How can you allow a pedophile priest to remain a priest? To me, as someone who is suppose to dispense the grace of God, allowing someone who committed these action is just plainly wrong.
2) What grievous error did he make that he knew was a grievous error?
He knew quite well what the policy was of the Church. He also knew what type of priest was. The grievous error is that when confronted with the truth he didn't try to correct the matter.
Now I'd love how you would say that the Pope's action was justifiable.
You wrote:
“How can you allow a pedophile priest to remain a priest?”
Who? If you mean the case in Wisconsin, that man ceased working as a priest years before he died.
15 May 1974: Abuse by Father Lawrence Murphy is alleged by a former student at St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. In fact, accusations against Father Murphy go back more than a decade.
12 September 1974: Father Murphy is granted an official “temporary sick leave” from St. John’s School for the Deaf. He leaves Milwaukee and moves to northern Wisconsin, in the Diocese of Superior, where he lives in a family home with his mother. He has no official assignment from this point until his death in 1998. He does not return to live in Milwaukee. No canonical penalties are pursued against him.
9 July 1980: Officials in the Diocese of Superior write to officials in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee about what ministry Father Murphy might undertake in Superior. Archbishop Rembert Weakland, archbishop of Milwaukee since 1977, has been consulted and says it would be unwise to have Father Murphy return to ministry with the deaf community. There is no indication that Archbishop Weakland foresees any other measures to be taken in the case.
17 July 1996: More than 20 years after the original abuse allegations, Archbishop Weakland writes to Cardinal Ratzinger, claiming that he has only just discovered that Father Murphy’s sexual abuse involved the sacrament of confession — a still more serious canonical crime. The allegations about the abuse of the sacrament of confession were in the original 1974 allegations. Weakland has been archbishop of Milwaukee by this point for 19 years.
It should be noted that for sexual-abuse charges, Archbishop Weakland could have proceeded against Father Murphy at any time. The matter of solicitation in the sacrament of confession required notifying Rome, but that too could have been done as early as the 1970s.
10 September 1996: Father Murphy is notified that a canonical trial will proceed against him. Until 2001, the local bishop had authority to proceed in such trials. The Archdiocese of Milwaukee is now beginning the trial. It is noteworthy that at this point, no reply has been received from Rome indicating that Archbishop Weakland knew he had that authority to proceed.
24 March 1997: Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, advises a canonical trial against Father Murphy.
14 May 1997: Archbishop Weakland writes to Archbishop Bertone to say that the penal process against Father Murphy has been launched, and notes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has advised him to proceed even though the statute of limitations has expired. In fact, there is no statute of limitations for solicitation in the sacrament of confession.
Throughout the rest of 1997 the preparatory phases of penal process or canonical trial is underway. On 5 January 1998 the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee says that an expedited trial should be concluded within a few months.
12 January 1998: Father Murphy, now less than eight months away from his death, appeals to Cardinal Ratzinger that, given his frail health, he be allowed to live out his days in peace.
6 April 1998: Archbishop Bertone, noting the frail health of Father Murphy and that there have been no new charges in almost 25 years, recommends using pastoral measures to ensure Father Murphy has no ministry, but without the full burden of a penal process. It is only a suggestion, as the local bishop retains control.
13 May 1998: The Bishop of Superior, where the process has been transferred to and where Father Murphy has lived since 1974, rejects the suggestion for pastoral measures. Formal pre-trial proceedings begin on 15 May 1998, continuing the process already begun with the notification that had been issued in September 1996.
30 May 1998: Archbishop Weakland, who is in Rome, meets with officials at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, including Archbishop Bertone but not including Cardinal Ratzinger, to discuss the case. The penal process is ongoing. No decision taken to stop it, but given the difficulties of a trial after 25 years, other options are explored that would more quickly remove Father Murphy from ministry.
19 August 1998: Archbishop Weakland writes that he has halted the canonical trial and penal process against Father Murphy and has immediately begun the process to remove him from ministry — a quicker option.
21 August 1998: Father Murphy dies. His family defies the orders of Archbishop Weakland for a discreet funeral
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2481315/posts
Now, when exactly did the current pope allow the priest in question to remain a priest? Please keep in mind the following: Ratzinger wasn’t pope then, he wasn’t as involved in this case as some have falsely claimed; and the priest had already ceased working as a priest in 1974!
” To me, as someone who is suppose to dispense the grace of God, allowing someone who committed these action is just plainly wrong.”
And who did that? Again, all the people discussed in the case so far only became aware of it in the late 1970s, the 1980s or 1990s. Yet it was in 1974 that this man CEASED to function as a priest. I agree with you he should have been tossed out in the 1950s. I agree with you, but who do we know of yet was responsible for NOT todding him out? Even Rembert Weakland, a useless prelate if there ever was one, was apparently blameless in this case. He was not bishop when the abuse happened. The priest left the diocese and stopped functioning as a priest BEFORE he became bishop. And it was Weakland who began the process against the priest! And Ratzinger was clearly at no fault whatsoever.
“He knew quite well what the policy was of the Church.”
What policy? Again, this abusive priest was put on trial. He was on tril while Ratzinger was working as a cardinal. So, how did he fail in his duty exactly? What policy did he not enforce? Seriously, can you answer ANY of those questions? Even one?
“He also knew what type of priest was. The grievous error is that when confronted with the truth he didn’t try to correct the matter.”
When was Ratzinger confronted with the truth? What case are you even talking about? Do you even know?
“Now I’d love how you would say that the Pope’s action was justifiable.”
I would love for you to make sense first. What case are you talking about? Do you even know? What years are we talking about? What country? Do you have any idea of what you’re talking about? Apparently not. You refered to not a single abusive person, or place, not even a country! And yet you think you have given me something that I have to justify? All you’re doing is proving one of my points in these threads - you have no idea of what you’re talking about. It is clear you haven’t read anything but the leftist media on this and apparently you can’t remember the name of single country or given decade from even those “news” pieces. When you know something get back to me.