Title: HA HA: Pope Never Got the Memo on Child Sex Abuse Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Feb 26, 2010 Author:by UK TELEGRAPH Post Date:2010-04-01 06:13:20 by Itistoolate Keywords:None Views:778 Comments:28
HA HA: Pope Never Got the Memo on Child Sex Abuse
by UK TELEGRAPH
(March 26, 2010) The Vatican has defended the Pope over charges that he failed to act against a priest accused of abusing 200 deaf boys The Vatican has defended the Pope over charges that he failed to act against allegations of sex abuse.
A Vatican newspaper editorial said the claims were an "ignoble" attack on the Pope and that there was no "cover-up", the BBC reports.
Archbishops had complained about Fr Lawrence Murphy in the 1990s to a Vatican office led by the future pope, but apparently received no response.
But the Pope's spokesman defended him, saying the Vatican department which the future pontiff was in charge of had not been informed of these latest allegations until 1996 - 20 years after the priest's victims first informed the police.
Arthur Budzinski is one of Father Murphy's alleged victims. He said that the first time the priest molested him, he was 12 years old, alone and away from home at a school for the deaf. He said he asked the Rev. Lawrence Murphy to hear his confession, and instead the priest took him into a closet under the stairs and sexually assaulted him.
Father Murphy was also accused of molesting boys in the confessional, in dormitories, in closets and during field trips while working at theschool for the deaf from the 1950s through 1974. He died in 1998 at age 72.
Allegations against Father Murphy resurfaced this week after documents obtained by The New York Times apparently showed that he was spared a defrocking in the mid-1990s because he was protected by the Vatican office led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now the Pope.
The Vatican strongly defended its decision not to defrock Father Murphy and denounced what it called a campaign to smear the Pope and his aides.
"I'm not making any firm conclusions, but what I'm saying is that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to say that he was Jewish.
If you are born into a jewish family, imo that means exactly nothing. It's no different than being born into a christian or muslim family. If he didn't have the same beliefs of his parents, then imo he wasn't a jew.