Aggiornamento sulla pedofilia nella Chiesa

Bruno Mastroianni // Documentazione.info // http://www.documentazione.info/article.php?id=1111&idsez=41

I NUMERI: QUANTI SONO I CASI DI ABUSO?

La conta degli effettivi di casi di pedofilia da parte degli ecclesiastici non serve per sminuire il fenomeno, ma per capirlo nelle sue giuste dimensioni.

USA: Secondo lo studio del 2004 del John Jay College of Criminal Justice (link) i sacerdoti accusati di relazioni sessuali con i minori sono dal 1950 al 2002 circa 4.392. Massimo Introvigne in un articolo sull’Avvenire ha fatto notare che di questi, quelli accusati di effettiva pedofilia sono 958. I condannati in tutto 54, poco più di uno all’anno (i sacerdoti e i religiosi negli Stati Uniti sono circa 109.000). Per avere una misura di paragone nello stesso periodo negli USA, sono state 6.000 le condanne relative a professori di ginnastica e allenatori giudicati colpevoli dello stesso reato dai tribunali statunitensi. Il fenomeno oggi negli USA è drasticamente ridotto: uno studio commissionato dall Conferenza Episcopale Nord Americana (link) dichiara che nel 2009 sono in esame solo 6 casi sospetti, su 109.000 sacerdoti. Il periodico Newsweek (link) ha registrato che le compagnie di assicurazione americane non fanno pagare un premio maggiore per assicurare contro gli abusi nelle istituzioni cattoliche: stando ai dati non c’è un maggiore rischio.

Germania: in un articolo del Giornale, Andrea Tornielli, riporta che in Germania dal 1995 sono stati denunciati 210mila casi di reati contro minori, i casi sospetti avvenuti nell’ambito della Chiesa cattolica sono 94 (1 su 2000).

Irlanda: il Rapporto Ryan del 2009 (link) ha registrato le testimonianze di casi di violenze (non solo sessuali ma soprattutto fisiche e psicologiche) nel sistema scolastico dell’isola dal 1914 al 2000, riscontrando 381 persone che hanno dichiarato di aver subito abusi sessuali da parte di personale scolastico, visitatori, alunni più grandi e solo in piccola parte da chierici. Il Rapporto Murphy (link) sulla diocesi di Dublino ha registrato dal 1974 al 2009 le testimonianze di 440 persone che accusano sacerdoti.

Malta: secondo i dati forniti da una Commissione istituita ad hoc (link) dagli anni ’70 ad oggi sono stati accusati 45 sacerdoti. In 19 casi le accuse sono state respinte perché infondate, 13 casi sono ancora da esaminare e 13 sono sotto processo. Di questi ultimi 4 son stati condannati, 7 devono essere ancora ascoltati dalla Santa Sede e 2 sono deceduti.

Congregazione dottrina della fede: Mons. Scicluna, della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, in un’intervista ha dichiarato che dal 2001 al 2010, la Congregazione si è occupata di circa 3000 casi di sacerdoti diocesani e religiosi che riguardano delitti commessi negli ultimi cinquanta anni. Solo nel 10 per cento dei casi si tratta di atti di pedofilia, quindi circa 300 in tutto il mondo. Il numero complessivo di sacerdoti diocesani e religiosi nel mondo è di 400 mila.

DOCUMENTI E DISPOSIZIONI ESPLICITE

Nei discorsi sulla pedofilia si tirano in ballo alcuni documenti dando l’informazione errata che conterrebbero istruzioni per la copertura dei casi di pedofilia. In realtà tutti i documenti sono ufficiali e pubblici, e l’atteggiamento di condanna agli abusi è chiaro e forte. Le incomprensioni nascono da cattive traduzioni e imprecisioni dovute al fatto che i documenti sono redatti in latino e non vi erano fino a poco tempo fa traduzioni ufficiali in altre lingue.

Il primo è l’istruzione “Crimen sollicitationis” (testo latino) un testo del 1922 riedito da un Giovanni XXXIII nel 1962 che si occupa del reato di istigazione a cose turpi da parte dei confessori. Il documento, che tratta principalmente di altri abusi, fa un riferimento anche alla pedofilia chiamandola crimen pessimum. Nel documento è esplicito l’obbligo di denunciare i crimini (traduzione in italiano non ufficiale dei passi più espliciti).

Il secondo è il “De delictis gravioribus” (testo latino, in italiano) firmato da Joseph Ratzinger e Tarcisio Bertone nel 2001, fu redatto per dare corso al motu proprio “Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela”(testo latino, in italiano) di Papa Giovanni Paolo II che, proprio per evitare insabbiamenti e pasticci locali, assegna la competenza in materia di pedofilia alla Congregazione per la dottrina della fede.

La conferma di tutto ciò l’hanno data anche le Linee guida che seguirono l’istruzione: informare la Santa Sede, seguire le disposizioni della giustizia civile, allontanare il sospetto dalle attività pastorali.

Se ci sono stati insabbiamenti e omissioni, essi si devono a una mancanza di fedeltà alle disposizione del Papa e del Magistero.

L’AZIONE DI BENEDETTO XVI

Papa Benedetto XVI, prima come Prefetto della Dottrina della Fede poi come Papa è, senza dubbio colui che più si è impegnato a correggere questa piaga nella Chiesa. Da leggere la recente Lettera ai cattolici irlandesi. In essa c’è una chiara condanna del fenomeno e un forte invito ai vescovi a prendersi le proprie responsabilità per riparare e far sì che non accada in futuro. Stessa chiarezza e determinazione che il Papa ha mostrato durante il suo viaggio negli USA (qui una rassegna dei suoi interventi sulla pedofilia) e in Australia (qui una rassegna dei suoi interventi).

I CASI DI CUI SI E’ PARLATO SUI MEDIA

Finora sulla stampa sono stati tirati in ballo alcuni casi di pedofilia che in qualche modo sembrano toccare il Pontefice. Ognuno, visto da vicino, dimostra da parte di Ratzinger una condotta limpida e cristallina:

1. Padre Murphy a Milwakee: è il caso di un sacerdote macchiatosi di reati di pedofilia negli anni ’70. Le carte dicono che la Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede (di cui era prefetto allora Ratzinger) fu consultata 20 anni dopo i fatti per una accusa di crimine di sollecitazione (e non per gli abusi). La Congregazione invitò a tenere il sacerdote comunque alla larga dalle attività pastorali nonostante fossero passati così tanti anni senza evidenze di altri crimini e nonostante la stessa giustizia civile aveva archiviato il caso (qui la spiegazione completa).

2. Padre Kiesle a Oakland: è il caso di una lettera del 1985 in cui il Card. Ratzinger invita a non concedere in fretta la dispensa dal celibato a un sacerdote accusato di pedofilia e già sotto processo per l’espulsione dal sacerdozio. Alcuni media hanno confuso le due cose: la dispensa dal celibato (che è una concessione) dall’espulsione dal sacerdozio che è una pena (qui la spiegazione completa).

3. Padre H nella arcidiocesi di Monaco e Frisinga: un pedofilo trasferito nella diocesi all’epoca in cui Ratzinger era arcivescovo. Il caso risale al 1980. È emerso nel 1985 ed è stato giudicato da un tribunale tedesco nel 1986. Il cardinale Ratzinger era estraneo alla vicenda come ha ammesso il suo vicario dell’epoca (qui la spiegazione).

4. Il fratello del Papa: è sembrato che due casi di abuso avvenuti a Ratisbona intorno al ’58 che è sembrato toccassero il fratello del Papa. In realtà i casi sono entrambi noti, giuridicamente chiusi e riguardanti un periodo diverso dalla direzione del coro da parte di Georg Ratzinger dal 1964 al 1994 (vedere già citato articolo di Tornielli che spiega i due casi).

IL CELIBATO NON C’ENTRA CON LA PEDOFILIA

Si è sentito anche parlare di un nesso tra pedofilia e celibato. Lo psichiatra Manfred Lutz, uno dei maggiori esperti del tema, in una recente intervista ha spiegato come questo nesso non ci sia affatto, anzi, gli esperti affermano che chi vive l’astinenza sessuale è meno a rischio di commettere abusi rispetto a chi è sposato. Nel già citato articolo di Introvigne si riportano gli studi di Jerkins che hanno registrato come i casi di pedofilia siano presenti in misura maggiore tra le diverse denominazioni protestanti ove i pastori possono contrarre matrimonio. Anche il dato già citato dei 6.000 casi di abuso negli Stati Uniti nello stesso periodo di quelli ecclesiastici sono ad opera in maggioranza di persone sposate. Insomma un nesso tra celibato e pedofilia non sembra esserci.

La crisis de la pederastia en la Iglesia en 1.001 palabras

Los cargos

 

New York Times (NYT) publica (12/3/10) que en 1980 la archidiócesis de Múnich y Freising, siendo Joseph Ratzinger obispo, acogió y finalmente reincorporó a un sacerdote acusado de abusar sexualmente de niños. El cura perpetró más tarde nuevos abusos y fue procesado. Como se ha demostrado después, quien tomó la decisión de readmisión no fue Ratzinger sino el vicario general: la reasignación tuvo lugar en septiembre de 1982, cuando Ratzinger ya estaba en Roma .

Por las mismas fechas (5/03/10) se intenta implicar al hermano de Ratzinger, pero la acusación no se sostiene.

La respuesta de Benedicto XVI

Benedicto XVI (19/03/10) escribe una carta a los católicos de Irlanda [inglés, castellano] sobre los abusos a niños y jóvenes por parte de clérigos, destapados por los informes Murphy (julio 2009) y Ryan (mayo 2009). Irlanda es el segundo país tras Estados Unidos donde se investiga a fondo.

En la misiva, Benedicto XVI apunta 8 causas de este desastre: 1) inadecuada respuesta a la secularización, 2) descuido de prácticas sacramentales y devocionales (confesión frecuente, oración diaria y retiros anuales), 3) tendencia a adoptar formas de pensamiento y juicio sin referencia suficiente al Evangelio; 4) tendencia a evitar enfoques penales de las situaciones canónicamente irregulares; 5) procedimientos inadecuados para determinar la idoneidad de los candidatos al sacerdocio y a la vida religiosa; 6) insuficiente formación humana, moral, intelectual y espiritual en los seminarios y noviciados; 7) tendencia social a favorecer el clero y otras figuras de autoridad y 8 ) preocupación fuera de lugar por el buen nombre de la Iglesia y para evitar escándalos.

A las víctimas dice: “Habéis sufrido inmensamente y eso me apesadumbra en verdad. Sé que nada puede borrar el mal que habéis soportado. (…)  Es comprensible que os resulte difícil perdonar o reconciliaros con la Iglesia. En su nombre, expreso abiertamente la vergüenza y el remordimiento que sentimos todos. Al mismo tiempo, os pido que no perdáis la esperanza”. A los sacerdotes y religiosos que han abusado de niños: “Debéis responder de ello ante Dios todopoderoso y ante los tribunales debidamente constituidos”. A los obispos: “No se puede negar que algunos de vosotros y de vuestros predecesores habéis fallado, a veces gravemente, a la hora de aplicar las normas, codificadas desde hace largo tiempo, del derecho canónico sobre los delitos de abusos de niños. Se han cometido graves errores en la respuesta a las acusaciones”.

Benedicto XVI propone cinco medidas: 1) un año de penitencia, 2) redescubrir el sacramento de la Reconciliación (la confesión), 3) fomentar la adoración eucarística; 4) una Visita Apostólica (una inspección) en algunas diócesis, seminarios y congregaciones religiosas; 5) una misión para todos los obispos, sacerdotes y religiosos. En otras palabras: hacer limpieza.

Más cargos aún

El 24/03/10, NYT apunta directamente a Benedicto XVI como responsable de un caso, cuando era todavía cardenal: el de Lawrence Murphy, que abusó de niños sordos en los 70 en Milwaukee y no fue condenado ni por la justicia ordinaria ni por el arzobispado. Como se ha visto después, la falta de diligencia en el castigo del malhechor fue culpa del propio arzobispado local: el caso no llegó al Vaticano hasta los 90. El sesgo de la noticia periodística puede explicarse por errores de traducción y porque el artículo bebe de dos fuentes: los abogados que han denunciado al Arzobispado (uno de ellos, Jeffrey Anderson, tiene litigio abierto contra la Santa Sede) y el arzobispo retirado de Milwaukee Rembert Weakland, en activo cuando sucedió todo.

El 2/2/10 Associated Press lanzó otra acusación contra Benedicto XVI, cuya pruebas se demostraron falsas. El 9/4/10 volvió a la carga NYT con más acusaciones, con igual suerte.

En resumen, las acusaciones contra la Iglesia son tres: 1) algunos sacerdotes católicos abusaron de niños, 2) muchos obispos lo ocultaron, y 3) Benedicto XVI es personalmente responsable. Con datos en la mano, el n. 1 es lamentablemente cierto en una ínfima minoría del colectivo; n. 2 se afirma en determinados prelados y n. 3 es rotundamente falso.

Las consecuencias

Algunos piden juzgar al Papa por encubrimiento, y aprovechan para suspender al catolicismo en su conjunto. Otros de funesto recuerdo ya habían intentado, tiempo atrás usar los delitos de unos pocos para desacreditar a toda la institución. Algunos abogados intentan sacar provecho. No han faltado voces amigas del Papa desde el judaísmo, desde el agnosticismo y, en general, desde ambientes intelectuales.

El Vaticano ha puesto sobre la mesa la información que tiene. Tal ejercicio de transparencia ha llegado al extremo de que el fiscal del Vaticano hable sobre los casos de abusos en una documentada entrevista. La Santa Sede ha publicado los reglamentos por los cuales se juzgan estos casos y abundante documentación.

Dentro de la Iglesia, ha habido partidarios de la ruptura y partidarios de la renovación. Ruptura: 1) algunas voces reclaman una revisión del celibato y de la moral católica, aunque expertos y opinadores incluso no católicos han denunciado con datos la inexistencia de tal vinculación causa-efecto. 2) exponentes antirromanos de cierta edad han reclamado la dimisión del Papa o una reforma.

Renovación: muchos han aplaudido el posicionamiento de Benedicto XVI de tolerancia cero, petición de perdón y penitencia y conversión. Muchos católicos han salido de la perplejidad buscando la verdad de los hechos. La operación limpieza iniciada años atrás ha retomado impulso: desde la carta a Irlanda han dimitido dos obispos irlandeses, un americano, un alemán, un noruego y un belga. El liderazgo interno de Benedicto XVI es mayor ahora: se percibe Benedicto XVI como parte de la solución, y no parte del problema.

Además de la Iglesia, pocos han priorizado la protección de las víctimas y las medidas para acabar con la pederastia. Es una lástima, tanto más cuando se constata que es un problema transversal: afecta más gravemente a muchos otros colectivos sociales. Países como Alemania, ya lo afrontan globalmente. Algunos articulistas han apuntado a la culpa que en la extensión del fenómeno haya podido tener la revolución sexual de los sesenta y su simpatía declarada hacia la pedofilia.

Marc Argemí

http://twitter.com/marcargemi

 

La crisi de la pederàstia a l’Església, en 1001 paraules

Els càrrecs

New York Times (NYT) publica (12/3/10) que el 1980 l’arxidiòcesi de Munic i Freising acollí i finalment reincorporà a les seves funcions un sacerdot acusat d’abusar sexualment de nens. El bisbe era aleshores Joseph Ratzinger. El capellà perpetrà més tard nous abusos i fou processat. Com s’ha demostrat després, qui prengué la decisió de readmetre’l no fou Ratzinger sinó el vicari general: la reassignació tingué lloc el setembre de 1982, quan Ratzinger ja estava a Roma.

Per les mateixes dates (5/03/10) s’intenta implicar el germà de Ratzinger, però l’acusació directe a ell no se sostè.

La resposta de Benet XVI a la pederàstia

Benet XVI (19/03/10) escriu una carta als catòlics d’Irlanda [anglès, castellà, català] sobre els abusos a nens i joves per part de clergues, destapats pels informes Murphy (juliol 2009) i Ryan (maig 2009). Irlanda és el segon país, després d’Estats Units, on s’investiga a fons.

En la missiva, Benet XVI apunta 8 causes d’aquest desastre de l’Església: 1) inadequada resposta a la secularització; 2) descuit de pràctiques sagramentals i devocionals (confessió freqüent, pregària diària i recessos anuals); 3) tendència a adoptar formes de pensament i judici sense referència suficient a l’Evangeli; 4) tendència a evitar enfocaments penals de les situacions canònicament irregulars; 5) procediments inadequats per a determinar la idoneïtat dels candidats al sacerdoci i a la vida religiosa; 6) insuficient formació humana, moral, intel·lectual i espiritual en els seminaris i noviciats; 7) tendència social a afavorir el clergat i altres figures d’autoritat i 8 ) una preocupació fora de lloc pel bon nom de l’Església i per evitar escàndols.

A les víctimes diu: “Heu sofert immensament. N’estic tan apesarat! Sé que res pot esborrar el mal que heu suportat. (…). És comprensible que us sigui difícil perdonar o reconciliar-vos amb l’Església. En el seu nom, expresso obertamentla vergonya i el remordiment que tots sentim. Al mateix temps, us demano que no perdeu l’esperança”. Alssacerdots i religiosos que han abusat de nens: “Respondreu davant Déu Totpoderós i davant els tribunals degudament constituïts”. Als bisbes: “no es pot negar que alguns de vosaltres i dels vostres predecessors heu fracassat, de vegades lamentablement, a l’hora d’aplicar les normes, codificades fa molt de temps, del dret canònic sobre els delictes d’abusos de nens. S’han comès greus errors en resposta a les acusacions”.

Benet XVI proposa, a més, cinc mesures: 1) un any de penitència; 2) redescobrir el sagrament de la Reconciliació (la confessió); 3) fomentar l’adoració eucarística; 4) una Visita Apostòlica (una inspecció) en algunes diòcesis, seminaris i congregacions religioses; 5) una missió per a tots els bisbes, sacerdots i religiosos. En altres paraules: fer net.

Més càrrecs encara

El 24/03/10, NYT apunta directament Benet XVI com a responsable d’un cas quan era encara cardenal: el funest cas de Lawrence Murphy, que va abusar de nens sords durant els 70 a la diòcesi de Milwaukee i no fou condemnat ni per la justícia ordinària ni per l’arquebisbat. Com s’ha vist després, la manca de diligència en el càstig del malfactor fou culpa del propi arquebisbat local: el cas no va arribar al Vaticà fins als 90. L’esbiaix de la notícia periodística pot explicar-seper errors de traducció i perquè l’article beu de dues fonts: els advocats que han denunciat l’Arquebisbat (un d’ells, Jeffrey Anderson, té litigi obert amb la Santa Seu) i l’arquebisbe retirat de Milwaukee Rembert Weakland, en actiu en el moment dels fets.

El 2/2/10 Associated Press llançà una nova acusació contra Benet XVI, les proves de la qual es demostraren falses. El 9/4/10 hi tornà NYT amb més acusacions, amb igual sort.

En resum, les acusacions contra l’Església són tres: 1) alguns sacerdots catòlics abusaren de nens; 2) molts bisbes ho ocultaren, i 3) Benet XVI n’és personalment responsable. Amb dades a la mà, el n. 1 és lamentablement cert en una ínfima minoria del col·lectiu; n. 2 s’afirma en determinats prelats i n. 3 és rotundament fals.

Les conseqüències

Alguns han reclamat jutjar el Papa per encobriment, i han aprofitat per un judici negatiu sobre el catolicisme en en el seu conjunt. Altres de funest record ja havien intentat, temps enrere usar els delictes d’uns pocs per desacreditar tota la institució. Alguns advocats intenten treure’n profit. No han faltat veus amigues del Papa des del judaisme, des del’agnosticisme i, en general, des d’ambients intel·lectuals.

El Vaticà ha posat sobre la taula tota la informació de què disposa. L’exercici de transparència ha arribat fins a l’extrem que el fiscal del Vaticà parlés sobre els casos d’abusos en una documentada entrevista. La Santa Seu ha fet públics els reglaments pels quals es jutgen aquests casos i abundant documentació.

Dins de l’Església, hi ha hagut partidaris de la ruptura i partidaris de la renovació. Ruptura: 1) algunes veus reclamen una revisió del celibat per capellans i de la moral catòlica, encara que experts i opinadors fins i tot no catòlics han denunciat amb dades la inexistència d’aquesta vinculació causa-efecte. 2) exponents antiromans de certa edat han reclamat la dimissió del Papa o una reforma.

Renovació: molts han aplaudit el posicionament de Benet XVI de tolerància zero, petició de perdó i penitència iconversió. Molts catòlics han intentat sortir de la perplexitat cercant la veritat dels fets. L’operació neteja iniciada anys enrere ha agafat embranzida: des de la carta a Irlanda han dimitit dos bisbes irlandesos, un americà, un alemany, un norueg i un belga. El lideratge intern de Benet XVI és més gran ara que mesos enrere. Es percep Benet XVI com partde la solució, i no part del problema.

A banda de la feina de l’Església, pocs han prioritzat la protecció de les víctimes i mesures per acabar amb la pederàstia. És una llàstima, i encara més quan es constata que el problema és tranversal: afecta més greument a molts d’altres col·lectius socials. Països com Alemanya, ja ho afronten globalment. Alguns articulistes han assenyalat la culpa que en l’extensió del fenomen pot haver tingut la revolució sexual dels seixanta i la seva simpatia declarada vers la pedofília.

Marc Argemí

http://www.facebook.com/marcargemi

Declaración abogado sobre abusos sexuales

font: http://visnews-es.blogspot.com/2010/04/declaracion-abogado-americano-sobre.html

CIUDAD DEL VATICANO, 23 ABR 2010 (VIS).-Con motivo de la denuncia contra la Santa Sede, que abogados de Estados Unidos, en nombre de una víctima de abuso sexual por parte de un sacerdote, han presentado en el Tribunal Federal de Milwaukee (EE.UU.), la Oficina de Prensa de la Santa Sede remite a la declaración del abogado Jeffrey Lena, encargado de defender a la Santa Sede en Estados Unidos.

“En primer lugar, hay que manifestar compasión a las víctimas de los actos delictivos cometidos por el padre Lawrence Murphy. Por haber abusado sexualmente de niños, Murphy ha violado tanto la ley como la confianza que sus víctimas habían depositado en él.

“Aunque las víctimas de abusos han presentado denuncias legítimas, en este caso no se trata de una de ellas. Al contrario, la denuncia supone un intento de utilizar los trágicos acontecimientos como una plataforma para realizar un ataque más amplio. Este último ataque pretende representar a la Iglesia Católica como si fuera una empresa multinacional”.

“El caso contra la Santa Sede y sus representantes no tiene fundamento. La mayor parte del contenido de esta denuncia es una mezcla de viejas teorías ya rechazadas por tribunales de los EE.UU. En cuanto a Murphy, la Santa Sede y sus representantes no sabían nada de sus crímenes hasta unas décadas después de que cometiera los abusos, y no tenían nada que ver con los daños sufridos por el demandante.

“Dado que no tiene ningún fundamento, la denuncia -con su rueda de prensa y los comunicados de rigor- es simplemente el intento más reciente de algunos abogados de EE.UU. de utilizar el proceso judicial como una herramienta para relacionarse con los medios de comunicación.

“Si es necesario, responderemos más claramente a esta denuncia en el tribunal y en el momento oportuno.
OP/ VIS 20100423 (300)

Judge reflects on his role in church trial against abusive Milwaukee priest

source: http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=674

JOEL DAVIDSON // CatholicAnchor.org

Father Thomas Brundage, current pastor at St. Michael Church in Palmer, was the presiding judge in the now widely publicized canonical trial of a priest accused of abusing deaf children decades ago in Milwaukee. The 1996-98 trial against Father Lawrence Murphy involved numerous charges of child sexual abuse, including solicitation within the confessional, while he was working at St. John’s School for the Deaf from 1950 to 1974.

Father Brundage, now moderator of the curia and judicial vicar in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, wrote a column that appeared March 29 at the Catholic Anchor Web site, in which he attempted to clarify certain aspects of the trial and the Vatican’s involvement in instructing the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to halt the case. The column, which was picked up by major media around the world, can be read at catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601.

The Anchor conducted a follow-up interview with Father Brundage April 8 to clarify some of the many questions surrounding the trial and to explain exactly how the church deals with cases of priestly sex abuse.

When you first took on this case in 1996, did you ever think it would turn into an issue of global concern for the Catholic Church?

Yes, simply because of the numbers and because we were dealing with a very special community – that is a community that literally did not have a voice. But in fact, this story has broken several times in the press. It broke first in 1974, when cars at Sunday Mass at St. Johns Cathedral in Milwaukee were leafleted by members of the deaf community making accusations against Father Murphy. I know the police were contacted but it’s my understanding they did not follow up because of the statute of limitations.

You mentioned before that it had been common knowledge that some sort of abuse had occurred by Father Murphy but that nothing had been done by civil authorities or by the church.

I wouldn’t agree with that way of stating it. There were rumors about something happening. I had no concrete knowledge other than rumors and it is hard to act on rumors. I only came onto the scene into a position of authority as head of the tribunal in 1995 and my first real knowledge of the case came when I met with some of the victims in 1996. It didn’t take long after that to start a trial. We’ve been criticized for going too slowly during that 18-month period, however, Father Murphy had a right to a defense and legal processes, by their very nature, tend to be tedious and slow. Just like a civil judge, any tribunal judge is looking over his back to make sure he is dotting all his I’s to make the case as appeal proof as possible

What did the victims want to see happen from a trial?

In meeting with the deaf community there were two things I remember that were bottom-line issues. First was that Father Murphy be removed from the priesthood and second that he not be allowed to be buried in his priestly robes.

Can you explain why, in 1996, the Milwaukee Archdiocese contacted the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith, which was then headed Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope?

The CDF was contacted because there were two different charges in this case. One was solicitation in the confessional. The other was sexual abuse of minors. For that first charge, the competent body at the Holy See was the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

What did you want to know?

The main thing was, we didn’t even know if we could start a trial because at that point in history there was a 30-day statute of limitations and these crimes were already from 20 years ago. We asked for a waiver and received one. I only remember one other case that received such a sweeping waiver. That showed me the Vatican was really serious about this case.

Current Archbishop of Milwaukee Jerome Listecki apologized April 1 for mistakes made in the Father Murphy case on the archdiocesan level. What do you think the archdiocese could have done differently?

In 1974, when this case became known, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee did have a tribunal and the case could have, theoretically, been brought to the tribunal. Why it was not, I don’t know.

How about when you took the case in 1996? Do you think you could have done anything better then?

My greatest regret is that Father Murphy managed to die before we completed the trial. Had he died, removed from the priesthood and not buried in his priestly robes, that would have done so much good.

So do you think the Murphy trial should have been halted?

Hindsight is 20/20. On Rome’s behalf – and remember this was prior to the huge revelations of sex abuse in 2002 – I think Rome was trying to show clemency to a dying man. I think that was their point of view. But what I know now and the way I feel now, I don’t think he deserved it.

Sitting as a judge in that case, what did you experience as the greatest challenge?

Some of the members of the deaf community told me that one of the reasons this case did not come out faster and stronger, earlier, was because the deaf community already feels different and they thought that by exposing this it would embarrass their own community. Over the years, however, this aversion to having publicity on this case has eroded and justly so.

One of my concerns about the trial was that it was almost like re-victimizing the victims because I had to have them come in and tell me these very hard stories. Yet, we proceeded with the trial because that was the wish of the deaf community and Archbishop Weakland and I were in concurrency with that.

But in 1998 you had direct orders from Archbishop Weakland, via the Vatican to stop the case. It that right?

The documents seem to support that, yes.

At that time, the idea of defrocking Father Murphy was over, right? There was no chance of defrocking him once the trial was ordered to halt?

No. If Father Murphy had recovered, we could have reopened the case. Abatement does not halt the case permanently. In order for the case to be permanently stopped, it would have to be suppressed. This is an important technical distinction. Had Father Murphy survived his illness and been restored to health, we could have written back to the Holy See and informed them of the restoration of health. Knowing what I know now, I’m sure we would have continued with the trial and brought it to an end. But once again, Murphy died an ill-timed death.

What is the process of defrocking a priest?

Basically, an accusation has to be made. If it is criminal in nature, in most dioceses in the United States, the police are contacted immediately. That is the first thing you do. Then you go in one of multiple different directions depending on what the priest does or does not admit to. Simultaneously an independent review board, which almost every diocese has, looks at the case. They are independent of the power of the bishop. They do their own review of the case and offer advice on how we might be able to address it. Part of this depends on the priest. If the allegations are criminal and they are substantiated, if the priest is willing to comply with us, we would do a laicization process. It is the same thing as being defrocked. At the end of the day, you no longer have the rights and responsibilities of a priest. A lot of men did leave the priesthood at that time and I remember having some conversations with priests who were credibly accused and I basically said to them, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way but we will wind up in the same place.” Most times they would voluntarily seek laicization.

However, the priest does have a right to a defense. There have been some false accusations, but in my experience, most accusations are true.

So Father Murphy must have been unwilling to undergo laicization?

Exactly. Father Murphy was in a lot of denial about the harm that he had done. Somehow he thought that because he had been free of these crimes for 20 or more years he had a right to remain in the priesthood.

While Father Murphy was not given any more official parish assignments after 1974, he was not defrocked. I think it is difficult to understand why a priest who was credibly enough accused that the diocese refused to give him any more official assignments, still was not barred from the priesthood.

It is difficult for me to believe. That is the bottom line. If I were the bishop of the day, I would have applied for laicization for Father Murphy. However, there is a school of thought that says as long as a man is a priest, you have some control over him. Some of the concerns of laicizing child sex abusers is that you cut him out of the church and then what?

In your column that appeared March 29th on the Catholic Anchor Web site, you note that in 2001 the authority to hear clergy sex abuse cases was transferred to the Vatican’s Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, which was headed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who later became Pope Benedict XVI. In the column, you praise the future pope for changes he orchestrated that made it easier to address sex abuse cases in a timely manner. On a local level, as a tribunal judge in Milwaukee, how were these cases processed differently after Cardinal Ratzinger’s office took control of them?

We’re not talking about a lot of cases because I stopped being the Judicial Vicar in 2003 so the window there is only two years. I’m not privy what happened after I departed.

But in the cases that I did, I found they were handled fairly and were going much quicker. Previously, cases sometimes languished in the Roman Rota for years at a time. The Roman Rota is one of two supreme courts in the church. When Cardinal Ratzinger took over the competency to deal with these cases, it was almost a night and day difference. I think most of my colleagues would agree.

It has been noted in a number of press reports that in past decades, many in the church and in society at large thought it was viable option to address sexual abuse by simply giving the abusive person therapy treatments before letting them resume their work. It seems there has been a pretty major change – especially when you look at the U.S. bishops’ 2002 document that basically says you have one strike and you’re out of the priesthood.

Today, every one of us priests knows that even an unfounded accusation will sidelined us until we can be vindicated. We are all under that burden, but the church has made so many mistakes in the past that we are willing to accept burdens like that.

Some have accused the church of being overly concerned about creating scandal by bringing priests to trial. This comes up in the Father Murphy case when Vatican officials expressed concern that the trial entailed crimes that were committed decades ago and it would require bringing in many witnesses, which would also need interpreters. The concern was that this might make it difficult to avoid creating widespread scandal. Can you explain this concern of minimizing scandal and why church trials are not public?

It does go back to the issue of scandal. We all know that it is wrong for anyone to abuse a child. It is even more wrong for a clergyman or anyone in a respected position. I do think the result of the trial is in fact public – the person in laicized and removed from the priesthood. But going beyond the issue of scandal, there is also a concern for the privacy of victims. Some of this information from victims is very, very privileged – they are telling exactly how they were abused.

In these matters there is also collateral damage. First, there are horrific crimes against the victims. Making that worse is the fact that some of these crimes took place in the confessional. But sex abuse also affects the victims’ families and even the court personnel. It affected me and does to this day. It also affects the interpreters in these meetings. I’m not comparing the collateral damage to the damage done to the victim but this is part of the untold story of what abuse does. It is toxic. Anytime you get close to it, it is poisonous.

What positive impact might come out of so much press about this case and other cases of sex abuse within the church?

As hard as it is to say, had the press not pressed so hard, especially starting around 2002 with the Boston eruption, a lot of this stuff might not have come out. This is corruption and it needed to come out. The other possible blessing is that there is a ton of child sexual abuse in society as a whole. People can look to the Catholic Church to see what mistakes to avoid because we sure made plenty.

In recent weeks, several Vatican officials and bishops have said that part of the media interest over sex abuse allegations is born of an effort to discredit the church because it stands for things that are diametrically opposed to a lot of the ideas in popular culture. Most notably are the teachings about marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the sanctity of life from birth to natural death, and the church’s teaching about human sexuality when it comes to birth control and contraception. In your experience with reporters recently, how accurate are these claims?

It is a combination. There is a justified horror in finding out what happened in these sex abuse cases. Some journalists are really trying to get the story right. There are some really fine journalists out there. Over the last couple weeks, I do think the frenzy has also feed into those who want to destroy the papacy and by extension the church itself.

One of the little reported facts in all of the recent stories about clergy sex abuse is that the latest report by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops shows that there were only six cases of reported child sex abuse that actually occurred in 2009. The other claims are from instances that happened decades ago.

When you look at the number of priests in the United States and look at the kind of spotlight we are under, what this shows me is that the reforms that began in the late 1980’s are working. Those reforms started making a difference in the 1990s because there have not been many reported cases since then.

Seminarians are now tightly scrutinized prior to admission to the seminary. Most dioceses spend several thousand dollars in psychosexual testing. A whole new generation of priests have undergone that type of inspection.

The Case of Father Lawrence Murphy of Milwaukee, WI

From: http://popebenedictandclergyabuse.blogspot.com/

The Charges

• Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys, by Laurie Goodstein. New York Times March 24, 2010. The charge: “Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church.”
• Events in the Case of an Accused Priest by Laurie Goodstein. New York Times March 31, 2010.

Critical Responses to the New York Times

• Smoking Gun Memo In Murphy Paedophilia Case!, by Jimmy Akin. National Catholic RegisterApril 5, 2010. “[An accurate translation of the memos] reveals just how completely wrong theNew York Times and the mainstream media have gotten this story.”
• Lost in translation, Vatican edition Get Religion April 8, 2010. “I hope that it’s possible to simultaneously condemn the abuse of children that has taken place, to criticize the Vatican’s handling of the problem over the years, and to hope that the media work to cover this storymore responsibly than we’ve been seeing.”
• Italian political paper: “New York Times needs consultants more than Vatican does” Catholic News Agency April 6, 2010. Charging a failure in translation, the influential Italian political newspaper Il Foglio published an article today criticizing the New York Times for relying on a computer-generated translation from Italian to English of important responses from the Vatican to a sex abuse case.
• Cardinal Levada to NY Times: Reconsider ‘attack mode’ against Pope Benedict March 30th, 2010. Catholic San Francisco‘s editorial by the current Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. “As I write this response today (March 26, 2010) I have had to admit to them that I am not proud of America’s newspaper of record, the New York Times, as a paragon of fairness.”
• Milwaukee church judge clarifies case of abusive priest Father Murphy Catholic Anchor March 29, 2010. Fr. Thomas Brundage, JLC – then-presiding judge for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee gives first-person account of the canonical proceedings against Father Lawrence Murphy.
• Remarks by Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome E. Listecki at the end of the March 30, 2010 Chrism Mass at the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist, Milwaukee:
  

  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/surviovrs, 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.

• Cardinal Ratzinger An Evil Monster? Point-by-point analysis by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin (National Catholic Register March 30, 2010).
• A Response to the New York Times, by Fr. Raymond J. de Souza (National Review‘s “The Corner” March 27, 2010).
• Avvenire: New York Times Contradicts Itself A reconstruction of events by Riccardo Cascioli forAvvenire, the newspaper of the Italian episcopal conference. March 26, 2010.
• The Pope and the Murphy case: what the New York Times story didn’t tell you, by Phil Lawler (Catholic Culture. March 25, 2010).
• Vatican Statement on the “Murphy Case” Statement given to the New York Times on Wednesday by Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office. Zenit News Service. March 25, 2010.

Quello il NYT non traduce

“Domenica scorsa l’editorialista del New York Times (NYT) Maureen Dowd è tornata ad attaccare il Papa. Commentando parole dell’esorcista don Gabriele Amorth il quale ha detto che dietro i preti pedofili c’è lo zampino del demonio, Dowd ha suggerito alla chiesa cattolica un mezzo per risolvere il problema: assumere un “sessorcista”. Eppure, a rileggere le accuse che il NYT ha rivolto all’attuale Papa in merito al caso del prete pedofilo Lawrence Murphy che abusò di alcuni ragazzi sordomuti quando lavorava in una scuola di Milwaukee, è il quotidiano americano che sembra aver bisogno di consulenti. Dietro le accuse, infatti, si svela un retroscena inedito: alla base della tesi riportata il 25 marzo dal NYT secondo cui sia Joseph Ratzinger sia Tarcisio Bertone avrebbero insabbiato – quando guidavano la Dottrina della fede – gli abusi commessi di padre Murphy, c’è un grossolano errore di traduzione.”

Paolo Rodari // Il Foglio
http://www.paolorodari.com/2010/04/06/quello-che-il-nyt-non-traduce-sorpresa-il-vaticano-non-insabbio-su-murphy-tutta-colpa-del-computer/