* According to a CNA article, the Vatican never ruled out defrocking Fr. Murphy, the Milwaukee priest alleged to have abused as many as 200 deaf boys: "An expert translation of that document ['a memo recounting a key Vatican meeting' regarding the priest] provides evidence that appears to exonerate Vatican officials accused of wrongdoing in the case." According to the article, a "very rough" translation of the article may have "skewed media attempts to implicate Pope Benedict"
* A Wall Street Journal article has taken to the defense of the Pope against negative coverage in the New York Times. In part, the WSJ article states, "The man who is now pope reopened cases that had been closed; did more than anyone to process cases and hold abusers accountable; and became the first pope to meet with victims. Isn't the more reasonable interpretation of all these events that Cardinal Ratzinger's experience with cases like Murphy's helped lead him to promote reforms that gave the church more effective tools for handling priestly abuse?" The article also notes that documents posted by the Times were provided by plaintiffs' lawyers - and one of the lawyers "isn't just any old lawyer. When it comes to suing the church, he is America's leading plaintiffs attorney. Back in 2002, he told the Associated Press that he'd won more than $60 million in settlements from the church, and he once boasted to a Twin Cities weekly that he's 'suing the s--t out of them everywhere.' Nor did the Times report another salient fact about Mr. Anderson: He's now trying to sue the Vatican in U.S. federal court. None of this makes Mr. Anderson wrong or unworthy of quoting. It does make him a much bigger player than the story disclosed. In fact, it's hard to think of anyone with a greater financial interest in promoting the public narrative of a church that takes zero action against abuser priests, with Pope Benedict XVI personally culpable."
[4/6]
Posts
