Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy

Dr. E, I too want to see that quote. Or any fact which constitutes proof, or reasonable inference, that the Pope is to be charged with criminal responsibility or moral turpitide in this matter.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the pope's critics:

Seldom have I seen such delirium over an innocent man, namely Pope Benedict XVI. Christopher Hitchens, the rabid atheist, wants to know why the European Union is allowing the pope to travel freely. Perhaps he wants the pope handcuffed at the Vatican and brought to the guillotine. Margery Eagan of the Boston Herald, another big fan of the Catholic Church, says, "The Pope should resign." One looks in vain for a single sentence that implicates his guilt in anything. Then we have the Washington Post indicting priests by painting all of them as child abusers in a cartoon. There are many other examples of this kind of hysteria.

As indicated in our New York Times op-ed page ad today, the pope is innocent. Indeed, he is being framed. No one has any evidence that he even knew of the case of Father Lawrence Murphy. Indeed, his office didn't find out until 1996 and then it did the right thing by summoning an investigation (it could have simply dropped an inquiry given that the statute of limitations had run out). No matter, the pope's harshest critics are blaming him for not defrocking a man whom he may never have heard of, and in any event was entitled to a presumption of innocence. Or was he? There are not just a few who would deny civil liberties protections to priests.

It is a sad day when al-Qaeda suspects are afforded more rights than priests. That this kind of intellectual thuggery should emanate from those who fancy themselves tolerant and fair-minded makes the sham all the more despicable.

Jeff Field
Director of Communications
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
catalyst@catholicleague.org
New York, NY 10123
212-371-3191
212-371-3394 (fax)

“As a volunteer prison chaplain in Alaska, I have found a corollary between those who have been incarcerated for child sexual abuse and the priests who have committed such grievous actions. They tend to be very smart and manipulative. They tend to be well liked and charming. They tend to have one aim in life — to satisfy their hunger. Most are highly narcissistic and do not see the harm that they have caused. They view the children they have abused not as people but as objects. They rarely show remorse and moreover, sometimes portray themselves as the victims. They are, in short, dangerous people and should never be trusted again. Most will recommit their crimes if given a chance.”

This is definitely worth repeating. It is just another explanation of why so many got away with it for so long. I honestly think some bishops just couldn’t believe their charming and intelligent friends could be guilty of such abuse. They were being manipulated by these criminal priests just as much as the victims were. In addition, the psychologists of the day told Church leadership that pedophiles could be “cured’ with therapy. Many of these pedophile priests were sent to therapy and pronounced cured by therapists. Only later did it become apparent that there really is no cure for this sick criminal behavior. Unfortunately, it took more victims to convince Church leadership that these priests were not salvageable.

There were errors of naiveness, friendship, trust, and ignorance by Church leadership. They trusted the therapists that it was curable and they trusted their friends who denied doing it or said they were now cured. Then there are the small number of bishops who criminally and knowingly shielded pedophiles- but their numbers ARE small. They should be in jail.

There are lots of good and great priests out there.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.