... today is the publication of a piece, "Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy," written by Fr. Thomas Brundage, JLC and published in The Catholic Anchor, diocesan newspaper of the Archdiocese of Anchorage, Alaska (ht: American Papist). Fr. Brundage has a unique perspective as he was the presiding judge for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1995 to 2003. He writes:
To provide context to this article, I was the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1995-2003. During those years, I presided over four canonical criminal cases, one of which involved Father Lawrence Murphy. Two of the four men died during the process. God alone will judge these men. ...
I will limit my comments, because of judicial oaths I have taken as a canon lawyer and as an ecclesiastical judge. However, since my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals, I feel a freedom to tell part of the story of Father Murphy’s trial from ground zero.
As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing out of a sense of duty to the truth.
The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.
There's a shocker. Fr. Brundage sheds light on a number of matters—matters he was directly involved in:
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
With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In an October 31, 1997 handwritten document, I am quoted as saying ‘odds are that this situation may very well be the most horrendous, number wise, and especially because these are physically challenged , vulnerable people. “ Also quoted is this: “Children were approached within the confessional where the question of circumcision began the solicitation.”
The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct.
Additionally, in the documentation in a letter from Archbishop Weakland to then-secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone on August 19, 1998, Archbishop Weakland stated that he had instructed me to abate the proceedings against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, however, died two days later and the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this. Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary. That process would have taken months if not longer.
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.
Third, the competency to hear cases of sexual abuse of minors shifted from the Roman Rota to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001. Until that time, most appeal cases went to the Rota and it was our experience that cases could languish for years in this court. 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.
Read the entire piece and learn, as Paul Harvey used to say, "the rest of the story." Of course, a number of Catholic journalists, bloggers, and others have been pointing out problems and errors with the stories being published by The New York Times and other newspapers. For instance, it wasn't evident to me, in reading the NYT pieces, that Murphy was still a defendant in a church criminal trial. But, as Fr. Brundage points out, "No one seems to be aware of this." It is the difference between saying the Church was doing nothing and saying the Church was in the process of doing something quite substantial.
Some related links:
• The Anchoress comments on Fr. Brundage's article.
• The Benedict Blog (Christopher Blosser) has a very helpful round-up of articles on the Pope, the Church, and the scandals
• Jimmy Akin has a long post on the National Catholic Register site, "Cardinal Ratzinger: An Evil Monster?" Akin writes: "Note this well: Back in 1996 the CDF did not have a mandate to handle cases of sexual abuse by priests. It does now. It received that mandate after the 2002 sexual abuse crisis in America. But in 1996 it did not. The reason that Weakland notified the CDF was not because the abuse of minors was involved but because the abuse of the sacrament of confession was involved." Good point.
Carl,
Get ready for all the responses saying, "Even if the media is lying about the Pope's involvement, the Church brought it on herself." Because you see, two wrongs make a right and the 8th Commandement is null and void when you've got a gripe against the Church.
Posted by: Thomas S | Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 02:46 PM
Just wanted to mention that there's some great articles by John R. Allen, Jr. over at NCR. Yes, THAT NCR:
http://ncronline.org/print/17602
http://ncronline.org/print/17443
http://ncronline.org/print/17472
The reason I mention these is not to promote NCR, whose reporting I normally find quite terrible, but to provide anyone here with more information. If NCR can get it right on this stuff, why can't the NYT?
Speaking of which, my prayer (in part) is that all of this puts a nail in the coffin of the despicable NYT. Wouldn't that be cool?
Oh yah, and "Even if the media is lying about the Pope's involvement, the Church brought it on herself." :-D
Posted by: Telemachus | Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 05:20 PM