tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19838051.post3025378439214767035..comments2024-01-28T22:16:50.852-06:00Comments on Mr. Dilettante’s Neighborhood: The Matter of MurphyMr. Dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13920907647566015611noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19838051.post-43099427177495880582010-04-03T16:10:15.705-05:002010-04-03T16:10:15.705-05:00Always a pleasure to revisit the Politburo and its...Always a pleasure to revisit the Politburo and its former denizens.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19838051.post-88743341935299869842010-04-03T14:31:26.919-05:002010-04-03T14:31:26.919-05:00My criticism of Ratizger/the Pope is not so much f...<i>My criticism of Ratizger/the Pope is not so much for what was done incorrectly or only after great delay. My main complaint/concern is the concerted efforts to discredit the messenger. Think what you will of The Grey Lady, complain as you wish of the fairness of the coverage, its timing, etc. The point is that I am hearing/reading that this is systemic bias and unfairness directed at the Roman Catholic Church in this coverage. That's not true...the press sensationalizes anyone and anything caught in these circumstances. That the Curia has formed a circular condemnation squad shows how thoroughly out-of-touch and tone-deaf they continue to be with regard to ordinary parishioners and congregants.</i><br /><br />I understand your point, dm. I'm not convinced that the Grey Lady necessarily speaks for ordinary parishioners or congregants. It speaks for itself. And some of the voices emanating from the Times building are quite hostile to the Church. Your mileage may vary.<br /><br /><i>Do I believe that Benedict is letting old views prevail? No, I believe he is now, finally, doing what is right and just. That every member of the hierarchy is calling him and the church defenseless in the face of the mighty New York Times is a stretch, at best.</i><br /><br />They aren't defenseless, of course. The hierarchy is quite capable of defending itself without the help of a single blogger in Minnesota. I'm just calling it as I see it. And I think an honest reading of the evidence indicates that the process has been underway for a decade or more. <br /><br />As for the Times, it can defend itself as well. Organizations that buy ink by the barrel are usually quite capable of mounting an aggressive self-defense.<br /><br />Oh, and before I forget, thank you for visiting.Mr. Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13920907647566015611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19838051.post-32970112611814247002010-04-03T14:03:03.901-05:002010-04-03T14:03:03.901-05:00My criticism of Ratizger/the Pope is not so much f...My criticism of Ratizger/the Pope is not so much for what was done incorrectly or only after great delay. My main complaint/concern is the concerted efforts to discredit the messenger. Think what you will of The Grey Lady, complain as you wish of the fairness of the coverage, its timing, etc. The point is that I am hearing/reading that this is systemic bias and unfairness directed at the Roman Catholic Church in this coverage. That's not true...the press sensationalizes anyone and anything caught in these circumstances. That the Curia has formed a circular condemnation squad shows how thoroughly out-of-touch and tone-deaf they continue to be with regard to ordinary parishioners and congregants.<br /><br />Rocco Palmo put it best in his comments on the last station, last night. While condemnation and complaint from the highest levels of the church continue to come forth regarding coverage, there are good and faithful people who have been forced to carry this baggage through the years because of the Church's lack of response and institutional denial.<br /><br />Do I believe that Benedict is letting old views prevail? No, I believe he is now, finally, doing what is right and just. That every member of the hierarchy is calling him and the church defenseless in the face of the mighty New York Times is a stretch, at best.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19838051.post-19180848785434432192010-04-03T12:13:39.865-05:002010-04-03T12:13:39.865-05:00Why is it that Rembert Weakland, who committed his...<i>Why is it that Rembert Weakland, who committed his illicit, scandalous activity in a consensual, adult, homosexual relationship has suffered greater penalty against his priesthood and person than any of the perpretrators of the abuse that has been discussed over the past several weeks, and what does that say about the church?</i><br /><br />It says that the Church has work to do. No one is disputing that.<br /><br />Weakland is hardly a martyr, though. You can read his protests one of two ways: either he was a true crusader against abuse, or he was covering his ass. He was not archbishop when Murphy was committing his crimes, but he was archbishop during the investigation that was leading to a canonical trial. And he ignored the matter for 20 years. If he was truly committed to the cause of justice, he could have gone public with what was happening. Archbishops wield enormous power in the Church and it's difficult to see what sanction he would have faced for coming forward. He would have been lauded for bravery, for speaking truth to power. He didn't, most likely because he had too much to lose.<br /><br />If people want to finger Benedict for not acting the right way in retrospect, I don't think such a crticism of Weakland would be unwarranted either. In retrospect, right?Mr. Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13920907647566015611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19838051.post-82739695788753044632010-04-03T11:45:12.426-05:002010-04-03T11:45:12.426-05:00Why is it that Rembert Weakland, who committed his...Why is it that Rembert Weakland, who committed his illicit, scandalous activity in a consensual, adult, homosexual relationship has suffered greater penalty against his priesthood and person than any of the perpretrators of the abuse that has been discussed over the past several weeks, and what does that say about the church?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19838051.post-4750505818665684212010-04-01T10:45:03.975-05:002010-04-01T10:45:03.975-05:00Anon,
you are correct. There is additional info r...Anon, <br />you are correct. There is additional info regarding this matter to be considered. Especially Brundage's latest reversal of what he said last week. This week, Brundage is admitting that documents he had not previously seen show that the Vatican had encouraged the Milwaukee Archdiocese to halt the canonical trial. Encouraged is Brundage' weasel words for what actually happened. While the Vatican and the CDF did not actually order a halt to the trial, Bertone (Ratzinger's right hand man and representitive at the CDF) laid out a formal pastoral plan for Weakland to follow under an administrative process. (In other words, non-judicial. Pastoral is a weasel word for non-judicial measures). The admin process removed Murphy from ministry and required written apologies to his victims. Given the hierarchical nature of the Church, I am pretty certain a formal plan from the Vatican is taken as an order. But if you want to hide behind the notion that the Vatican did not ORDER the cessation of Murphy's trial, then I guess you have that right. But other documents in the Times archive show that Weakland was very much in favor of proceeding with the trial. So please don't try to spin this by blaming Weakland. We have had enough spin already, and blaming the odd man out is just BS. Additionally, <br />read Weakland’s seemingly heartfelt handwritten note to one of Murphy’s victims after his death. In it, Weakland notes that he had fought in Rome for a trial. <br /><br />BTW, this is all part of the public record. See "Letter from Weakland to Bertone" August 19, 1998, NYTimes documents, p.75Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19838051.post-21973229879001583812010-04-01T06:23:06.237-05:002010-04-01T06:23:06.237-05:00There is additional information regarding this mat...There is additional information regarding this matter to be considered: <br /><br />http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601<br /><br />Rembert Weakland's hand is all over this situation, and it appears that then Cardinal Ratzinger's hand is not. Blame need to be placed where it appropriately belongs, and that is at the feet of Weakland. As we found out later, Weakland indeed has something to hide, which clearly affected his response to abuse situations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com