pointing to others” I am 77 years old and my heart aches when I hear the talk of the young children… where do they learn it…home??The language on TV..sinful. The commercials…seducing. And then we piously stand back and say “Tt must be the Catholic Church’s fault all these terrible things are happening”. Pray and obey the 10 commandments is a good place to start for real CHANGE in America.



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted March 31, 2010 at 12:08 pm


Sorry, Tony de New York is wrong. Solicitation HAD to go to Rome no matter when.
Murphy was already out of the diocese three years when Weakland arrived in 1977. Weakland did not find out about confession being involved until 1995, which is why the delay in getting Rome involved. As soon as Weakland learned confession was an issue, he had to contact Rome and did so.
I have studied the document thoroughly. Tony needs to do the same.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 31, 2010 at 12:22 pm


I would like to point one fact to Eric and that is that Catholics do indeed realize the gravity of the situation. What Catholics also realize is that the media in its rush to deamonize the Catholic Chuch has turn a blind eye to the othe churches that have the same problem. Not only that they have also turned a blind eye to the sexual abuse in our society as a whole. For what ever reason the media has chosen to make the Catholic Church the whipping boy for the sins of all of societies ills.



report abuse
 

Holy Cannoli

posted March 31, 2010 at 1:12 pm


David,
>>>I’m sending thisto wake up and realize that you have betrayed the fundamental principles of journalism-UNBIASED ETHICAL reporting of the news.
You wrote a very good letter. However, (imo) it will be totally ineffective if sent to the NY Times.
Like liberals everywhere (including the White House), they know who they are and they know what they are doing. In short, they are political and social hard-core leftists who could care less about what you or anyone like you thinks about (in this case) their newspaper especially since you already mentioned that you no longer buy it. It’s their agenda that they are pursuing not the truth, not ethics and not fairness.
The good news is that with the unfiltered news available on the net and with media outlets like Fox, there is an alternative to the lame stream news such as the NY Times.
I think you can have an impact on the Times but not by attempting to reason with them. It’s about money. Find their advertisers and let those advertisers know what you believe is yellow journalism that has been a characteristic of the Times for years. Use facts. Show how circulation has tanked for the Times for, among other reasons, their lack of journalistic integrity and the public’s realization of that fact. Site new stories that demonstrate the Times’ bias, in particular, their anti-Catholicism. Whether or not you choose to inform the Times and others of what you are about to do, is up to you. They may disregard what you say so it may not have any effect.
Just my 2 ¢
Via con Dios



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 31, 2010 at 1:54 pm


To the detractors of The Catholic Church and specially to the White Sepulchers of the New York Times what is applicable to them is the saying whoseoever is free of Any sin throw the first stone.One thing is to demand Justice and reparartion and befit punishment for the horrible sin of the abused committed against those dear children, by miserable predators. Another thing is condem One Billion Catholics and thousands of good catholic priests, for the sins of those criminals deranged minds. The New York Times can not hide his hate toward our Catholic Church. The NYT find special pleasure in instigating hatred toward our Church. But is written that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against our Holy Catholic Church. Catholics are not afraid of the “Judgement” of the NYT at all.



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted March 31, 2010 at 5:07 pm


Sorry, the facts support my position. The only lies are from the bishops.
Yes, let’s get the facts straight. I have spent hours and hours going through the documents on the NYTimes website and find what I consider solid proof to rebut the writings of Rev. Thomas Brundage, the Judicial Vicar in the Murphy case in Milwaukee.
It’s hard to summarize without all the quotes from the Vatican report of the CDF meeting where it was decided to drop the canonical case. There is no other way to read the evidence in my two plus pages of notes. I too want the facts out there.
Snip: The May 30, 1998 meeting with Weakland, Fliss, Sklba, Bertone, his deputy Girotti, and staff is critical. The translated minutes from Italian specify Weakland pleaded for a canonical trial to proceed. He specified six points, including Murphy has no remorse, many victims, fear of scandal, etc. Some of the translation wording can be awkward but the meaning is clear.
Then Bertone lists the problems of continuing a trial: difficulty in furnishing proofs, testimonies without increasing scandal, need for secrecy, long period of time, no other accusations from Superior diocese; that “there are not enough elements to instruct a canonical trial.”
Bertone lists what should be done by way of “penal remedies” like restricting where Murphy can celebrate Eucharist (only Superior, not Milwaukee), and requiring permission in writing. Also that Murphy must give clear signs of repentance, “OTHERWISE he must be applied to a trial.” Clear signs of repentance mean NO TRIAL.
Bertone even “restates the two central points TO BE FOLLOWED” and lists them: (no discretion allowed) “1) the territorial restriction of the celebration (of the) Eucharist and 2) the needed remorse and reform of the priest.” That’s it, period.
The meeting concludes with Weakland’s pained “difficulty he will have explaining this to the community of the deaf.” Weakland would have no difficulty at all explaining the continuation of a trial but great difficulty in explaining the cancellation of one.



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted March 31, 2010 at 5:11 pm


The confusing part of this whole mess is that Rev. Thomas Brundage, the judicial vicar, was the one to receive these minutes and he ran the computer translation. His letter forwards the minutes to Fliss, bishop of Superior. Brundage says you get a rough idea what happened. I submit you get a solid idea of what happened. I formatted the text in the style of formal minutes and the points of each side are very clear.
On his return to WI, Weakland had gathered a team to institute a “pastoral plan” under an “administrative process” (not judicial process) in order to implement what the CDF wanted. Pastoral is a code word for non-judicial (i.e. non-trial) measures. Brundage may simply have been out of the loop, or behind it. Letter from Weakland to Bertone August 19, 1998, NYTimes documents, p.75
The “administrative process” would formally remove Murphy from ministry, require written apologies to victims, but seeing he did not mention confession, etc. Weakland’s moving handwritten note to a survivor after Murphy’s death notes how hard he fought in Rome for a trial, but perhaps to spare the survivor further pain, just concludes the case is closed on Murphy’s death – meaning the administrative case. That was the only case that was open.
That Vatican spokesman Lombardi and Cardinal Levada finessed the matter in their statements is, what should I say, typical but unfortunate. Vatican speak spin! Lombardi says the CDF had “suggested” that Weakland consider pastoral measures to address the situation. SUGGESTED?? Specifying “two central points to be followed” is not a suggestion but an order.



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted March 31, 2010 at 5:11 pm


Further proof of cancellation of a trial is in Sklba’s minutes back in Milwaukee of a meeting in late July, 1998, two months after the CDF meeting, and a month before Murphy died. Brundage was there.
The purpose of the meeting was ”discussion of the current status of Archdiocesan action” against Murphy. There is no mention of any trial in progress, or of the results of a formerly planned June 30 Tribunal interview of Murphy. The only reference is to repeating and reinforcing prior ”precepts” as follows (NYTimes documents p.61):
”In discussion of various options and in view of the absence of any funeral directives, it was decided that the precepts would be repeated and reinforced, especially with regard to lack of contact with members of the deaf community, that his agreement would be sought for a private funeral with closed casket at St. Ann Parish in Boulder Junction upon the occasion of his death, that a letter of apology to the deaf community would be requested immediately, that the Archdiocese would investigate the extent of his personal property and prepare a statement from the Archdiocese to be given to the deaf community accompanying his own letter of apology.” (Signed) RJS (meaning Auxiliary Bishop Richard J. Sklba)



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted March 31, 2010 at 5:12 pm


What is Brundage’s complaint?
Quote: “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 is …to outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets”
But Brundage was not quoted in any story. The document pages with his handwritten name at the top of each one were written by a bishop, noting Brundage’s review of the issues to that bishop. There is a cross before some initials; they look closest to Bishop Raphael Fliss of Superior (+rf) but that is still to be confirmed.
Brundage’s complaint then is with a bishop writing down Brundage’s statements for his files that were later released by court order. Brundage even admits, “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.” Of course, he is. The NYTimes including it in the document pack it received is laudatory, not a reason for censure.
In addition to Brundage’s article being run in full on the website for the Anchorage archdiocesan newspaper, the Catholic league has picked up on it, and Vatican Radio ran a special interview. It is getting quite a bit of traction, but based on the facts I present, Brundage is simply wrong.
Now, Vatican-speak may have something to do with the confusion. A style of communication that wiggles and evades creates all sorts of problems. As in plausible deniability perhaps?
There is no separate written order by Bertone to stop a canonical trial (with or without his superior’s agreement or understanding, ie Ratzinger) but there are minutes that specify what measures are “to be followed.”
There is no written order to Brundage to stop a trial, instead there are those same minutes he read, and a report of a status conference on the Murphy case with no mention of a trial in progress – just administrative measures related to “precepts.”
What a way to run a church!



report abuse
 

Curious

posted March 31, 2010 at 5:26 pm


What is the point of spending hours and hours on this?



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted March 31, 2010 at 5:50 pm


To learn the truth, that’s the point.
I have worked with clergy abuse survivors the last eight years. Their courage in speaking out deserves my attention.
Here is more of my research about the statements of bishops:
http://votf.org/Survivor_Support/truth_list.html
The truth as exposed by a state attorney general



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted March 31, 2010 at 5:52 pm


Our church deserves better in bringing the Gospel alive.



report abuse
 

HGP

posted March 31, 2010 at 6:14 pm


The Catholic Church has two basic enemies in the world. In North America and Europe the enemy is the atheist secularist group. In the rest of the world the major opponent is the Muhammadans. The NYT is a propaganda machine for the enemies as Pravda and Izvestia were propagandists for the USSR. The Catholic Church stands in the way of abortion, sodomy and liberalism/socialism/communism. The Catholic Church has condemned all of these and explained in the Church’s teachings why these are bad for human beings to be involved in. There fore the NYT will use any story that it can create to attract the “moderate” to gain “fellow travelers” to their side. They do this by attacking the Church to destroy it as an opponent. We have a president who is an ally of the secularists/Muslim axis of evil who has lied to the Pope and Bishops and any Catholic who would listen to him. The enemies of the Church will say anything and do anything to try to destroy Christ’s Church. That is what we need to remember. They are attacking Christ and two thousand years of his Church’s teaching when they attack his Church. Every one is a sinner and this includes even the Church hierarchy. But the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Catholic Church.



report abuse
 

SpnSoba

posted March 31, 2010 at 6:21 pm


What’s wrong with being whipped? Our Lord was whipped, crucified, and killed on Friday, Holy Week! And He was innocent! Are we? Please,stop the whinning and own up to all our sins that Jesus died for, before Easter. Just shake off all the trimmings that as shephards you took on and so enjoy and look at the sufferings of the flock Jesus entrusted to your care and are doing without so much as the dignity of being heard. Murphy is gone (out of sight, out of mind?) Fortunately someone reported. Shouldn’t the NYT motives (the Lord knows them all and He always prevail) be secondary? Shouldn’t we fault on the side of the victims?



report abuse
 

Wondering

posted March 31, 2010 at 6:35 pm


Popes and Bishops have been apologizing and paying for these crimes and sins for the last 15 years at least. There are policies in place now that were not in place then. Priests have been removed the day after an accusation has been made. Many accusations have later been retracted or proven false after the priest’s name and reputation have been forever ruined. When will this end?
Spend you hours and hours learning the truth about people who are long dead.



report abuse
 

Bryan Healy

posted March 31, 2010 at 7:33 pm


Hi Carolyn:
First, I want to thank you for coming to the discussion table with evidence instead of baseless claims. I also want to applaud your work with the victims of sexual abuse. I am sure that the all of us here thank you for that effort.
However, I must disagree with your claims that the trial was cancelled.
You say that at the May 1998 meeting with Archbishop Weakland and Cardinal Bertone that a key condition for the dropping of the trial was that Fr. Murphy show “clear signs of repentance.” However, when reading the article written by Father Brundage, it is clear that Fr. Murphy did NOT repent in any way:
“In my interactions with Father Murphy, I got the impression I was dealing with a man who simply did not get it. He was defensive and threatening.”
Father Brundage also likens Fr. Murphy to those who have been jailed for sexual abuse, saying “They rarely show remorse and moreover, sometimes portray themselves as the victims.”
I also would like to point out that the timespan between the meeting in the Vatican and the death of Fr. Murphy was only three months. In his article, Father Brundage states that he ordered Fr. Murphy to appear for a deposition, but he received a note from his doctor stating that such action would be impossible due to his health. A week later, Fr. Murphy had died. There simply was not enough time to have Fr. Murphy stand trial. I am certain that if Fr. Murphy was not ill, he would have stood trial.
Bryan



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted March 31, 2010 at 8:34 pm


That’s the confusing part, Bryan. Murphy did NOT repent though he claimed to do so in his letter to Ratzinger. That was bogus.
No repentance should have meant the trial went forward after the May, 1998 meeting. Either Bertone did not do due diligence or what? He stressed the lack of repentance as a reason a trial would still go forward, instead of the “precepts” he ordered, (not “suggested”).
Please read: Weakland tried his best to make clear Murphy had indeed not repented but he got nowhere. Here is the record of what Weakland said, to no avail in the end: “the Rev. Murphy doesn’t have any sense of remorse and it seems not to realize gravitates (the gravity of) it of that that you/he/she (and of what he) has done.”
Why didn’t Bertone take Weakland seriously? My email is cdisco40@yahoo.com if you want to email me for the complete file. I can then you the entire minutes clearly spelled out. Weakland was so distressed because Bertone was not listening to what he was saying.
Murphy had written this dishonest letter to Ratzinger five months previous and basically lied about repentance. It seems the die was cast because of that letter before Weakland and staff even arrived.
Maybe, maybe Weakland was not getting anywhere because Ratzinger/Bertone had already decided, based on Murphy’s dissembling letter? Was Bertone stymied? I don’t know, but it certainly leaves one scratching his head.
Brundage is WRONG, I repeat, wrong, but I see his confusion. He sees no repentance and thinks the trial is still on. The minutes make clear it is not, otherwise why is Weakland complaining about how it will be so difficult to “explain this to the community of the deaf.”?
Bertone’s deputy threatened Murphy with ANOTHER trial if he did not obey the precepts. Why do that if he is recognized even as too ill for the first trial?



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted March 31, 2010 at 8:45 pm


Minor correction, Bryan. Actually the first deposition was set for two months before Murphy died. They called it an interview.
Why in the status conference a month before Murphy died, and Brundage was there, is there no discussion whatsoever about an ongoing trial? The ONLY conversation was about those precepts.



report abuse
 

Curious

posted March 31, 2010 at 9:22 pm


Why would anyone have taken Weakland seriously about anything? Some people here sound obsessed with this Murphy case.



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted March 31, 2010 at 9:42 pm


Obsessed with learning the truth because of the horrific abuse that was the fate of so many.



report abuse
 

Bryan Healy

posted March 31, 2010 at 9:51 pm


Hi Carolyn:
I think I understand what you are trying to say. Apparently, there seems to have been a breakdown in communication between Archbishop Weakland and Father Brundage. In this editorial from the New York Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/03/31/2010-03-31_fairness_for_the_pope.html#ixzz0jl8CNMH1), it is put best:
“The suspension order was never conveyed to the priest that headed the trial panel. He says he would have fought such a command and that Murphy died while charges were still pending.”
As for why Archbishop Weakland was concerned about the community for the deaf’s reaction, I believe that it was because the trial had been put on hold due to Fr. Murphy’s illness. In a statement released today by William Cardinal Levada (posted on http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/), Cardinal Levada states:
“Only when it learned that Murphy was dying did the Congregation suggest to Weakland that the canonical trial be suspended.”
So, what I believed happened is that after Archbishop Weakland reported the case to the CDF, the Pope agreed that there was a need for a canonical trial and waived the statute of limitations. However, as the preparations for the trial commenced, Fr. Murphy wrote a plea to the pope stating that he was dying and begged for leniency. So, at the meeting with Cardinal Bertone and Archbishop Weakland, the contents of that letter were revealed and the precepts for the trial to be suspended were told to the archbishop. The archbishop, sensing that the community for the deaf would be unhappy with this (as was said in the article written by Father Brundage, they would not be happy with anything less than his defrocking and his not being buried as a priest). However, as Cardinal Levada states in his article, the amount of investigating left to do and the length of a canonical trial would simply take too long with Fr. Murphy dying. So, it was decided to suspend the trial and give Fr. Murphy the precepts for the dismissal of the trial (namely, what you outlined above). The word of the suspension never reached Father Brundage, who went ahead and scheduled a deposition for the trial, and received a note from Fr. Murphy’s doctor, stating he was too ill to travel. Finally, Fr. Murphy died a week later, leaving all this unresolved.
I am sorry for the length of this post, but that is what, after reading the various articles and comments from people, I believe to have happened.



report abuse
 

Bryan Healy

posted March 31, 2010 at 9:53 pm


Curious, I do agree that due to the second life Archbishop Weakland was living, we should be cautious about what he has to say regarding the church. However, I have not seen any statements released by him regarding this scandal. Has he commented at all?



report abuse
 

cathyf

posted March 31, 2010 at 10:45 pm


Ms Disco, your argument relies entirely upon the assumption (even calumny) that the “repentance” requirement was some sort of sham.



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted April 1, 2010 at 12:19 am


No, cathyf, the repentance requirement itself was NOT a scam.
The scam was that Murphy showed no remorse at all, yet implied he was repentant in his letter to Ratzinger. He was manipulating again.



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted April 1, 2010 at 12:30 am


Weakland was interviewed for the NYTimes article last week and confirmed that Rome stopped the trial in May 1998 over his objections; “…he failed to convince Cardinal Bertone and other doctrinal officials to grant a canonical trial.”
I want to cream Weakland over the way he treated survivors, but in this case I believe he understood and tried hard to respond to the wishes of the deaf community. The evidence shows that, granted with a huge nod to secrecy and avoiding scandal.
There is such vitriolic reaction to any statement he ever makes, I am sure he limits his exposure to that. Sometimes I feel if he says the sun rises in the east, he will get pummeled. It’s as though no paper he ever signed has any validity.



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted April 1, 2010 at 1:27 am


Briefly, Bryan, there is no statute of limitations, period, when it comes to solicitation in confession. Murphy raised the issue and it went to Rome for resolution.
I agree a formal suspension order was never relayed to Brundage, but it should have been obvious from the minutes of the CDF meeting he read who cancelled the trial. His over-reaction to the bishop’s notes in the NYTimes documents who sought Brundage’s views and wrote down the encounter was unnecessarily accusatory of the Times. He was never quoted anyway, and of course the statements in the files should have been credited to him. He was the one who told the bishop about the case. His sharp insistence that Weakland cancelled the trial is just wrong.
You confuse the use of the term precepts to include reference to a trial. There were no “precepts” for the dismissal of the trial. The precepts were other requirements/conditions/penalties imposed on him from 1974 on, which were broken as it happens by Murphy’s work in parishes and even at a juvenile detention center in Superior.
Levada is wrong that the CDF “suggested” termination of the trial. It was an order in any sense of Vaticanese. Anything to deflect away from the Vatican.
Levada has a shameful, disgraceful record of protecting abusers. He removed a priest because the priest reported an abuser to the police. The priest sued him and won! So much for never being prevented from reporting to police.
Please take the time to read about Levada’s record:
The Man Who Keeps the Secrets
http://www.sanfranmag.com/story/man-who-keeps-secrets
and
Blind unto the Holy See
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2005_07_12/2005_07_13_Russell_BlindEye.htm
In essence I think you have captured the story, though I believe Ratzinger made the decision to halt the trial in mercy, and let Bertone carry it out. Bertone was so deaf to Weakland’s insistence that Murphy was not remorseful, a condition for dropping the trial. Why the deafness, no matter how insistent Weakland was?
This plausible deniability where a superior’s policy direction or oversight is never part of the mix – no buck stops at the top?



report abuse
 

Mathi

posted April 1, 2010 at 2:33 pm


Carolyn,
Get your facts straight: the priest that served as the judge at the canonical trial in Wisconsin has made it clear that Rome DID NOT STOP the trial. As a matter of fact, the NYT omitted all the documents that proves that and falsely claims that the handwritten notes were written by the canonical judge, they were not. See the link for the full comments provided by Fr. Thomas Brundage, JCL. http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601



report abuse
 

AndyP/Doria2

posted April 1, 2010 at 5:43 pm


There was a time in America when Bishops spoke it was like thunder and the obediance was almost complete. This politically correct bunch has sheepishly let that time pass in the name of the almighty dollar.
Now our Lord has showed them that the dollar can be taken away anyway. Through lawsuits.
If they had done the right thing at the beginning and strengthened our seminaries with discipline much of this could have been avoided.
We are in a time of chastisement foretold by our Lady at Akida Japan and at Fatima. Bishop vs bishop, priest vs priest but the Church will survive these cowards.



report abuse
 

Bryan Healy

posted April 1, 2010 at 7:41 pm


Hi Carolyn:
In response to your feelings about Archbishop Weakland, he does receive harsh criticism. However, you cannot say that he does not deserve it. He used almost $500,000 of donated funds to pay off a male lover.
Thus, if it is a choice between believing the word of Archbishop Weakland over Father Brundage, I would believe the latter.



report abuse
 

marie willis

posted April 1, 2010 at 9:58 pm


the times should know : it is written he who casts a stone at the church will be broken and he whom it falls upon will be crushed…make sure o9f you facts times



report abuse
 

Harrison

posted April 1, 2010 at 11:27 pm


“the gates of Hell will not prevail” and neither will the New York Times…..



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2010 at 8:19 am


MATH: 12:36 – 37 “I say unto you that every IDLE WORD which men shall speak, they shall give an answer for in the day of judgement. For by your sayings you shall be justified and by your sayings you shall be JUDGED”
PROVERBS: “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the EVIL and the GOOD”
JOHN: 8:7 “He that is WITHOUT SIN among you let him first CAST A STONE at her”



report abuse
 

MERLE

posted April 2, 2010 at 8:40 am


TO: THE NEW YORK TIMES
MATH: 12: 36-37 I say unto you that EVERY IDLE WORD which men shall speak, they shall give an answer for in the day of JUDGEMENT”
PROV: 15:3 The eyes of “THE LORD are in every place, beholding the EVIL and the GOOD”
JOHN: 8:7 He that is WITHOUT SIN among you, let him first CAST A STONE at her”



report abuse
 

Eric

posted April 3, 2010 at 2:40 am


“Your Name” wrote:
“For what ever reason the media has chosen to make the Catholic Church the whipping boy for the sins of all of societies ills.”
Perhaps because the Church has been covering-up the whipping of boys(?)
But seriously, don’t you think you’re exaggerating JUST a little bit there?
I mean really, the media blames the Church for ALL of society’s ills??



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted April 3, 2010 at 4:35 pm


In response to Bryan and Mathi:
Re: Father Brundage,
There is now irrefutable evidence, like in his own hand, that he had to know the trial had been abated. HE was the one who drafted Weakland’s letter to the Vatican that said, ““First, I have instructed my Judicial Vicar to formally abate the judicial process that had begun against Father Murphy.”
See the documents here: http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/brundage.pdf
He is confused how he did not remember.
From David Nichol on dotCommonweal that Brundage’s action here indicates Rome stopped the trial:
“Brundage says, “As you have requested I put together what might be a response to Archbishop Bertone’s document regarding Fr. Murphy that he recently sent us. Here is a suggested response.”
Brundage, who has insisted, “Never once was I told to – to stop the case or to do anything less than to proceed to its conclusion,” nevertheless drafts a response to Bertone saying the trial is being abandoned.
If Bertone’s communications were mere suggestions to Weakland pointing out the downside of continuing with a trial, and it was still Weakland’s decision to continue or discontinue the trial — and we have every reason to believe Weakland did want to continue the trial — why does Brundage’s “suggested response” to Burtone say the trial is being formally abated?
The only plausible explanation, it seems to me, is that the communications from Bertone in effect ordered the trial to be abated. Brundage drafted the only plausible response to Burtone: “We’re doing what you told us to do.”
The fact that Brundage did not complete the formal paperwork for cessation of the trial until September is moot, since the decision had been made in Rome May 30, 1998 and nothing went forward on a trial after that date. (Murphy died late August.)



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted April 3, 2010 at 4:37 pm


Brundage also withdrew his complaint about NYTimes coverage, but repeated untruths about his knowledge of the case, now that we know HE wrote the letter in question:
Father Brundage, who is now working in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, posted an essay this week saying he was never informed that the trial of Father Murphy had been halted.
He also said that he had been misquoted in both The New York Times and The Associated Press. In an interview on Wednesday, Father Brundage acknowledged that he had never been quoted in any Times articles about the Murphy case — and the paper did not misquote him. He said he was misquoted in an Associated Press article that was posted temporarily on the Times Web site, and he mistakenly attributed that to The Times.
He said the documents show that the Vatican had encouraged the Milwaukee Archdiocese to halt the trial, but they did not use strong language and actually order a halt. He said that he never saw the letter from Archbishop Weakland abating the trial until it appeared on the Times Web site last week.
His credibility is simply gone.
Others, please be careful about the use of the word, calumny.



report abuse
 

Carolyn Disco

posted April 4, 2010 at 4:12 pm

Your Name

posted April 10, 2010 at 10:27 pm


Ms. Disco,
You’re shooting at gnats and ignorning the dragon.
That Fr. Brundage cannot remember when, exactly, he became aware of the fact that Fr. Murphy’s trial had been abated, or even that he was aware, hardly dispatches his credibility. I certainly hope you’re not suggesting that Fr. Brundage’s credibility is lost, while that of the NYT and AP remain intact. Also, re: why Fr. Murphy’s trial was abated: we do not know. You conclusion that “the only plausible explanation” is that Bertone ordered the trial abated is conjecture. Even if he did, we still don’t know why.
All of this, however, is ultimately irrevlevant, because the NYT, the AP, the BBC and other media outlets are not targeting Fr. Brundage or Abp Bertone, but Pope Benedict. It’s clear from the evidence that there is no reason whatsoever to indict Pope Benedict on this matter. The NYT, in particular, practiced shoddy reporting in what, if any other world leader were the target, would quickly be recognized as a smear campaign.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 15, 2010 at 5:50 am


Your article can give me a great inspiration, hope you continue to write more articles!



report abuse
 

Office Bags

posted February 27, 2011 at 10:20 pm


I appreciate your post, i learn few things in this post, I have book marked this internet site so ideally I’ll see much more on this subject in the foreseeable future!
office bags



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

This blog is no longer active
This blog is no longer being actively updated. Please feel free to browse the archives or: Read our most popular inspiration blog See our most popular inspirational video Take our most popular quiz

posted 10:42:40pm Dec. 12, 2010 | read full post »

One day more
A reminder: "The Deacon's Bench" is closed! Please enjoy the archives!

posted 11:26:20pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Meet Montana's married priest
Earlier this week, I posted an item about Montana getting its first married priest. Now a local TV station has hopped on the bandwagon. Take a look, below.

posted 10:29:55pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Big day in the Big Easy: 10 new deacons
Deacon Mike Talbot has the scoop: 10 men today were ordained as Permanent Deacons for the Archdiocese of New Orleans. This group of men was formally selected on the day the evacuation of New Orleans began as Hurricane Katrina approached. The immediate aftermath of the storm for this class would be

posted 6:55:42pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Gaudete! And let's break out a carol or two...
"Gesu Bambino," anyone? This is one of my favorites, and nobody does it better than these gals: Kathleen Battle and Frederica von Staade. Enjoy.

posted 1:04:10pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.