It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Deaf Boys Tried to Tell of Priest’s Abuse - No One Listened

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   


They told other priests. They told three archbishops of Milwaukee. They told two police departments and the district attorney. They used sign language, written affidavits and graphic gestures to show what exactly Father Murphy had done to them. But their reports fell on the deaf ears of hearing people.

This week, they learned that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, received letters about Father Murphy in 1996 from Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland of Milwaukee, who said that the deaf community needed “a healing response from the Church.” The Vatican sat on the case, then equivocated, and when Father Murphy died in 1998, he died a priest.

“That man should have been in prison for a very long time, but he was lucky,” Steven Geier, one of Father Murphy’s victims, said Thursday. “What about me? I wasn’t supposed to touch girls. What gave him the right to be able to do that? Father Murphy constantly thought about sex with children, and he got away with it.”


Link to NY Times Article


That's really depressing, not to mention disturbing. Sigh. I wonder why the police never helped the deaf children? Didn't understand? I would think the hand gestures would be fairly descriptive of what transpired... Or maybe they just held those criminals in such high regard that they chose to ignore it.

The thing about the current Pope knowing though makes wonder. If I know my neighbour is having sex with children, and the police come and ask me if I know anything about it and I say I do not, and then they later found out that I knew about it all along.. Shouldn't I also go to prison for aiding and abetting a criminal? I would think so.. regardless of what I think about his actions, I'd be helping to cover it up, not to mention allowing more children to be raped while he could've been imprisoned.

If it were up to me, the Pope would be doing some time along with the rest of those animals. Maybe it's time to start requiring, by law, that all members of the Catholic Church (priests, bishops, etc, not attendees of the church) undergo a psychiatric evaluation before they can start preaching and being around children. The numbers seem to be there to support a connection.

[edit on 3/27/2010 by ZombieOctopus]




posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ZombieOctopus
 


Bishop Weakland was a known pedephile and I doubt he stressed the importance of what happened in his letter to then-Cardinal Ratzinger. Weakland was a serial child molester and an embarrassment to the Catholic Church. Hopefully Pope John Paul II is paying for his inaction against Weakland by burning in hell as we speak.

The blame for not bringing charges against this priest lies clearly with the police departments and the district attorney who ignored the complaints.

It is troubling that this priest was never defrocked and was allowed to die a priest after his crimes. Unfortunately, Cardinal Ratzinger's hands were tied by Pope John Paul II and Bishop Weakland and this may be why no action was taken against the molester priest.

People need to remember that most of the pedophilia scandals happened under Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI is working hard to clean up the mess left to him by his predecessor.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ZombieOctopus
 


I found this article written by the Priest who was to serve as judge in the Church's case against Father Murphy. It describes how the Church acted on this matter and explains that Father Murphy died suddenly before the the trial was complete.




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

As for the numerous reports about the case of Father Murphy, the back-story has not been reported as of yet.

In 1996, I was introduced to the story of Father Murphy, formerly the principal of St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. It had been common knowledge for decades that during Father Murphy’s tenure at the school (1950-1974) there had been a scandal at St. John’s involving him and some deaf children. The details, however, were sketchy at best.

Courageous advocacy on behalf of the victims (and often their wives), led the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to revisit the matter in 1996. In internal discussions of the curia for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, it became obvious that we needed to take strong and swift action with regard to the wrongs of several decades ago. With the consent of then-Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland, we began an investigation into the allegations of child sexual abuse as well as the violation of the crime of solicitation within the confessional by Father Murphy.

We proceeded to start a trial against Father Murphy. I was the presiding judge in this matter and informed Father Murphy that criminal charges were going to be levied against him with regard to child sexual abuse and solicitation in the confessional.

In my interactions with Father Murphy, I got the impression I was dealing with a man who simply did not get it. He was defensive and threatening.

Between 1996 and August, 1998, I interviewed, with the help of a qualified interpreter, about a dozen victims of Father Murphy. These were gut-wrenching interviews. In one instance the victim had become a perpetrator himself and had served time in prison for his crimes. I realized that this disease is virulent and was easily transmitted to others. I heard stories of distorted lives, sexualities diminished or expunged. These were the darkest days of my own priesthood, having been ordained less than 10 years at the time. Grace-filled spiritual direction has been a Godsend.

I also met with a community board of deaf Catholics. They insisted that Father Murphy should be removed from the priesthood and highly important to them was their request that he be buried not as a priest but as a layperson. I indicated that a judge, I could not guarantee the first request and could only make a recommendation to the latter request.

In the summer of 1998, I ordered Father Murphy to be present at a deposition at the chancery in Milwaukee. I received, soon after, a letter from his doctor that he was in frail health and could travel not more than 20 miles (Boulder Junction to Milwaukee would be about 276 miles). A week later, Father Murphy died of natural causes in a location about 100 miles from his home.

Read more: Catholic Anchor



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   


Milwaukee Archbishop on Murphy Case


Says Mistakes Were Made, Not by Rome



As a bishop, a priest, and as a man of faith, I apologize to anyone who has been a victim of clergy sexual abuse. This crime, this sin, this horror, should never occur, especially by a priest. Those who committed these crimes and those, including some bishops, who didn’t do everything in their power to stop it, go against everything the Church and the priesthood represent. For those actions, I offer my sincere apology.

So many people have suffered -- first and foremost victims and their families. Because of the actions of the few priests who committed these crimes, all of us continue to suffer today.

This past week our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI has come under criticism for the way he has handled past cases of clergy sexual abuse of minors, including a case here involving Lawrence Murphy. The allegations against him, as well as the facts supporting him, are widely available.

The Holy Father does not need me to defend him or his decisions. I believe, and history will confirm that his actions in responding to this crisis, swiftly and decisively and his compassionate response to victims/survivors, speak for themselves. The Holy Father has been firm in his commitment to combat clergy sexual abuse; root it out of the Church; reach out to those who have been harmed; and hold perpetrators accountable. He has been a leader, meeting with victims/survivors and chastising bishops for their lack of judgment and leadership.

Mistakes were made in the Lawrence Murphy case. The mistakes were not made in Rome in 1996, 1997 and 1998. The mistakes were made here, in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s, by the Church, by civil authorities, by Church officials, and by bishops. And for that, I beg your forgiveness in the name of the Church and in the name of this Archdiocese of Milwaukee.

Because of those who have come forward -- those who have been harmed in a most egregious way; those who have been relentless in their criticism of the Church; those who have pushed and prodded – some say even forced -- the Church to change; those brave victims-survivors who have had the courage to come forward and publicly tell their story even after decades of feeling ignored -- because of their persistence and perseverance, we know the Church has changed.

We owe these victims/survivors our deep gratitude and we acknowledge our own actions have not always expressed that gratitude adequately.

We know that today the policies and procedures in place in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and across the United States, ensures to the best of our God-given ability, that no priest with a substantiated allegation of sexual abuse of a minor can ever serve as a priest again in our Church.

Read more: Zenit



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
The irony of no one listing to a def
kid its scary



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I found this excellent article by Pat Buchanan which does a great job of summing up the case and then-Cardinal Ratzinger's role in it.



Anti-Catholicism and the Times

The facts:

That diabolical priest, Lawrence C. Murphy, was assigned to St. John’s School for the Deaf in 1950, before Joseph Ratzinger was even ordained.

Reports of his abuse of the deaf children surfaced in the 1950s. But, under three archbishops, nothing was done. Police and prosecutors were alerted by parents of the boys. Nothing was done.

Weakland, who became archbishop in 1977, did not write to Rome until 1996.

And as John Allen of National Catholic Reporter noted last week, Cardinal Ratzinger “did not have any direct responsibility for managing the overall Vatican response to the crisis until 2001. … Prior to 2001, Ratzinger had nothing personally to do with the vast majority of sex abuse cases, even the small percentage which wound up in Rome.”

By the time Cardinal Ratzinger was commissioned by John Paul II to clean out the stable, Murphy had been dead for three years.



He then goes on to detail the checkered career of Milwaukee Archbishop Weakland, showing who the REAL monster was in this entire affair.



In Goodstein’s piece, Weakland is a prelate who acted too slowly. The controversy over his clouded departure from the Milwaukee archdiocese is mentioned and passed over at the bottom of the story. It belonged higher.

For Weakland was a homosexual who confessed in a 1980 letter he was in “deep love” with a male paramour who shook down the archbishop for $450,000 in church funds as hush money to keep his lover’s mouth shut about their squalid affair.

According to Rod Dreher, Weakland moved Father William Effinger, who would die in prison, from parish to parish, knowing Effinger was a serial pederast.

When one of Effinger’s victims sued the archdiocese but lost because of a statute of limitations, Weakland counter-sued and extracted $4,000 from the victim of his predator priest.

Dreher describes Weakland’s tenure thus:

“He directed Catholic schools … to teach kids how to use condoms as part of AIDS education and approved a graphic sex-education program for parochial-school kids that taught ‘there is no right and wrong’ on the issues of abortion, contraception and premarital sex. He has advocated for gay rights and women’s ordination, bitterly attacked Pope John Paul II, denounced pro-lifers as ‘fundamentalist’ and declared that one could be both pro-choice and a Catholic in good standing.”

Speaking of sex-abuse victims in 1988, Weakland was quoted: “Not all adolescent victims are so innocent. Some can be sexually very active and aggressive and often streetwise.”

Read more: Buchanan.org



Weakland was the monster here, NOT the Pope. He's the one who carried on a homosexual affair with a much younger man and paid Church funds to cover it up. He's the one who sat on this case until the offender was near death. He's the one who sued a victim of one of his pedophile priests after the case was thrown out because of the statute of limitations and suggested the victems of sexual abuse were asking for it.

Weakland is the monster who disgraced the Church in Milwaukee for decades. He's the one who's head should be served up on a platter for his crimes against the Church and the poor, suffering people of Milwaukee.


Edit to add: In case you were wondering, I'm NOT a big fan of Rembert Weakland.


[edit on 4/6/10 by FortAnthem]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
According to the Church's supposed master, it would be better if a millstone were hung around their necks and they (the abusers) were drowned in the sea.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Weakland was the monster here, NOT the Pope.

Which pope? Seems this and the last both didn't have a problem protecting pedos.


www.guardian.co.uk...
The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.

The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'

The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.

It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. But the instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)'.

or the CURRENT pope's past role:

Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.


He's the one who carried on a homosexual affair with a much younger man and paid Church funds to cover it up. He's the one who sat on this case until the offender was near death. He's the one who sued a victim of one of his pedophile priests after the case was thrown out because of the statute of limitations and suggested the victims of sexual abuse were asking for it.

Referring to men having sex with unconsenting (possibly disabled) underage boys as "homosexual affairs" is the same kind of rubbish nambla advocates spout.
Please be careful not to perpetuate the blame the victim mentality that protects and benefits rapists.



edited to be nicer..

[edit on 6-4-2010 by riley]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by riley
 



Pope John XXIII is suspected to be a Freemason and his intent may have been the eventual destruction of the Church.

Regarding Crimen Sollicitationi;



"It is important to state that the document 'Crimen Sollicitationi,' (updated in 2001) does not in any way inhibit criminal offences being reported to the public authorities by Catholic dioceses or religious orders," the archbishop clarified.

Misinterpretation

He noted that "in recent days, the meaning of this document has been misunderstood or misinterpreted as part of allegations of a 'cover-up' by the Holy See."

"The relationship between the administration of Church law and the criminal law in any particular state is a point of real difficulty and misunderstanding," Archbishop Nichols acknowledged.

He added, "Nothing in the requirement of Canon Law prohibits or impedes the reporting of criminal offences to the police."

He affirmed that "since 2001, the Holy See, working through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has encouraged that course of action on dioceses which have received evidence of child abuse and which the diocesan authorities are responsible for pursing."

Read more: Zenit



If any Pope should be held responsible for these scandals, it should be Pope John Paul II who ignored the problem for years until it exploded upon the scene.

Pope Benidict XVI has worked hard to fight this problem since he came into office.

Prelate: Church Has No Hiding Place for Pedophiles

The Church's Strict Patrol Against Pedophilia


There's plenty of blame to spread around regarding the sex scandals but, to lay them all at the feet of the current Pontiff is grossly dishonest.




Referring to men having sex with unconsenting (possibly disabled) underage boys as "homosexual affairs" is the same kind of rubbish nambla advocates spout.
Please be careful not to perpetuate the blame the victim mentality that protects and benefits rapists.


The person Weakland had an affair with was a grown man, that's what the "homosexual affairs" comment was referring to. It was Weakland who made the blame the victim comment.



edited to be nicer..


I appreciate that, thank you.

Believe me, I understand your outrage, us Catholics are just as pissed about this as everyone else. More so in many cases.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by riley
 



Pope John XXIII is suspected to be a Freemason and his intent may have been the eventual destruction of the Church.

You can try and drag freemasonry into this but that does NOT make him any less a catholic leader. Nice try at deflecting blame onto a rival organisation.. the catholic church are NOT the victim.



Regarding Crimen Sollicitationi;



"It is important to state that the document 'Crimen Sollicitationi,' (updated in 2001) does not in any way inhibit criminal offences being reported to the public authorities by Catholic dioceses or religious orders," the archbishop clarified.

Misinterpretation

He noted that "in recent days, the meaning of this document has been misunderstood or misinterpreted as part of allegations of a 'cover-up' by the Holy See."

"The relationship between the administration of Church law and the criminal law in any particular state is a point of real difficulty and misunderstanding," Archbishop Nichols acknowledged.

He added, "Nothing in the requirement of Canon Law prohibits or impedes the reporting of criminal offences to the police."

He affirmed that "since 2001, the Holy See, working through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has encouraged that course of action on dioceses which have received evidence of child abuse and which the diocesan authorities are responsible for pursing."

Read more: Zenit

Utter rubbish.. the "oh but it's taken out of context" does not wash and neither will that lame excuse hold up in a court room. It clearly means:
"If a kid comes forward complaining about being raped by a priest.. keep it secret." Your explanation would require IGNORING the fact that victims have asked the catholic church to do something and they have done NOTHING but cover up and transfer priests. They were told to keep things quiet and guess what? They did so they did not misunderstand anything.. they obviously understood the order perfectly and there are THOUSANDS of victims to prove it. You say the current pope was not directly to blame yet he signed that "shut them up and keep it all secret" document himself. All the evidence stinks of a in-house nambla like organisation. I honestly believe there is a established pedo ring right in the heart of the vatican.



Pope Benidict XVI has worked hard to fight this problem since he came into office.

Yes.. he worked VERY HARD to keep child rape victims silent.




Referring to men having sex with unconsenting (possibly disabled) underage boys as "homosexual affairs" is the same kind of rubbish nambla advocates spout.
Please be careful not to perpetuate the blame the victim mentality that protects and benefits rapists.


The person Weakland had an affair with was a grown man, that's what the "homosexual affairs" comment was referring to. It was Weakland who made the blame the victim comment.

The age of the children involved who TRIED to report it were between 14 and 15. EXACTLY how old was the "grown man" one involved in the "homosexual affair"? If he was an adult it's not relevant as there are 200+ victims who were children.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by riley]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


I looked up some more info on Crimen Sollicitationi



It was not with regard to sexual abuse by priests, but specifically with regard to the ecclesiastical crime of solicitation. You can read it here:

Crimen Sollicitationi PDF

It's a document governing the ecclesiastical prosecution in ecclesiastical courts of priests who commit the ecclesiastical crime of solicitation. It stresses that someone who is witness to the ecclesiastical crime of solicitation is obliged to report it to the competent ecclesiastical authority so that this ecclesiastical crime of solication does not remain hidden. The ecclesiastical crime of solicitation relates specifically to the Sacrament of Penance where a priest in connection with the Sacrament seduces the penitent or allows himself to be seduced by the penitent. It's not about the sexual abuse of minors as the ecclesiastical crime of solicitation relates only to the Sacrament of Penance and can involve adults as well as minors. If you look up the word "solicitation" in a regular dictionary, you won't find the definition in there as it is ecclesiastical "jargon"


Quote:
This is really weird. Given how reluctant the Church is to impose excommunication on anyone, especially laypeople, for anything but the most serious reason, I find this nearly impossible to believe. Does anyone have any solid information on this?

The ecclesiastical crime of solicitation is very serious as it is an abuse of the Sacrament of Penance. That's why laypeople were obliged to report it. You should keep in mind that at the same time it is important to protect the reputation of a priest who may be innocent.

You should also keep in mind that many if not most or even the vast majority of cases of the ecclesiastical crime of solication wouldn't be a crime under civil law. Let me just give you one such hypothetical, simplified example: Suppose a priest hears the confession of a 30 year old woman. The 30 year old woman during the confession tells the priest: "Father, let's have a one night stand." The priest instead of saying, "No that is wrong" says, "OK let's do it tonight" then by that very fact the priest would be guilty of the ecclesiastical crime of solicitation. As you can see this is grossly misreported in the secular media due to their wilful ignorance and hatred of the Catholic faith and of Jesus Christ.

Read more: Catholic Answers


You can read the document for yourself in the link.


"If a kid comes forward complaining about being raped by a priest.. keep it secret."


Show me where it says that in the document.


Edit to add: I did a thread on what a dirtbag Weakland is a while back: Pedephile Bishop Weakland Commissioned Bronze Relief of Himself for Cathederal

[edit on 4/6/10 by FortAnthem]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

You can read the document for yourself in the link.

I have.. it is desperate back peddling.



"If a kid comes forward complaining about being raped by a priest.. keep it secret."


Show me where it says that in the document.

I obviously paraphrased but that is EXACTLY what it meant.

..as proven by the priest transfers and the failure of the church to report numerous known sexual predators to the police. You can post as much pro-vatican propaganda as you like that doesn't change the fact that the vatican is STILL not handing over their known child rapists to police and has instead dismissed the existence of those victims as being "petty gossip".

If ANY other organisation did not report serial sexual abuse of children they would get shut down and management sent to prison. Right now the leaders of the catholic church are looking alot like a pedo sex ring.

Ratzinger knew about sexual abuse 40 years ago and did NOT report it to police.. and he is STILL not reporting it to the police which makes him an accesory after the fact.

He certainly can NOT plead ignorance now.. why hasn't he named those names..?

I do not think he should resign however.. I think he should be sacked and sent to prison.. and I want to see that vile man sit in a courtroom and tell the TRUTH with his hand on a bible.

The pope was meant to represent morality and righteousness.. now he represents the opposite. I really do feel very badly for all those Catholics who are trying to follow Jesus' teachings being faced with all this. It is a huge betrayal.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by riley]




top topics



 
6

log in

join