As reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Friday, 26 March 2010 (from the NY Times), Pope Benedict had memos sent to him concerning the pedophile, Fr. Peter Hullermann. This priest was supposed to be sent to treatment for his pedophilia in 1980, which he was. But he was also returned to active ministry within days of beginning treatment - obviously not enough time to be "cured" even in the pre-1985 world where many thought pedophilia could be cured.According to Rev. Lorenz Wolf, judicial vicar at the Munich Archdiocese, many memos are never read by the archbishop of Munich and this MIGHT have been one of them. Also, maybe Hullermann's name had come up in conversation with Ratzinger, but he could not remember with any certainty.
This all smells very bad to me. How could any bishop say that they were not aware that known-pedophiles were being reassigned when they were not supposed to be? What about the special relationship that is supposed to exist between the bishop and priest. It is supposed to be like a father-son relationship. I do not think I am alone in thinking that this father allowed his son to be a wolf among sheep.
A Faithful Catholic
6 comments:
this father allowed his son to be a wolf among sheep
Yup. Ratzinger the predator-enabler.
Sure.
So I assume the stench of former Archbishop Rembert Weakland is more than you can bear?
I would also be interested in your input on this powerful response written by the Priest who was responsible for trying Fr. Murphy (an unrelated case, but one where the Media has again done a dis-service in its desire to attack the Catholic Church.
http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601
Perhaps it is quite probable this story is in the same vein as Fr. Murphy, a huge mistake, but not Pope Benedict XVI's fault.
I don't know if you've caught it, but William Cardinal Levada leveled a damning broadside at the New York Times for their reporting both on this case and on the Fr. Murphy debacle.
Rocco Palmo at Whispers at the Loggia posts it in full: http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2010/03/holy-office-speaks.html
The New York Times and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel would have merited the infamous Medill "F" from Northwestern's School of Journalism for their reporting thus far.
Anon,
I agree. Anyone who finished reading the Murphy article in the NY Times would have realized that the suspension of his case did not result in more sexual abuse, as the the beginning of the article implies. Frankly, I'm shocked by the amount of press the case has gotten. I think there are other cases that are more damning.
The suspension of the dying Murphy's trial did not "save" any kids, but it still would have been better if they had finished the court case.
Keep up with the ACTUAL news, FC.
That trial was NEVER suspended.
Post a Comment