More on the Murphy Case

One of the crucial documents in the case of the child molesting priest Fr. Murphy has now been accurately translated from Italian. Jimmy Akin explains the whole thing in detail here.

The simple version according to the New York Times is that Murphy was let off the hook and Cardinal Ratzinger (as Pope Benedict then was) was responsible. The NY Times didn’t even bother to get a proper translation of the document in question. Instead they got busy spreading innuendo, half truths and lies.

Turns out the Murphy case was mishandled by Archbishop Weakland and his predecessor, but by the time it got to Rome the very complicated case (from the canon law point of view) was not actually mishandled, and more to the point, Cardinal Ratzinger had nothing to do with the case.

Patrick O’Hannigan comments sharpishly on the NY Times’ crisis in reporting here and further facts and opinion on priestly pedophilia here. The Wall Street Journal reports accurately on the Murphy case showing the shame of the NYTimes’ biased reporting.

  • StevieD

    I would urge everyone to take a look at the following link which puts the whole abuse situation into context and would be good ammunition against the Church's enemies if they ever chose to acknowledge it. This comes from the anglo-Catholic Saint Barnabas blog.

  • Laura

    I just want to second the above article. It is the best one I have read on the scandals.