Now the German Allegations are relatively new, but more in line with corporal punishment then anything sexual.
The Wisconsin allegations involve an incident in the late 1960s that came to the attention of the Vatican in the late 1990s when the priest involved was dieing (And died within a few years). Furthermore the reason the local Wisconsin Diocese took the case to the Vatican was the local civil authorities told then the Statute of Limitation had run and thus the Civil Authorities could do nothing about the case.
It appears to still be in litigation involving a Civil Lawsuit but whatever such lawsuit is ongoing is NOT mentioned by the New York Times thus I am going by the dates that are mentioned, none of them latter then 1974 as to when this priest was involved with any potential victim (It is reported the Priest had dealings with children after 1974, but none of those dealings are involved with the accusations EXCEPT as to whatever punishment the priest incurred after 1974 and that such punishment did NOT exclude him from dealing with Children, please note the Priest involved received NO assignments from the Diocese except to act as a deaf interpretor after 1974).
As to the "Secrecy" used in the papers cited by the New York Times, they are similar to statutes involving Civil and Criminal Cases dealing with such accusations (All cases must be Secret and all parties involved with such cases must agree to keep any information Secret from the General Public). Once you understand what is being kept "Secret" then it becomes clear that this "Secrecy" only involved internal Church actions NOT anything done in any Criminal or Civil matter.
This case should have been dismissed years ago, most states Civil Statute of Limitations is four years from the time the child turns 18. Assuming the Child was born in 1974 that would be 1996 (18 plus 4 equal 22 years). Why is this coming out NOW? I could see it coming out in 1998, maybe some Statute of Limitations permitted such an action but 2010? The child is at least 36 years old (Assuming he was born in 1974).
Please note the Wisconsin Diocese did NOT give him any role within the Diocese after 1974 (i.e. he was a priest without a parish). He lived with his mother in her home. The only issue in the mid 1990s was his removal from the priesthood, no accusation were made against him after 1974 for the simple reason he was never given any assignments after 1974.
Please note, no records exists of what happened in 1974, except the Priest was removed from all functions except to act as a translator for the deaf when one was needed. He stayed in that status, a priest without a Parish or other assignment till the mid 1990s when new accusations were made and the Bishop found them to have merit. A Church proceeding was started AFTER IT WAS CLEAR NO CRIMINAL OR CIVIL ACTION WOULD BE BROUGHT DO TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION HAVING RUN OUT FOR BOTH. Thus the Diocese of Milwaukee started its own internal trial and that is what the New York Times reported. Think about it, would your local school district go after a teacher long dismissed when there is no criminal or civil action pending? My readings of the Documents cited by the New York Times sounds like a Diocese trying to do the right thing, something most people would NOT even try once they learned any other legal action was NOT possible.
http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case#document/p2 More on this Wisconsin Case:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.htmlhttp://uscatholic.org/news/2010/03/vatican-defends-action-case-wisconsin-priest-abuserAs to the German Case, it dates from 1986. Pope Benedict was the Bishop in Charge and sent the priest involved to therapy, but the therapy did NOT work and the Psychologist involved wrote to the Diocese that the Priest should NEVER be permitted around children or alcohol. It is another old case that was resolved in 1986. Why is it coming up today? It has some relevancy in that the Pope was involved in that he was the Bishop in charge, but that Diocese is quite large and another Bishop was in charge of making sure such people did NOT get assignments with children (That bishop died around 2000). Like the Wisconsin case, Pope Benedict involvement is marginal at best. He was involved but only at the edges of the scandal. It was resolved in 1986 so why is it coming up NOW? I can see if it was a pattern, i.e. Pope Benedict did the same thing in both cases, but in the Wisconsin case all he did was said given the age and health of the priest AND that fact the priest's diocese said they would NEVER give him an assignment, just leave it go till the priest dies of old age (Which the Priest did four months later). In the German Case, a Psychiatrist wrote that the Priest involved should NOT be around children, and later on was given such assignments but it appears clear Benedict had nothing to do with those assignments.
More on the German Case:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/world/europe/19church.htmlThe Irish case is little different, more widespread was the Bishop's moving around of priests and less internal trials (Which Pope Benedict would have been involved in prior to becoming pope). The pope is not accused of anything in the Irish cases EXCEPT when he pointed out internal trial must be kept secret and as I said above that is the rule is Criminal and Civil cases involving such accusations even in US Courts for such "secrecy" is NOT to protect the Church but to protect the system i.e. the trial itself. The same facts can be given to Criminal authorities, just not the hearings themselves.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1173318.htmlAs I started above, why are these old cases relative? In two of the cases Reagan was President, in the third Nixon was President. We do discuss Watergate and Vietnam today, but NOT in attacks on the Republican party (Unless relevant to a current issue like the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war against drugs and Bush's friends and who got what when Bush was President). We do NOT discuss Reagan's movement of troops into Beirut or Grenada (Or even Bush I's move into Panama) unless it relates to something going on today. We do NOT discuss Reagan's tax cut (except as to the taxes today) and this is even true when if you believe (like I do) that what is wrong with Wall Street was Reagan's abolishment of the 70% tax rate on short term profits (If you made an investment that took five years to make a profit, it was subject to a 35% tax rate, but you had to keep it as in investment for five years and that encouraged people to look long term NOT what profit I can make this year). It rarely comes up but is relevant IN REGARDS TO TODAY"S TAX RATEs. On the other hand what is the relevancy of these old abuse cases? These tend to be individual cases with individual facts NOT something to address a pressing issue today. Abuse is still occurring, but with the history of the reports of abuse over the last 20 years the situation today is different then it was 20 years ago. Today people are reporting these cases to the Police. The local Bishops are NOT longer ignoring them, but addressing them as they come to their attention. Every Diocese has address the issue of abuse and how to handle such complaints, thus these old cases are NOT furthering any improvements in that area, such improvements have already been done. No one is making an accusation that such abuse had occurred in the last 10 years, in fact most people have NOT reported such abuse in the last 20 years (There are reports from the early 1990s but most such reports are pre-1990). Why are these cases front page news? If the Church was denying them I could see that, but in each of these cases the church is admitting such abuse occurred. No one is asking for a change in present Church Policy (Through many are asking for an apology, something many of them should get). Thus my point why such reports? These are old news, why bring them up today? What relevancy do they have today?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
