BishopAccountability.org
	Vatican Chooses Pragmatism over Principle By Mathew N. Schmalz Washington Post March 26, 2010 http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/mathew_n_schmalz/2010/03/pragmatism_over_principle.html The recent revelations of documents related to the case of the late Father Lawrence Murphy have brought the sexual abuse crisis to a new level of urgency. According to the documents, as reported by The New York Times, Father Murphy abused hundreds of children and adolescents entrusted to his care. In correspondence relating to the case, Bishop Raphael Fliss of Superior, Wisc., described the situation as "tragic." "Tragic" is an adjective originally reserved for literary and dramatic works that offer deep reflections on the sorrowful aspects of human existence. While the Murphy case does have its tragic dimensions for Catholicism as a whole, its specifics hardly lend themselves to lofty, abstract considerations. Instead, the case is about the calculated efforts of a predator to use his position of priestly authority to continue a pattern of sexual abuse. The case also reveals an ecclesiastic calculus that valued pragmatism over principle. Legality and pragmatism dominate not only Rome's defense of its involvement in the case but also the documents surrounding Murphy's canonical trial. In his explanation of Rome's handling of the case, Father Fredrico Lombardi has emphasized the practical difficulties of handling the accusations regarding Father Murphy, particularly given the long period of time that had elapsed since the abuse took place and was reported to the Vatican. Of course, one of Father Murphy's defenses was that the canonical statute of limitations had expired--an attempt to exploit a legal loophole that shows that Catholic canon law and American criminal law present similar obstacles to the prosecution of cases. While the appeal to the statute of limitations was rejected, the summary of the Vatican meeting about the Father Murphy's case shows that legal logistics, and implicit concerns about the Church's reputation, carried the day. At issue was the accusation that Murphy had violated the sanctity of the confessional. The decision was eventually reached to "abate" the upcoming trial but to place Father Murphy under canonical restrictions. One point evidently supporting the decision was made by Secretary Tarcisio Bertone, who emphasized the difficulties in prosecuting such a case under secrecy--leaving open the question of whether it was the secrecy of the confessional that had to be preserved or the confidentiality of any canonical process relating to sexual abuse. Attention was also called to the presumption of innocence in American jurisprudence; it is difficult to tell whether that refers to potential criminal or civil action or is adduced as some sort of general principle, ethical or practical, for dealing with sexual abuse accusations in an American context. The translated summary of the discussion does show rather muted dissent. While he implemented the decision of his superiors, Archbishop Rembert Weakland did at least acknowledge that the victims would have difficult time understanding and accepting the decision. Most telling, however, was sub-Secretary Gianfranco Girotti's apparent insistence that the case move ahead if there was no repentance displayed by Father Murphy. If the Catholic Church viewed the case as a matter of "sin and redemption," as commentators have pointed out, the issue of repentance deserves further exploration. In his letter to then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Father Murphy plaintively asked that he die with the "dignity" of his priesthood intact. While he makes reference to how he has "repented," Father Murphy does not mention any substantive act that would indicate repentance. Indeed, Murphy does not even admit to guilt and instead only acknowledges that he had been accused of sexual misconduct. The letter is striking in its narcissism and most certainly confirms the examining social worker's conclusion that Father Murphy had not displayed any remorse. In Catholic canon law, the application of punishment is set within the context of recognizing sin in order to encourage reconciliation. By preventing the case against Father Murphy from moving forward, the Catholic Church abdicated one of the fundamental principles upon which its understanding of sin and redemption is based. While the Vatican discussion of the Murphy case does conclude with an affirmation of the necessary "remorse and reform of the priest," and makes reference to "grave evil," Bishop Fliss had already made clear that all pastoral options had been exhausted. That the charges against Father Murphy involved crimes committed in the confessional also shows that the interests of American civil law and Catholic canon law were not necessarily opposed in this case, regardless of questions about the statute of limitations. While the actions of Lawrence Murphy were sinful and criminal, it is tragic that members of the Vatican hierarchy did not listen to their subordinates who belatedly recognized the gravity of the case. In his handwritten letter to one of the victims, Archbishop Weakland acknowledged the scope of the violations and the deep pain that Father Murphy had inflicted on vulnerable children and adolescents. It would be appropriate now for Vatican officials to begin the process of their own repentance by writing personal letters to the many victims of clerical sexual abuse.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.