Is the Pope guilty of sexual abuse cover up?

[pintsofguinness]

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

Best line in the article! Irony at it's best!

[orangeman]

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

Best line in the article! Irony at it's best!

He must have got something at some time or other ! 

[Ulick]

You are joking right?

Why do you say that? He is clearly refuting the NY Times article. As the judge in the case, surely he would know whether the charges were dropped or not?b

He was a Canon Law judge appointed by the Church who speaks out in favour of the Pope and attacks his critics.

Read the 3 things he sets out to achieve in his article. You would want to have the blindest of blind faith to think for a second he achieves it with that article.

"The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history."

Would you like to comment on this revelation?

I am pointing out that the New York Times article on which this thread is based is inacurate and has probably used false documetation as the basis for it's claims. Is anyone going to comment on that?

[muppet]

The 'judge' attacks the NYT for quotes lifted from a document he says was not written by him. But he never denies the substantive claims made. This is merely a semantic emotional argument and is designed to divert from the issue. His repetition of 'no one contacted me' rings hollow in the absence of blatant denial of what was reported.

Then he states the following: "Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information."

The next paragraph states: "When the competency was changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in my observation as well as many of my canonical colleagues, sexual abuse cases were handled expeditiously, fairly, and with due regard to the rights of all the parties involved. I have no doubt that this was the work of then Cardinal Ratzinger."

Either he wasn't 'involved at all' or it was the work 'of then Cardinal Ratzinger'.

He can't have it both ways and in no way does he successfully deflect questions about the Pope, in fact he achieves the opposite.

[mylestheslasher]

You are joking right?

Why do you say that? He is clearly refuting the NY Times article. As the judge in the case, surely he would know whether the charges were dropped or not?b

He was a Canon Law judge appointed by the Church who speaks out in favour of the Pope and attacks his critics.

Read the 3 things he sets out to achieve in his article. You would want to have the blindest of blind faith to think for a second he achieves it with that article.

"The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history."

Would you like to comment on this revelation?

I am pointing out that the New York Times article on which this thread is based is inacurate and has probably used false documetation as the basis for it's claims. Is anyone going to comment on that?

You have posted a article which is a load of auld shite as the other lads of pointed out. Its clear to me that you have some bias in favour of the catholic churches position which flies in the face of all logic and reason. Fair enough, you're entitled to it. This is an article in some catholic newspaper seeking to deflect blame from the pope = hardly independent thinking is it? If this priest is so sure he was misrepresented when doesn't he take it to the courts?

[Ulick]

The 'judge' attacks the NYT for quotes lifted from a document he says was not written by him. But he never denies the substantive claims made. This is merely a semantic emotional argument and is designed to divert from the issue. His repetition of 'no one contacted me' rings hollow in the absence of blatant denial of what was reported.

Then he states the following: "Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information."

The next paragraph states: "When the competency was changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in my observation as well as many of my canonical colleagues, sexual abuse cases were handled expeditiously, fairly, and with due regard to the rights of all the parties involved. I have no doubt that this was the work of then Cardinal Ratzinger."

Either he wasn't 'involved at all' or it was the work 'of then Cardinal Ratzinger'.

He can't have it both ways and in no way does he successfully deflect questions about the Pope, in fact he achieves the opposite.

Muppet the basis of the NY Times article was that the Pope dropped the charges against this priest and hence tried to cover it up he abuse (title of the thread). However the judge involved is now saying that this is not true and that charges were still pending when he died. The rest of the stuff is irrelevant to the substantive charge i.e. that the Pope was involved in a cover-up. Both of them cannot be correct - are you telling me that the NY Times is correct and that the charges were dropped on the Popes order? If so, can you produce any evidence to support this?

[Ulick]

You have posted a article which is a load of auld shite as the other lads of pointed out. Its clear to me that you have some bias in favour of the catholic churches position which flies in the face of all logic and reason. Fair enough, you're entitled to it. This is an article in some catholic newspaper seeking to deflect blame from the pope = hardly independent thinking is it? If this priest is so sure he was misrepresented when doesn't he take it to the courts?

How is it a load of oul shite? Do you even know the background to these claims of cover-up? The man who wrote the article was the judge in the case the NY Times is saying didn't exist.

[muppet]

You have posted a article which is a load of auld shite as the other lads of pointed out. Its clear to me that you have some bias in favour of the catholic churches position which flies in the face of all logic and reason. Fair enough, you're entitled to it. This is an article in some catholic newspaper seeking to deflect blame from the pope = hardly independent thinking is it? If this priest is so sure he was misrepresented when doesn't he take it to the courts?

How is it a load of oul shite? Do you even know the background to these claims of cover-up? The man who wrote the article was the judge in the case the NY Times is saying didn't exist.

Legally it didn't.

"The documents seen by the New York Times suggest that in 1996, the then Cardinal Ratzinger twice failed to respond to letters sent to him personally. "

The "judge' says he "i have no reason to believe' he was involved. Hardly conclusive evidence of non-involvement is it?

Then of course he praises the former Cardinal for his work on these issues. I wouldn't want him defending me.

[Ulick]

Legally it didn't.

"The documents seen by the New York Times suggest that in 1996, the then Cardinal Ratzinger twice failed to respond to letters sent to him personally. "

The "judge' says he "i have no reason to believe' he was involved. Hardly conclusive evidence of non-involvement is it?

Then of course he praises the former Cardinal for his work on these issues. I wouldn't want him defending me.

Okay Muppet let's rewind a little. Do you agree or not agree that the charges against this priest were dropped?

BTW the portion of the article which has been posted omits this bit which you can see if you follow the link:

"A canonical trial authorised by Cardinal Ratzinger's deputy was halted after Fr Murphy wrote to the future pope asking that proceedings be stopped, despite objections from a second archbishop. "

[muppet]

Legally it didn't.

"The documents seen by the New York Times suggest that in 1996, the then Cardinal Ratzinger twice failed to respond to letters sent to him personally. "

The "judge' says he "i have no reason to believe' he was involved. Hardly conclusive evidence of non-involvement is it?

Then of course he praises the former Cardinal for his work on these issues. I wouldn't want him defending me.

Okay Muppet let's rewind a little. Do you agree or not agree that the charges against this priest were dropped?

BTW the portion of the article which has been posted omits this bit which you can see if you follow the link:

"A canonical trial authorised by Cardinal Ratzinger's deputy was halted after Fr Murphy wrote to the future pope asking that proceedings be stopped, despite objections from a second archbishop. "

Look, I have no respect for or belief in any canonical trials. Therefore in my opinion there never was a trial as we understand it.

As for the above, your friend above never directly addresses any such issue. He says this: " I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all." That is not stating 'I categorically know he wasn't involved'. Remember 'mental reservation'?

[Ulick]

Look, I have no respect for or belief in any canonical trials. Therefore in my opinion there never was a trial as we understand it.

As for the above, your friend above never directly addresses any such issue. He says this: " I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all." That is not stating 'I categorically know he wasn't involved'. Remember 'mental reservation'?

Muppet whether you have respect for canonical trials or not is irrelevant and so is the quote you mention, as the basis of the NY Times claims are that the Pope ignored letters to deal with this man and quitely dropped the matter 1996. But now we find out that in fact an investigation was initiated by the Church in 1996 and charges were in fact were still pending against the man when he died in 1998. Where is the cover-up that the NY Times alleges? Do you not think the NY Times has questions to  answer regarding the false quotes they attribute to the judge in the case? 

[pintsofguinness]

Look, I have no respect for or belief in any canonical trials. Therefore in my opinion there never was a trial as we understand it.

As for the above, your friend above never directly addresses any such issue. He says this: " I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all." That is not stating 'I categorically know he wasn't involved'. Remember 'mental reservation'?

Muppet whether you have respect for canonical trials or not is irrelevant and so is the quote you mention, as the basis of the NY Times claims are that the Pope ignored letters to deal with this man and quitely dropped the matter 1996. But now we find out that in fact an investigation was initiated by the Church in 1996 and charges were in fact were still pending against the man when he died in 1998. Where is the cover-up that the NY Times alleges? Do you not think the NY Times has questions to  answer regarding the false quotes they attribute to the judge in the case?

the ny times may be lying but has it not crossed your mind that this "judge"  may be lying?

[muppet]

Look, I have no respect for or belief in any canonical trials. Therefore in my opinion there never was a trial as we understand it.

As for the above, your friend above never directly addresses any such issue. He says this: " I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all." That is not stating 'I categorically know he wasn't involved'. Remember 'mental reservation'?

Muppet whether you have respect for canonical trials or not is irrelevant and so is the quote you mention, as the basis of the NY Times claims are that the Pope ignored letters to deal with this man and quitely dropped the matter 1996. But now we find out that in fact an investigation was initiated by the Church in 1996 and charges were in fact were still pending against the man when he died in 1998. Where is the cover-up that the NY Times alleges? Do you not think the NY Times has questions to  answer regarding the false quotes they attribute to the judge in the case?

I think you need to read it again. Yes they said the Pope was written to, but they didn't say the matter was quietly dropped. They say he failed to respond to the letters. Meanwhile the 'case' (Canon not proper civil) continued for 2 years without resolution until he died, still a priest. That doesn't disagree with either article.

Your 'judge' never really contradicts anything other than to deny he was the source of the quotes, but he never states the quotes were false.

[Main Street]

Even the canon law judge (inadvertently) admits there was a cover up, authorised by Ratzinger.
It is as plain as the nose on anyones face.
Yet we have heard claims by Ratzinger that  'Crimen' nor the Code of Canon Law ever prohibited the reporting of child abuse to law enforcement authorities."
At no time during all his exhaustive and tearful investigation did the canon law judge inform the legal authorities of the evidence.

[orangeman]

Cardinal Ratzinger did not reply to letters ?

Surely not ?

Shock, horror and a huge surprise.