NY Times goes all tabloid on the Pope
Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2010 at 03:45 PM
Larger Text
Print
E-mail
31 Comments
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Ireland as Britain's wind farm - weighing up the pros and cons of ugly and heavily subsized Irish windfarms
- Justin Bieber's perfectly judged comment on Anne Frank - "Hopefully she would have been a belieber"
- The Irish property tax problem - everyone wants to own some and no one wants to be taxed on it
- American fans right to ignore the World Baseball Classic
- Will Ireland's emigrants catch a break on property tax?
Archives
Okay, hold on. I was going to write about the Pope's recent letter to Ireland's Catholics, but instead I want to talk about the story on the front page of the NY Times on March 25. Just because so many of the Bishops have made some grotesque errors in judgment doesn't mean that the NY Times should take leave of its editorial senses and adopt the sensationalist policies of a British tabloid.The story the Times tells is another one about a priest who violated his vows, the innocence of children and the trust of their parents. Fr. Lawrence Murphy was an Assistant Director, Director and eventually Principal at St. John's School for the Deaf, a residential school in Milwaukee, from 1950 – 1974.
During that time Fr. Murphy sexually molested dozens of boys, perhaps even as many as 200. It's a horrific tale, made worse by the fact that Fr. Murphy preyed on deaf children for whom communicating what was happening to them was that much more difficult.
When in 1974 the Archdiocese of Milwaukee was told by the boys what had happened to them Fr. Murphy was relieved of his duties at St. John's and basically ordered to go back and live with his mother in a different part of Wisconsin, in a different diocese. The Times says at the time the police and prosecutors "ignored reports" from Fr. Murphy's victims, so there doesn't seem to be the same cover-up concerns that are a feature of most of these stories. Murphy's abuse of children seems to have stopped with his removal from St. John's in 1974.
That story, however, has already been told by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel back in March 2006 and is told in detail at BishopAccountability.org. The Times connects the story to Pope Benedict, which is why it was on the front page.
The Times reveals that in January 1998 while the Church was proceeding with the process to laicize Fr. Murphy, he wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger appealing to him to stop this process on the grounds that (a) it was outside the norms of Church law (time limits) and (b) he was in poor health, having just "suffered another stroke." Three months later Ratzinger's secretary asked Milwaukee to drop the case. Four months after that Fr. Murphy was dead.
So there's the crux of the scandal that the Times saw fit to blaze on its front page. No legal cover-up, simply an old sinner's appeal for mercy and, apparently, a positive response from Cardinal Ratzinger.Now I wish Cardinal Ratzinger hadn't done that. I'd rather have seen Fr. Murphy suffer, but I'm not a priest nor a bishop. I'm not in the business of forgiveness or mercy, but I can accept that this is a core function for a priest.
I'd like to be happy that the Times is so hard-line on the application of justice, but anyone who reads the paper regularly knows that not to be true. I'm still waiting for their editorial condemning the Scots for releasing Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted of murdering 270 people over Lockerbie in Scotland in 1988 and who was released last year for dubious medical reasons.
No the truth is the Times picked up on an old, terrible story and used a thin connection to tie it to the Pope in an attempt to discredit him. That's it. The British tabloids would be proud of the Times' efforts.
31 Comments
15 - 31 | See all comments
jacersisityourself | Apr 19, 2010, 06:00 PM EDT
Oh dear! Comment didn’t make it. Well read here of my point:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0419/1224268628613.html
Report abuse
RthrBHistCorr | Apr 19, 2010, 12:03 PM EDT
The only "Crime" the Pope is guilty of is to request (which by the way Milwaukee refused) that the case be stopped in the sure knowledge that Fr. Murphy was currently suffering, would not live to see any earthly punishment and was certain in the =knowledge that Fr. Murphy would soon be before a Higher Court where his punishment will be eternal.
Report abuse
Edwardssfdhsfdh | Apr 17, 2010, 09:35 AM EDT
our website: now buyy.COM
BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!
SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!
FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!!
Packing: All the products are packed with original boxes and tags also retro cards/ code
numder
A ir jo rdan (1-24) sh oes ($33)
Ha ndba gs(Coach,ed hardy,lv,d&g) ($35)
Bik ini (Ed har dy,polo) ($25)
Report abuse
KathyCallahan | Mar 28, 2010, 12:21 AM EDT
another wolf in sheeps clothing
Report abuse
ciarrai | Mar 26, 2010, 11:58 PM EDT
All things considered, the widespread nature of the abuses does merit significant coverage in the Times. However, the Pope's involvement has yet to be explained completely. BTW, all too many Father Murphy's have been told to go back to live with mommy. They should have been sent to jail.
Report abuse
Ajreaper | Mar 26, 2010, 02:29 PM EDT
LOL, What? Your religion determines if you support the health care bill? What a complete twit you are now shshshshsh and go back to your coloring book and let grown ups talk.
Report abuse
liseuxx | Mar 26, 2010, 01:55 PM EDT
Cappamore,
You're an example of a reader who only got 1/2 the truth from the Times.
Ask yourself why the CIVIL authorities dropped the case on this molester. Gee- the times didn't focus on that.
They're just interested in smearing the Pope for the practicing Catholic resistance to Obamacare.
THATS the issue.
Report abuse
Verum68 | Mar 26, 2010, 12:36 PM EDT
The story deserved front page news. This priest had abused deaf innocents. He should have been turned over to the civil authorities, ill health or not. The path leads directly to Rome. The Catholic Church has repeatedly shown that it's concern was not protect children from sexual predators but to protect the Church from scandal. Shame on it!
Report abuse
TheYank | Mar 26, 2010, 12:06 PM EDT
odubhlaoich
There may well be many examples where the Vatican knew all about abuses & cover-ups, but the documentation provided by the NY Times in this case doesn't support that conclusion. The Vatican seems to have only been informed in July 1996 - 22 years after the Archdiocese of Milwaukee had dealt with Fr. Murphy.
Report abuse
TheYank | Mar 26, 2010, 12:03 PM EDT
McNamara31
Archbishop Weakland got no answer to his July 1996, true, but there were no child protection issues at that stage. So why the urgency? Archbishop Weakland wanted Fr. Murphy laicized simply because he was hoping to minimize the scandal. The Archbishop knew that the 20 years that had elapsed were well outside the statute of limitations.
Report abuse
odubhlaoich | Mar 26, 2010, 11:52 AM EDT
Had the evil crimes not been committed, including the diocese of Davenport,Iowa where I live, the news media would have no story. Had the vatican and local princes dealt with the criminals and not tried to cover up the evil perhaps we could believe them. As reports continue to come in from around the world one must wonder how much we still do not know. I'm hopeful that one day the nuns who doled out physical and verbal abuse to young kids will be the next to answer for their crimes.
Report abuse
Nicomax | Mar 26, 2010, 11:44 AM EDT
Old story maybe, but new angles keep emerging, with Ireland and Germany leading the way. The Pope in his former positions appears to have been involved in various ways, leading to the possibility that he may have obstructed justice. Church secrecy should not be able to overrule secular law, at least as our Constitution clearly indicates.
Report abuse
McNamara31 | Mar 26, 2010, 11:39 AM EDT
Lastly, all those people who were rightly going up the chain of command in the church and getting ignored should have followed their God given conscience and gone further for resolution. At the end of the day, these were little deaf boys enduring constant abuse. There’s no moral or ethical way Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict can justify his actions in this case. The times article was plainly showing that all roads lead to Rome.
Report abuse
McNamara31 | Mar 26, 2010, 11:37 AM EDT
The in 1998 the trial is halted because Murphy says he has repented and in too frail health to go through trial. The Vatican let him quietly die and their problem was buried. My question is how many other letters from bishops were ignored and was that the first line of dealing with the issue of little children being abused as in this case for decades.
Report abuse
Report abuse