BishopAccountability.org
	The Reasons for Targeting Ratzinger By Patrick Mcilheran Milwaukee Journal Sentinel March 29, 2010 http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/89424052.html Father Raymond d'Souza pointed out a little oddity at National Review the other day: American demonstrators were in Rome on exactly the day the New York Times published its story claiming that then-Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, helped shield a pervert who'd been a priest in Milwaukee. "One might ask," writes d'Souza, "how American activists would happen to be in Rome distributing the very documents referred to that day in the New York Times. The appearance here is one of a coordinated campaign, rather than disinterested reporting." One might. D'Souza notes that the Times story was written by a journalist with a record of covering for retired and disgraced Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland, who used churchgoers' donations to pay hush money to his boyfriend. And, lo, the story uses Weakland as a source, and he deflects blame Rome-ward. The story's other big source is the lawyer trying to sue Milwaukee. But are they right anyhow? D'Souza: "The New York Times made available on its own website the supporting documentation for the story. In those documents, Cardinal Ratzinger himself does not take any of the decisions that allegedly frustrated the trial. Letters are addressed to him; responses come from his deputy. Even leaving that aside, though, the gravamen of the charge — that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office impeded some investigation — is proven utterly false. "The documents show that the canonical trial or penal process against Father Murphy was never stopped by anyone. In fact, it was only abandoned days before Father Murphy died. Cardinal Ratzinger never took a decision in the case, according to the documents. His deputy, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, suggested, given that Father Murphy was in failing health and a canonical trial is a complicated matter, that more expeditious means be used to remove him from all ministry." "The New York Times flatly got the story wrong, according to its own evidence. Readers may want to speculate on why." Go on, read the documents the Times itself then presumes to interpret. Or, if you'd prefer, Dad29 reads, reprints and translates them handily. He gives some credit to Weakland (a rarity). The fact is that there was blame-worthy behavior in the Murphy scandal. Call it a cover-up or the naivete of the era, but either way, a lot of that blame seems to belong to then-Archbishop William Cousins, who decided to send Murphy off to live in what amounts to exile at his mother's house and who, as Terrence Berres points out, was still saying afterward that his investigation found nothing to substantiate reports of abuse. But if the scandal is chiefly attributable to Murphy himself and to Cousins, that's unsatisfactory to some parties today. Both are dead. They cannot be sued, they cannot be made to resign and, so, bolster a newspaper's reputation. They cannot be punished to the satisfaction of the truly aggrieved parties, the victims of the abuse. This is why Ratzinger is being dragged in: He is alive and in office. That's the sole and entire reason: He is not guilty, but he is a useful target.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.