It was not until 1996 (19 years after Fr. Murphy was put out of circulation on "sick leave") that Weakland first notified Cardinal Ratzinger’s Vatican office, which promptly moved forward on having a canonical trial. Neither Ratzinger nor anyone in his office in any way impeded the local process. In fact, Card. Ratzinger’s Deputy, Cardinal Narciso Bertone, tried in every way to expedite the process, despite the huge gap created by Abp Weakland's negligence and the statute of limitations.
Fr. Murphy died in 1998, before a canonical trial could take place.
The real fault here, as I read the facts, was with Archbishop Weakland, who was notoriously derelict in his duties.
But because the Associated Press, the New York Times, and rhe MSM in general cannot lodge fault with Weakland ---who, as a “progressive,” a payoff-paying gay prelate himself, and a longtime enabler/protector of anti-papal dissenters, is immune from all criticism --- there is this a concerted, international effort to find some way to drag in Pope Benedict.
Maureen Dowd's opinions are contemptible and I wouldn't care to comment on them.
But what the New York Times is doing as a "news" organization is vicious, prejudicial, and (it seems to me) probably legally libellous.
Recommended reading: “Goodbye, Good Men / How LIberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church” by Michael S. Rose.
An account of how slithering, slimy, self-loathing and hateful dyke nuns and gay priests, along with their accomplice aggressively secular psychologists have gone about advancing their radical agenda via the vocations selection process.
I have little doubt this has gone on and continues to go on. I am a devout Catholic. Upon moving to a new town I answered the local parishes call for RCIA instructors. I was called in for a meeting. The person conducting the interview was a lay person, a woman. OK. But everything about her screamed bitter, frustrated lesbian, who was angry about not being able to run the whole show. As we discussed the RCIA program, I made clear my orthodox views of the Church on abortion, men-only ordination, gay marriage, etc. She was working so hard to keep the steam to keep from coming out of her nose and ears that I thought her head would explode. She shut right down. The meeting went on for another few minutes as I asked a few polite questions that were met with grunts and scowld. But, needless to say, I did not get a call back.
And don’t get me started on my own parish’s refusal to speak out in the healthcare reform debate or — in the world turned updside down category — on the issue of abortion. Those of us who’ve approached the clergy on pro-life issues have been told to stand down out of respect for those who are pro-abortion. Can anyone imagine attending a NOW meeting where the hysterical harpies are told to tone it down out of respect for the men in the audience? Or the lunatics and zombies at an Obama rally being told they must respect the Republicans who might be in the crowd?
It’s no wonder the Church is in the trouble it is.
As was evidenced in the health care debate, they have no clue as to whom and what they are dealing with. Their faith in statists, secularists, communists, and militant homosexuals is tearing their flesh piece by piece. They treat these elements as Obama treats terror states.
Greece crumbled. Rome faded away. England took itself down. The U.S. is doing the same. If the Church is what it says it is — the truth, the way, God’s kingdom here on earth, built upon Peter the Rock, it should start acting that way.