"The most discredited and disgraced bishop in the United States."

Father Raymond J. de Souza is a chaplain at Queen's University in Ontario. He wrote a response to the New York Times story on the sex abuse scandal. In it he writes frankly about Weakland, the embittered ex-archbishop of Milwaukee:

[Click here to read the rest of the blogpost]

"Response to the New York Times."

The New York Times on March 25 accused Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, of intervening to prevent a priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, from facing penalties for cases of sexual abuse of minors.

The story is false. It is unsupported by its own documentation. Indeed, it gives every indication of being part of a coordinated campaign against Pope Benedict, rather than responsible journalism.

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

Read his account, here.

* * *

Links to items mentioned by de Souza:

New York Times: Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest. [March 25, 2010]

Laurie Goodstien: Former Bishop Weakland's Memoir. [March 15, 2010]

The London Sun: Protesters in Rome.

Rod Drehr: Bishop Weakland’s Exit. [May 2002]

Survivors Network Statement on NYT Story. [March 25, 2010]

The Herald: Catholic Leaders Rally.

Anderson Advocates: Becker court-related documents.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: Ex-archbishop Weakland.

NYT Video: Demonstration.

Vatican: No Sex Abuse Cover Up.

Archbishop of Westminster: Pope has taken strong action.

Archdiocese of Milwaukee: Sexual Abuse Reporting Policies.

Questions and Answers re Sexual Abuse of Minors by Clergy.

* * *

Nothing to Do with Homosexuality?

Clowes and Sonnier: Child Molestation by Homosexuals and Heterosexuals.

Damian Thompson: A Stich-up.

Cristina Odone: Pope Benedict XVI is part of the solution not the problem.

Accusations fly, and allegations mount. In this feverish atmosphere, facts become, frankly, irrelevant. Who cares that when, as Cardinal, Benedict assigned a known paedophile to a course of therapy, this was the practice not only within the church, but the outside world too? Who cares that when Fr Lawrence Murphy was abusing 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin, the police were called in and did not believe the victims and absolved the priest of any wrong-doing? Who cares that when, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Benedict allowed Fr Murphy to die a priest rather than be defrocked, he was fulfilling a dying man’s wish?

Catholic News Service: Vatican defends action in case of Wisconsin priest abuser.

Vatican officials who spoke on background said The New York Times story was unfair because it ignored the fact that, at the urging of Cardinal Ratzinger himself, new procedures to deal with priest abusers were put in place in 2002, including measures making it easier to laicize them.

[...]

Father Lombardi pointed out, however, that the Vatican was only informed of the case more than two decades after the abuse had been reported to diocesan officials and the police. He noted that civil authorities had dropped their investigation without filing charges.

The church's canonical procedures in such cases do not envision "automatic penalties," but recommend that a judgment be made, not excluding removal of a guilty priest from the priesthood, Father Lombardi said

* * *

Update

Ross Douthat:"Popes do not resign. But a pope can clean house."

John Allen (NCR): Keeping the record straight.

There are at least three aspects of Benedict's record on the sexual abuse crisis which are being misconstrued, or at least sloppily characterized, in today's discussion. Bringing clarity to these points is not a matter of excusing the pope, but rather of trying to understand accurately how we got where we are. The following, therefore, are three footnotes to understanding Benedict's record on the sexual abuse crisis. 1. Not the 'Point Man' [...] 2. The 2001 letter [...] 3. Canonical Trials.

John Allen (NYT): Swift Actions.

Fr. Longenecker: Myths verus Basic Facts and Basic Princples.

The Anchoress: "Smart enough to know that this is no light issue."

This is not excuse-making, but pertinent history in the 1970’s and 1980’s pedophiles and pederasts were thought to be “treatable” and “curable” with psychotherapy; that was the recommendation made by psychiatric experts at the time: “get them therapy and reassign them.” It was bad advice, particularly in light of more recent studies about the recidivism of abusers of all stripes; by my lights, the bishops who took it failed in spiritual wisdom; regardless of what the “experts” told them, they should have understood that any priest capable this abuse (or this “sick” as the experts classified them), was spiritually sick as well, and unfit to perform his office in a parish setting. This is a terrible, terrible disgrace and any Catholic who does not see this is willfully ignorant.

* * *

Update.

Catholic Education Resource Center: "Ferocious animosity."

Christopher Hitchens' venomous attack on Pope Benedict XVI is a revelation that deserves wider attention. Were it not for its appearance in the National Post, it would be difficult to believe that a reputable newspaper would publish such absurdity.

[...]

Addressing the shortcomings in Mr. Hitchens' handiwork provides the opportunity to answer an important question. What should the Catholic Church do with bishops and priests who have facilitated vile sexual crimes by clergy by deliberate concealment or gross negligence?

Update.

George Weigel, First Things: Scoundrel Time(s).

In the United States alone, there are reportedly some 39 million victims of childhood sexual abuse. Forty to sixty percent were abused by family members, including stepfathers and live-in boyfriends of a child’s mother—thus suggesting that abused children are the principal victims of the sexual revolution, the breakdown of marriage, and the hook-up culture. Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft reports that 6-10 percent of public school students have been molested in recent years—some 290,000 between 1991 and 2000. According to other recent studies, 2 percent of sex abuse offenders were Catholic priests—a phenomenon that spiked between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s but seems to have virtually disappeared (six credible cases of clerical sexual abuse in 2009 were reported in the U.S. bishops’ annual audit, in a Church of some 65,000,000 members).

Yet in a pattern exemplifying the dog’s behavior in Proverbs 26:11, the sexual abuse story in the global media is almost entirely a Catholic story, in which the Catholic Church is portrayed as the epicenter of the sexual abuse of the young, with hints of an ecclesiastical criminal conspiracy involving sexual predators whose predations continue today. That the vast majority of the abuse cases in the United States took place decades ago is of no consequence to this story line. For the narrative that has been constructed is often less about the protection of the young (for whom the Catholic Church is, by empirical measure, the safest environment for young people in America today) than it is about taking the Church down—and, eventually, out, both financially and as a credible voice in the public debate over public policy. For if the Church is a global criminal conspiracy of sexual abusers and their protectors, then the Catholic Church has no claim to a place at the table of public moral argument.

The Times’ descent into tabloid sourcing and innuendo was even more offensive because of recent hard news developments that underscore Pope Benedict’s determination to root out what he once described as the “filth” in the Church.

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.

---

Update:

Jimmy Akin at the National Catholic Register has read the documents and summarized the evidence that the New York Times misrepresented. If you read nothing else on this subject, read Akin's blogpost.

The level of vitriol being directed at Pope Benedict by the mainstream media right now is truly extraordinary. It’s primarily drive by desire for cash (scandal sells), followed closely by hatred, along with a hefty dose of ignorance.

Reading Maureen Dowd’s latest opinion column is just a cringe-inducing experience.

Even in ostensible news pieces the misrepresentation of facts is staggering. That’s where the ignorance comes in. Reporters in the mainstream media are seldom well versed in the matters they are reporting on, and it is clear that—even when outright malice is excluded from the equation—they simply do not have the background to properly understand or report on how the Vatican works and what its actions mean.

I am not saying that the Holy See’s handling of abuse cases can’t be legitimately criticized. I’m not saying that then-Cardinal Ratzinger/now-Pope Benedict XVI didn’t experience a learning curve on this point. And I don’t know what else is out there that remains to be discovered.

But I am saying that the media is getting this story wrong, particularly in the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy, the American priest whose case was dealt with by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when Cardinal Ratzinger was its head.

[...]

So let’s look at the facts of the case in light of the documents:

Read it all. Here is how Akin concluded his blogpost:

Murphy had written his letter of appeal—the crux letter that the media is up in arms about—in January of 1998 and in August of 1998 he was dead.

One can fault any number of things about process or policy in this case, but we don’t have evidence that Ratzinger did anything in bad conscience. He didn’t stop the trial against Murphy from proceeding. At most (attributing everything to him that Bertone did) he recommended waiving the judicial proceeding due to the man’s advanced age and ill health while simultaneously taking steps to ensure that the man would not be a threat to anyone as he lived out his final months in seclusion.

Civil prosecutors make these kinds of judgments all the time, deciding whether it is really worth it to devote the resources to proceed to a full trial when the accused is elderly, not a threat, and likely to die during the proceedings.

They aren’t portrayed in the press as evil monsters, and from the facts of this case, Pope Benedict shouldn’t either.

Update:

Cardinal William J. Levada

In dealing with priests, I learned that many priests, when confronted with accusations from the past, spontaneously admitted their guilt. On the other hand, I also learned that denial is not uncommon. I have found that even programs of residential therapy have not succeeded in breaking through such denial in some cases. Even professional therapists did not arrive at a clear diagnosis in some of these cases; often their recommendations were too vague to be helpful. On the other hand, therapists have been very helpful to victims in dealing with the long-range effects of their childhood abuse. In both Portland and San Francisco where I dealt with issues of sexual abuse, the dioceses always made funds available (often through diocesan insurance coverage) for therapy to victims of sexual abuse.

Donahue of the Catholic League:

Much of the accusation against Pope Benedict XVI in the case of Wisconsin priest Fr. Lawrence Murphy rests on his alleged disinterest in pushing for Murphy to be defrocked. Contradicting this smear is the judge in the Murphy trial and the New York Times itself.

[...]

I challenge anyone to produce a single piece of evidence that the pope did anything wrong.

Here's the canonical judge's account: Thomas Brundage, JLC.

DiMarzio: "Enough is enough!"

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

---

Maureen Dowd, op-ed columnist at the New York Times, has performed ridiculously. See here and here. She is entitled to her opinions but not her own facts; and her opinions, based on ignorance of the facts or willful negligence, are all the more flimsy and worthless due to the misrepresentations. Let's see if she will find the humility to make the necessary corrections in her next column.

Update:

Bishop William Lori of Connecticut writes in defense of the pope, with some questions for the New York Times and others: "The Holy Father That I Know." [PDF].

It appears that the timing of these articles is calculated. The March 25 New York Times story suggesting that then-Cardinal Ratzinger permitted a known offender to continue in ministry for almost thirty years was based upon documents provided to it by Jeffrey Anderson, an attorney who has received over $100 million suing Catholic institutions and who is now suing the Vatican itself. Mr. Anderson received these documents in discovery in December 2008. Why did he wait until now to hand them over to the Times? Was it to help his suit against the Vatican? [...] We don't know. We do know that Mr. Anderson controlled the timing, and the Times helped.

[...]

For our Church serving almost 70 million American Catholics, there were only six allegations of childhood sexual abuse by priests occurring in 2009. No other institution working with children gets close to this level of safe environment.

[...]

The police looked into the allegations regarding Father Murphy in 1970 and apparently found insufficient evidence to take any action. Nevertheless, Murphy lost his job as head of a school for the deaf and blind in 1970. He never received any Archdiocesan appointments thereafter. The documents the Times itself posts show that his removal was not "quiet" but that the police were informed, that there were protests and leafleteering, and that there was "disclosure and public humiliation in 1974." The Times documents also show that he was not "moved" to the Diocese of Superior, but that he returned to live with his mother in Junction, Wisconsin.

[...]

Peremptory suspension of faculties is a far more efficient means of removing a dangerous priest than going through an elaborate trial in Rome. The Times either hid the fact that Murphy was disciplined by suspension of his faculties because it did not comport with the story it wanted to tell, or because Mr. Anderson withheld the documents from the Times that detailed this discipline. Thus, the New York Times either lied in stating that Murphy suffered no discipline, or Mr. Anderson, through selective document disclosures, played the New York Times like a fiddle.

[...]

Here's what I know about Pope Benedict XVI and sexual abuse. [...] Under his leadership the Congregation provided bishops with crucial direction and support in canonically removing offending priests from ministry. In most circumstances, the Congregation approved direct administrative actions so bishops could discipline and remove priests without the delays and costs of full canonical trials.

[...]

I personally witnessed the pivotal and positive role that Cardinal Ratzinger played in helping the American bishops respond to the sexual abuse crisis. [...] Countless victims have been assisted. Priests who posed a danger to young people are out of ministry. Dioceses cooperate closely with law enforcement officials (contrary to the faulty op-ed piece by Frank Bruni in the New York Times). The Congregation also helped bishops of other countries deal with the sexual abuse crisis.

[...]

In January of this year, the U. S. Department of Justice reported that one out of ten young people incarcerated in government-run detention facilities were sexually victimized by their guards during the single year of 2008. This represents 2,370 victims. Where was the Times report? And the number of sexual abuse victims in public schools dwarfs the problem in juvenile detention facilities. [...] in Connecticut alone, 112 Connecticut public school teachers and coaches have lost their license to teach because of sexual contact with students since 1992; and 19 foster parents paid by the State of Connecticut have been disciplined for sexually abusing the children in their care since 2006. Where's the outrage and the calls for resignations [of government officials]?

New York Times publishes corrections.