BishopAccountability.org
	US Child Abuse Move against the Pope Is an Absurd Publicity Stunt By Ryle Dwyer Irish Examiner April 3, 2010 http://www.examiner.ie/opinion/columnists/ryle-dwyer/us-child-abuse-move-against-the-pope-is-an-absurd-publicity-stunt-116214.html THIS week’s controversy about whether Pope Benedict XVI should be compelled to testify about the Vatican’s role in relation to clerical sexual abuse of minors was an absurd publicity stunt. One might have expected it 50 years ago, but not in the 21st century. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the election of John F Kennedy, the first Roman Catholic President of the United States. Prior to his election, some elements of American society were prepared to entertain any allegations against a Pope — no matter how outrageous or illogical. In 1960 she often talked about how she would be torn about how to vote if she were still in the US. She had been a Democrat in her early years, but had become a Republican in 1940. Before Kennedy was elected, it was widely believed no Catholic could win the White House because Americans feared the Pope would take over the country. For many people — especially in the southern States, which were traditionally a Democratic stronghold — the Pope was seen as the anti-Christ. In 1928, Al Smith, the Governor of New York, became the first Roman Catholic to be nominated for the presidency by a major party. My grandmother often talked of the irrational fears non-Catholics had about the influence of the Pope in that year. On election day in 1928 my grandfather was too ill to vote, as he was at home dying of tuberculosis. He insisted my grandmother go and vote for Al Smith. When she got back, my grandfather was dead. Thus her vote for Smith was his dying wish. Even though she preferred Richard Nixon in 1960 I have no doubt she would have voted for Kennedy if she were in the US because he was Catholic. She said this would only have been balancing things because so many others were voting against him just because he was Catholic. The talk this week about compelling Pope Benedict XVI to testify in relation to clerical abuse in the US was like a throwback to old times. It was not just turning the clock back to JFK, but even to Al Smith, because one of the cases involving the three men claiming priests in the Louisville area sexually abused them as boys actually goes back to 1928. In 2003, lawyer William McMurry of Louisville, Kentucky, represented 243 victims of clerical sexual abuse in a case against the local archdiocese, which was settled for $25.7 million in damages. McMurry and his legal team received more than $10m of that in fees. The following year he initiated the case in the news this week. One of the three plaintiffs in the current case is James O’Bryan, who is 90-years-old. He says that "a Fr Lawrence" abused him in 1928, the year Al Smith was running for president. O’Bryan said the priest put his hand in his (Bryan’s) pocket and fondled him in a library. The boy would have been about eight-years-old at the time. He apparently did not know the priest’s surname. It is ironic that the priest currently in the news for abusing deaf boys in Wisconsin is a Fr Lawrence Murphy, but he was only ordained in 1950. There was a Fr Lawrence Kuntz serving in the Louisville diocese in 1928. He died in 1952. It was more than 50 years later the allegation was made against him. This is hardly compelling evidence. O’Bryan said he decided to sue after he read a report that 10,667 people alleged they were abused by 4,392 priest between 1950 and 2002. Donald Poppe, another of the three plaintiffs, accused the late Fr Arthur Wood, who died in 1983, of sexually abusing him in the 1960s. Thirty-nine people involved in the $25.7m settlement made allegations against Wood. Michael Turner, the third plaintiff represented by McMurry, made allegations against Louis E Miller, a defrocked priest who is currently in jail for child abuse. Turner claims Fr Miller molested him in the 1970s. Miller, who was ordained in 1956, abused boys and girls from the 1950s until the late 1980s. His story seems rather similar to that of Brendan Smyth in this country. In the 1990s a niece successfully sued Miller for abusing her as a girl. Although he admitted molesting four nephews, he denied abusing her. The case was settled out of court and received no publicity. Miller did not come to public attention until the local newspaper reported his retirement in 2002 amid allegations of paedophile abuse. He was charged in 2003 with molesting 29 children, and 83 lawsuits involving him were filed against the archdiocese. Miller was convicted and sentenced to 13 years in jail. Pope John Paul II defrocked him the following year. But the current case is against the Vatican — not against any of the priests, bishops, archbishops or even any of the popes stretching back to Pius XI. "This case is the only case that has been ever been filed against the Vatican which has as its sole objective to hold the Vatican accountable for all the priest sex abuse ever committed in this country," McMurry said. "There is no other defendant. There’s no bishop, no priest." What is the point in trying to compel Pope Benedict XVI to testify? He was not next to near Louisville, nor had he any connection with the Vatican when any of the three plaintiffs were allegedly abused. In fact, he was only one-year-old in 1928. WILLIAM McMurry said he began planning the lawsuit after learning of a 1962 document which he seems to think is vital evidence that the Vatican ordered the cover-up of clerical paedophilia. He contends the document, which was approved by Pope John XXIII, imposed the highest level of secrecy and reflected a Vatican policy barring bishops from reporting abuse to police. Experts in church law contend, however, that the document describes how church authorities should deal procedurally with cases of abuse of children by priests, where sex is solicited in the confessional. It is a particularly heinous crime under canon law. McMurry explains he became more determined to pursue the suit after visiting the Vatican where they refused to allow him into St Peter’s Basilica because he was wearing shorts. "It’s so offensive that an organisation can publicly be so righteous and in truth and fact destroy the utter foundations of our society by allowing children to be abused," he said. "That disparity is nauseating." This case is not about the Pope. It is really about a touchy, gold-digging lawyer who is miffed because he was pulled up for not putting on normal pants. Pope Benedict may have questions to answer in relation to his handling of some clerical abuse cases, but not in relation to whatever happened to the three men represented by McMurry. This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Saturday, April 03, 2010
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.