The esteemed Jimmy Akin is on the story, here and here. Andrew Sullivan replies to Akin here. Akin’s rejoinder to Sullivan is forthcoming. No doubt the scientifically-minded Richard Dawkins and the sober journalist Christopher Hitchens are carefully weighing all this evidence before drawing any conclusions.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Cardinal Ratzinger and the Murphy case
The esteemed Jimmy Akin is on the story, here and here. Andrew Sullivan replies to Akin here. Akin’s rejoinder to Sullivan is forthcoming. No doubt the scientifically-minded Richard Dawkins and the sober journalist Christopher Hitchens are carefully weighing all this evidence before drawing any conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Lawrence case, as unfortunate as it was, doesn't seem to implicate Cardinal Ratzinger directly. In other words, his action or inaction didn't result in further abuse.
ReplyDeleteThe Hullerman case is more difficult. Contrary to Sullivan, I don't see definitive evidence that Ratzinger saw the memo or was otherwise aware of the situation. However, the fact that he was not contacted directly indicates that his subordinates didn't think he would be particularly troubled by returning Hullerman to ministry.
I meant "Lawrence Murphy."
ReplyDelete"The esteemed Jimmy Akin is on the story, here and here. Andrew Sullivan replies to Akin here. Akin’s rejoinder to Sullivan is forthcoming. No doubt the scientifically-minded Richard Dawkins and the sober journalist Christopher Hitchens are carefully weighing all this evidence before drawing any conclusions."
ReplyDeleteIn a;; fairness, what else should they do?
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI think Dr. F. is being sarcastic.
-NP
"The esteemed Jimmy Akin is on the story, here and here. Andrew Sullivan replies to Akin here. Akin’s rejoinder to Sullivan is forthcoming. No doubt the scientifically-minded Richard Dawkins and the sober journalist Christopher Hitchens are carefully weighing all this evidence before drawing any conclusions."
ReplyDeleteWould you prefer keeping victims and families quiet and moving priests around - business as usual before it was exposed and challenged in the US...
I'll bet if it were your family you would have a different take on this.
Would you prefer keeping victims and families quiet and moving priests around - business as usual before it was exposed and challenged in the US...
ReplyDeleteI'll bet if it were your family you would have a different take on this.
This is confused; the point here is that someone is being accused of culpable action (and inaction) without adequate evidence. And when this is done with an agenda, whether to make a rhetorical point or to get a story, it not only does victims no good, it is an obvious and insulting attempt to use their suffering for one's own purposes.
Surely a lot of this is putting a high profile face on a lot of anger and revulsion. Trying to place the Catholic Church as put-upon victim is unseemly. Comparing such attacks to to anti-Semitism, as the Pope's preacher has done, is beyond contemptible and just convinces folk all the more that the Church "doesn't get it". It is not as if we are dealing with just the odd case here or there, after all. That the German revelations are coming out at the same time inevitably puts a former German archbishop with cases in his archdiocese in the spotlight and presumably magnifies the "lightning conductor" effect.
ReplyDeleteThe interaction between Church doctrine and social change, combined with excessive solicitousness for priestly authority, got the Church into this mess. It is hardly surprising if it now has credibility problems.
Even from Jimmy Akin's reports, it still shows a hierarchy far more solicitous of the priests involved than their victims, with a distinct lack of anyone taking responsibility which leaves a vacuum that puts the person at the top directly in the spotlight. The corporate game of "pass the parcel" may mean that Pope Benedict was not personally involved but that reflects poorly in a different sense.