Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef has all the credentials to write a book titled My Life with the Taliban. He was 11 years old when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He became a refugee in Pakistan and went to a madrassa. He was intimately involved in the movement that came to be known as the Taliban. He was in the same room as Mullah Omar when the latter lost his eye in a firefight with the Soviet forces. Zaeef was among those who proposed Mullah Omar's name for leadership of the Taliban movement when it was formally launched in the autumn of 1994. Mullah Omar agreed, without too much fuss, but demanded total loyalty to him. Zaeef later occupied important positions in the Taliban government in Kabul, rising to the high posts of deputy and acting defence minister. Mullah Omar appointed him the Taliban regime's ambassador to Pakistan, which he resisted but had to accept; no one could defy Mullah Omar once he had made up his mind. His stint in Islamabad provides the most interesting insights on Taliban rule, coinciding as it did with 9/11, the negotiations over handing over Osama bin Laden, the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, isi's repeated efforts to win or buy over the author, etc. Surprisingly, Mullah Zaeef does not seem to have met, even once, Osama. He spent four years in Guantanamo, and now lives in Kabul.
Indian and Western as well as Pakistani readers would be surprised to learn from this book that relations between the Taliban and Pakistan were not always harmonious. In the weeks leading up to the American attack on Afghanistan in October 2001, Zaeef was accused by the isi chief of planning to assassinate Gen Musharraf. Zaeef invariably refused to go to the isi offices, insisting instead that they visit him at his official residence. Once the Russian ambassador asked the director in the foreign office to arrange a meeting with Zaeef, but Zaeef offered to meet him at a neutral place; the meeting never materialised. Tripartite talks between Afghanistan, US and Pakistan were sabotaged by Pakistan, he says. He told the American ambassador more than once that he should contact him directly. "Pakistan is never an honest mediator and will control and manipulate any talk they mediate or participate in," Zaeef told him. Elsewhere, he writes: "Pakistan, which plays a key role in Asia, is so famous for treachery that it is said they can get milk from a bull. They have two tongues in one mouth, and two faces on one head so they can speak everybody's language; they use everybody, deceive everybody. They deceive the Arabs under the guise of Islamic nuclear power, they milk America and Europe in the alliance against terrorism, and they have been deceiving Pakistani and other Muslims around the world in the name of the Kashmiri jihad." As for imprisonment in Pakistani jails, he concluded that Afghan and American jails were much better than Pakistani jails. He is understandably bitter about the way he was treated by Pakistan and handed over to the Americans in Peshawar.
Zaeef held four meetings with the US ambassador in Islamabad to discuss Osama bin Laden before 9/11. America had only one demand: hand over Osama. Zaeef told him that was the one thing they could not do. He made alternative proposals. If America provided enough evidence of Osama's involvement in the Kenya and Tanzania bombings, Afghanistan would try him. Or, he could be tried in an Islamic country in a special court consisting of attorney generals of three Islamic countries. Finally, he offered to curb any and all activities of Osama, who would also be stripped of all communications equipment so as to limit his outreach. Eventually, he even suggested that Osama could be tried in The Hague. He met US state department official Christina Rocca, well known in India, and writes: "Every word she uttered was a threat, hidden or open".
Continued on Page 49
#1
"Pakistan, which plays a key role in Asia, is so famous for treachery that it is said they can get milk from a bull. They have two tongues in one mouth, and two faces on one head so they can speak everybody's language; they use everybody, deceive everybody. They deceive the Arabs under the guise of Islamic nuclear power, they milk America and Europe in the alliance against terrorism, and they have been deceiving Pakistani and other Muslims around the world in the name of the Kashmiri jihad."
Posted by: john frum ||
04/10/2010 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
[B]y the time my turn came, the general picture was surprisingly, reassuringly bright: reconciling Islamic faith with liberal values is easy; the views of Muslims are basically the same as everyone else's; the oppression of Muslim women is a third-order issue. It struck me that, in an event sponsored by groups whose whole purpose is a commitment to freedom of thought and expression (PEN, the A.C.L.U., and others), no one had said a word about the many threats to it in countries where Muslims constitute the majority, or where some Muslims who are in the minority refuse to accept it. And yet every day the news brings us such stories, so that they've become numbingly familiar.
I asked Ramadan two questions. The first was historical: drawing from a chapter in Paul Berman's forthcoming book The Flight of the Intellectuals', I described the relationship between Ramadan's grandfather, Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem and a Nazi ally who made a series of genocidal broadcasts on an Arabic radio program transmitted from wartime Berlin, urging Arabs to rise up and kill Jews. I cited quotations from al-Banna expressing pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic views; I quoted Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a follower of al-Banna who is a hugely popular TV preacher on Al Jazeera, expressing similar views. And I asked Ramadan why he had never acknowledged, let alone condemned, these things.
My second question was philosophical: I wanted to know if Ramadan believed that rights are inherent in human beings or must be granted by the authority of religious textsand, if the latter, what happens when, for example, freedom of speech collides with the injunction against blasphemy?
We didn't have time to air fully the second question. But on the first, Ramadan and I went back and forth a number of times. And he couldn't give me a direct answer. He hedged, he spoke about context, he suggested that the quotes were mistranslated, that they didn't actually exist. But he refused to acknowledge that his grandfather and the Muslim Brotherhood in its origins were characterized by anti-Semitic or totalitarian views. It seemed clear that there was a limit to what he would allow himself to say or think, and that I had found it.
Weisberg had asked me at the outset whether I thought Ramadan said different things to different audiences, and whether I thought he evaded hard questions about the conflicts between the open society and fundamentalism. On the first, I said nohe has no hidden agenda, he's an open book, and it's essentially moderate. On the second, I said I wasn't sure and hoped to find out. By the end of the evening, I knew the answer. Ramadan is building a worthy bridge on a rotten foundation.
On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Umm, no, a signed and ratified treaty does not supplant the Constitution. That's con law 101. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and can't be amended by a treaty. This entire article is just scare-mongering.
Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws.
Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.
This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.
#1
I think that the treaties might be used as rationales to create enabling acts. Bloomberg has recently come up with a list of dozens of ways guns might be micromanaged out of the US.
Remember that these swine are firm believers in gradualism and the "two steps forward, one step back" agenda achievement.
#4
Don't forget (though I'm sure Bambi has, if he ever knew), he can sign all the treaties he wants, but unless the Senate consents, it's just another piece of paper.
See, ie., Kyoto.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/10/2010 23:33 Comments ||
Top||
Scandal: The New York Times is on the hunt, seeking the biggest prey since Woodward and Bernstein brought down Richard Nixon. The Gray Lady wants to sink her claws into the pope.
#3
That would only work if he started ordaining lesbian bishops and cardinals, noted that 'choice' is a misunderstood but critical part of Christian doctrine and prostrated himself to Muslims on general principles.
The NYT is making enemies who will take this personally - and who will never relent.
The NYT has already been shown to be lying about this. There are a lot of Catholic groups that are hard at work investigating the Times and its writers, and there is plenty of dirt to be had.
This is journalistic malpractice at its worst.
Take notice of the propaganda tricks being used:
Exaggeration - Minor crimes, negligence and honest mistakes will all be magnified to a 'cover up.'
Exaggeration of effect - The journalist creates a big negative reaction which mirrors his own emotions and pretends the whole population shares it. Soon the whole population will share it as people jump on the bandwagon. e.g. "Papal sermon provokes uproar!" "Potentially explosive sermon offends Jews around the world!" Really? Or just because you say so?
Accumulation - throw enough dirt and some of it will stick. The press will dig up every bit of dirt on every Catholic priest or bishop they can possibly find and it will be added to the catalogue. "Catholic Bishop was once arrested in 1968 for littering!" You get the idea.
Innuendo - Use of highly colored language to suggest wrongdoing. A perfectly proper level of confidentiality and discretion becomes, "Archbishop in highly secret meeting". Proper ministry of confession becomes "Priest refuses to divulge what he knows about abuse crimes."
Lies and Half Truths - a failure to research and report the full story ends up making articles a collection of suggestive lies, half truths and damning suggestions.
The use of stereotypes- this is typical of all forms of religious and racial abuse, and it has been part of the anti-Catholic arsenal from the very beginning. Anyone who was brought up as a Protestant will be used to language that put all Catholics into the same category and condemns them all.
Jumping from individual guilt and responsibility to corporate guilt - Notice how the journalists spend a bit of time outlining the crimes of the few offenders and then jump seamlessly to speaking about 'The Catholic Church' or 'Catholic hierarchy' or 'The Vatican'.
The New York Times flatly got the story wrong, according to its own evidence. Here is the relevant timeline, drawn from the documents the New York Times posted on its own website.
15 May 1974
Abuse by Fr. Lawrence Murphy is alleged by a former student at St. Johns School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. In fact, accusations against Father Murphy go back more than a decade.
12 September 1974
Father Murphy is granted an official temporary sick leave from St. Johns School for the Deaf. He leaves Milwaukee and moves to northern Wisconsin, in the Diocese of Superior, where he lives in a family home with his mother. He has no official assignment from this point until his death in 1998. He does not return to live in Milwaukee. No canonical penalties are pursued against him.
9 July 1980
Officials in the Diocese of Superior write to officials in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee about what ministry Father Murphy might undertake in Superior. Archbishop Rembert Weakland, archbishop of Milwaukee since 1977, has been consulted and says it would be unwise to have Father Murphy return to ministry with the deaf community. There is no indication that Archbishop Weakland foresees any other measures to be taken in the case.
17 July 1996
More than 20 years after the original abuse allegations, Archbishop Weakland writes to Cardinal Ratzinger, claiming that he has only just discovered that Father Murphys sexual abuse involved the sacrament of confession a still more serious canonical crime. The allegations about the abuse of the sacrament of confession were in the original 1974 allegations. Weakland has been archbishop of Milwaukee by this point for 19 years.
It should be noted that for sexual-abuse charges, Archbishop Weakland could have proceeded against Father Murphy at any time. The matter of solicitation in the sacrament of confession required notifying Rome, but that too could have been done as early as the 1970s.
10 September 1996
Father Murphy is notified that a canonical trial will proceed against him. Until 2001, the local bishop had authority to proceed in such trials. The Archdiocese of Milwaukee is now beginning the trial. It is noteworthy that at this point, no reply has been received from Rome indicating that Archbishop Weakland knew he had that authority to proceed.
24 March 1997
Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzingers deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, advises a canonical trial against Father Murphy.
14 May 1997
Archbishop Weakland writes to Archbishop Bertone to say that the penal process against Father Murphy has been launched, and notes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has advised him to proceed even though the statute of limitations has expired. In fact, there is no statute of limitations for solicitation in the sacrament of confession.
Throughout the rest of 1997 the preparatory phases of penal process or canonical trial is underway. On 5 January 1998 the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee says that an expedited trial should be concluded within a few months.
12 January 1998
Father Murphy, now less than eight months away from his death, appeals to Cardinal Ratzinger that, given his frail health, he be allowed to live out his days in peace.
6 April 1998
Archbishop Bertone, noting the frail health of Father Murphy and that there have been no new charges in almost 25 years, recommends using pastoral measures to ensure Father Murphy has no ministry, but without the full burden of a penal process. It is only a suggestion, as the local bishop retains control.
13 May 1998
The Bishop of Superior, where the process has been transferred to and where Father Murphy has lived since 1974, rejects the suggestion for pastoral measures. Formal pre-trial proceedings begin on 15 May 1998, continuing the process already begun with the notification that had been issued in September 1996.
30 May 1998
Archbishop Weakland, who is in Rome, meets with officials at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, including Archbishop Bertone but not including Cardinal Ratzinger, to discuss the case. The penal process is ongoing. No decision taken to stop it, but given the difficulties of a trial after 25 years, other options are explored that would more quickly remove Father Murphy from ministry.
19 August 1998
Archbishop Weakland writes that he has halted the canonical trial and penal process against Father Murphy and has immediately begun the process to remove him from ministry a quicker option.
21 August 1998
Father Murphy dies. His family defies the orders of Archbishop Weakland for a discreet funeral.
#6
The story is false. It is unsupported by its own documentation. Indeed, it gives every indication of being part of a coordinated campaign against Pope Benedict, rather than responsible journalism.
Before addressing the false substance of the story, the following circumstances are worthy of note:
The New York Times story had two sources. First, lawyers who currently have a civil suit pending against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. One of the lawyers, Jeffrey Anderson, also has cases in the United States Supreme Court pending against the Holy See. He has a direct financial interest in the matter being reported.
The second source was Archbishop Rembert Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee. He is the most discredited and disgraced bishop in the United States, widely known for mishandling sexual-abuse cases during his tenure, and guilty of using $450,000 of archdiocesan funds to pay hush money to a former homosexual lover who was blackmailing him. Archbishop Weakland had responsibility for the Father Murphy case between 1977 and 1998, when Father Murphy died. He has long been embittered that his maladministration of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee earned him the disfavor of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, long before it was revealed that he had used parishioners money to pay off his clandestine lover. He is prima facie not a reliable source.
Laurie Goodstein, the author of the New York Times story, has a recent history with Archbishop Weakland. Last year, upon the release of the disgraced archbishops autobiography, she wrote an unusually sympathetic story that buried all the most serious allegations against him (New York Times, May 14, 2009).
A demonstration took place in Rome on Friday, coinciding with the publication of the New York Times story. One might ask how American activists would happen to be in Rome distributing the very documents referred to that day in the New York Times. The appearance here is one of a coordinated campaign, rather than disinterested reporting.
Its possible that bad sources could still provide the truth. But compromised sources scream out for greater scrutiny. Instead of greater scrutiny of the original story, however, news editors the world over simply parroted the New York Times piece. Which leads us the more fundamental problem: The story is not true, according to its own documentation.
The New York Times made available on its own website the supporting documentation for the story. In those documents, Cardinal Ratzinger himself does not take any of the decisions that allegedly frustrated the trial. Letters are addressed to him; responses come from his deputy. Even leaving that aside, though, the gravamen of the charge that Cardinal Ratzingers office impeded some investigation is proven utterly false.
The documents show that the canonical trial or penal process against Father Murphy was never stopped by anyone. In fact, it was only abandoned days before Father Murphy died. Cardinal Ratzinger never took a decision in the case, according to the documents. His deputy, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, suggested, given that Father Murphy was in failing health and a canonical trial is a complicated matter, that more expeditious means be used to remove him from all ministry.
To repeat: The charge that Cardinal Ratzinger did anything wrong is unsupported by the documentation on which the story was based. He does not appear in the record as taking any decision. His office, in the person of his deputy, Archbishop Bertone, agreed that there should be full canonical trial. When it became apparent that Father Murphy was in failing health, Archbishop Bertone suggested more expeditious means of removing him from any ministry.
Furthermore, under canon law at the time, the principal responsibility for sexual-abuse cases lay with the local bishop. Archbishop Weakland had from 1977 onwards the responsibility of administering penalties to Father Murphy. He did nothing until 1996. It was at that point that Cardinal Ratzingers office became involved, and it subsequently did nothing to impede the local process.
#7
Lawrence Murphy was born in 1925 and was ordained a priest in 1950. He served at St. Johns School for the Deaf from 1963 to 1974, during which time he later admitted to having abused 19 boys (press reports are saying as many as 200, but there is speculation involved there).
In the mid 1970s his victims complained to the police, but this did not result in a trial.
Note well: This is not a case of the diocese preventing the police from knowing about it. They already knew.
Murphy was removed from the school for the deaf and given no further pastoral assignment. He moved back to his family residence, where he lived with his mother. Except for occasional visits to his brother in Houston, he lived in this house for the rest of his life.
There were no further allegations of sexual abuse against him.
In 1995, some of Murphys victims and their lawyers contacted the now-archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland (ironic, yes, but thats a different issue), reporting Murphys actions from the 1970s.
In December of 1995, Weakland ordered a preliminary investigation to determine whether the allegations had merit. It was concluded that they did.
However, because the charges against Murphy included the abuse of the sacrament of confessionan offense that was (and is) reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the FaithWeakland wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger in July 1996 asking for guidance in how to proceed.
Note this well: Back in 1996 the CDF did not have a mandate to handle cases of sexual abuse by priests. It does now. It received that mandate later. But in 1996 it did not have one. This is key: The reason that Weakland notified the CDF was not because the abuse of minors was involved but because the abuse of the sacrament of confession was involved.
Weakland had not received a reply by October of 1996, and he began preparations for a canonical trial of Murphy. In February 1997 Murphy raised the point that his crimes were committed before the 1983 Code of Canon Law was issued and that under the legal norms in force at the time, the statute of limitations had run out.
This caused Weakland to contact the Holy See with a request that the statute of limitations be waived so that the trial could proceed. He sent the request in March 1997 to the Apostolic Signatura, noting that he hadnt heard from the CDF.
Since the case involved offenses reserved to the CDF, the Signatura promptly forwarded the request there, and within two weeks Weakland had a reply from the CDF.
The reply came from the secretary of the congregation, (now Cardinal) Tarcisio Bertone.
Note that the reply came from Bertone, not Ratzinger. This is actually what you would expect. The way these dicasteries work, while the Cardinal Prefect (Ratzinger, in this case) is the director who sets policies and direction, it is the Secretary (Bertone) who is the actual day to day executive who oversees the functioning of the department. So while you would write to the Prefect as a matter of protocol, you would expect to hear back from the Secretary. Indeed, after deference to Ratzinger has been paid by writing the first letter to him, Weakland and Bishop Fliss of Superior correspond directly with Bertone.
Incidentally, note that in his statement, press spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi carefully and repeatedly talks about what the Congregation did regarding the Murphy case, not what Cardinal Ratzinger did. Note that carefully.
Thats important to how we evaluate the story. Criticize the way these departments are run if you want, but we dont have evidence that Ratzinger did anything in bad conscience.
What is clear is that Ratzinger was the leading change-agent pressing for tougher measures against abusive priests for nearly ten years.
So what did the CDF say in reply to Weaklands request for a waiver of the statute of limitations? They ruled to waive the statute of limitations and allowing the prosecution to continue, while asking him to pay attention to certain prior norms that must be read in light of current law.
In other words, the CDF said, Go ahead. Prosecute.
Scarcely anything to fault Ratzinger for here.
So things proceed with the potential canonical trial of Murphy until January 1998 (by which time the case had been transferred to the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, in whose territory Murphy was residing).
Next message: where the NYT gets it really really wrong...
As youd expect, he addresses it to Cardinal Ratzinger, and as as youd expect, Bishop Fliss of Superior (now handling the case) gets a reply from Bertone.
Murphy asks the CDF to declare the action of the diocese of Superior (to whom the case has been transferred) invalid because the statute to limitations when the crimes were committed has passed. The CDF refuses to do so and refuses to invalidate the pending action of the diocese of Superior against Murphy.
So they CDF says no - you will be prosecuted. No way to fault Cardinal Ratzinger there.
Murphy also makes a mercy-based request to the CDF not to be subjected to a trial at this point in his life. He writes:
I am seventy-two years of age, your Eminence, and I am in poor health. I have just recently suffered another stroke which has left me in a weakened state. I have followed all the directives of both Archbishop Cousins and now Archbishop Weakland. I have repented of any of my past transgressions, and have been living peaceably in northern Wisconsin for twenty-four years. I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood.
The CDF response:
[T]his Congregation invites Your Excellency [Raphael Michael Fliss of Superior, WI] to give careful consideration to what canon 1341 proposes as pastoral measures destined to obtain the reparation of scandal and the restoration of justice.
Canon 1341:
An ordinary is to take care to initiate a judicial or administrative process to impose or declare penalties only after he has ascertained that fraternal correction or rebuke or other means of pastoral solicitude cannot sufficiently repair the scandal, restore justice, reform the offender.
This is not the "get out of jail free" that the press paints it. It is simply a reminder from the CDF to adhere to Canon Law, and to examine alternatives.
In May Bishop Fliss concluded that the scandal in the deaf community was such that the trial needed to go forward.
In August 1998, Murphy died.
Murphy had written his letter of appealthe crux letter that the media is up in arms aboutin January of 1998 and in August of 1998 he was dead.
#9
One can fault any number of things about process or policy in this case, but we dont have evidence that Ratzinger did anything bad.
In fact, he didnt stop the trial against Murphy from proceeding -- his office even waived a statue to allow the trial to continue! At most,
he recommended waiving the judicial proceeding due to the mans advanced age and ill health while simultaneously taking steps to ensure that the man would not be a threat to anyone as he lived out his final months in seclusion.
Civil prosecutors make these kinds of judgments all the time, deciding whether it is really worth it to devote the resources to proceed to a full trial when the accused is elderly, not a threat, and likely to die during the proceedings.
They arent portrayed in the press as evil monsters, and from the facts of this case, Pope Benedict shouldnt either.
It turns out that the NYT charges are untrue. Nobody checked the facts. I think they're guilty of deliberate, scandalous and outrageous slander and libel and ought to be sued. Where are the Catholic lawyers ready to take this case?
We Catholics should repent and express our sorrow at the terrible crimes of Fr Murphy and others, but we should also fight back in the name of justice and truth.
#10
And now, the NAIL IN THE COFFIN of the NYTimes on this story - the words of the presider (part prosecutor, part judge) of the Murphy Canonical (Church) trial:
http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601
By Fr. THOMAS BRUNDAGE, JLC
To provide context to this article, I was the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1995-2003. During those years, I presided over four canonical criminal cases, one of which involved Father Lawrence Murphy. Two of the four men died during the process. God alone will judge these men.
To put some parameters on the following remarks, I am writing this article with the express knowledge and consent of Archbishop Roger Schwietz, OMI, the Archbishop of Anchorage, where I currently serve.
I will limit my comments, because of judicial oaths I have taken as a canon lawyer and as an ecclesiastical judge. However, since my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals, I feel a freedom to tell part of the story of Father Murphys trial from ground zero.
As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing out of a sense of duty to the truth. The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.
As a volunteer prison chaplain in Alaska, I have found a corollary between those who have been incarcerated for child sexual abuse and the priests who have committed such grievous actions. They tend to be very smart and manipulative. They tend to be well liked and charming. They tend to have one aim in life to satisfy their hunger. Most are highly narcissistic and do not see the harm that they have caused. They view the children they have abused not as people but as objects. They rarely show remorse and moreover, sometimes portray themselves as the victims. They are, in short, dangerous people and should never be trusted again. Most will recommit their crimes if given a chance.
In my interactions with Father Murphy, I got the impression I was dealing with a man who simply did not get it. He was defensive and threatening.
We proceeded to start a trial against Father Murphy. I was the presiding judge in this matter and informed Father Murphy that criminal charges were going to be levied against him with regard to child sexual abuse and solicitation in the confessional.
Between 1996 and August, 1998, I interviewed, with the help of a qualified interpreter, about a dozen victims of Father Murphy. These were gut-wrenching interviews. In one instance the victim had become a perpetrator himself and had served time in prison for his crimes. I realized that this disease is virulent and was easily transmitted to others. I heard stories of distorted lives, sexualities diminished or expunged. These were the darkest days of my own priesthood, having been ordained less than 10 years at the time.
I also met with a community board of deaf Catholics. They insisted that Father Murphy should be removed from the priesthood and highly important to them was their request that he be buried not as a priest but as a layperson. I indicated that a judge, I could not guarantee the first request and could only make a recommendation to the latter request.
In the summer of 1998, I ordered Father Murphy to be present at a deposition at the chancery in Milwaukee. I received, soon after, a letter from his doctor that he was in frail health and could travel not more than 20 miles (Boulder Junction to Milwaukee would be about 276 miles). A week later, Father Murphy died of natural causes. The fact is that on the day Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this.
With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In an October 31, 1997 handwritten document, I am quoted as saying odds are that this situation may very well be the most horrendous, number wise, and especially because these are physically challenged , vulnerable people. Also quoted is this: Children were approached within the confessional where the question of circumcision began the solicitation.
The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct.
... with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all.
#12
Dont forget the final tactic of a good smear job. Its the insideous pot shot after their targets rebuttal. Here the NYSlimes wasted no time saying that the Vatican was circling their wagons in customary damage control. Then in a condecending tone the suggestion was to stop protecting the Pope and just come clean. After all, lashing out at the media must be further proof of a sinister coverup right?
#13
The IBD stated: The real story is the American left's agenda to undermine all traditional institutions in this country, with establishment media outlets like the Times and Newsweek leading the feeding frenzy.
I think this says much about the motivation of the NYTs and MSM in general. There may also may be some "wag the dogs" going on here, i.e. Crisis scenarios for deflecting attention from the President's woes and radical agenda. After all, Don't let a good crisis go to waste as Rahm Emanuel would advise. If a crisis doesn't happen why not create one? They have been kicking this can down the road for some time now.
...a century-long dream of American progressives is finally looking like it might become a reality. The recently passed health-care legislation is the cornerstone of the Europeanization of America.
...In the egghead-o-sphere there's been an ongoing debate about whether America should become more like Europe.
...But I think the debate misses something. We can't become Europe unless someone else is willing to become America.
#2
We left European tyranny 200+ years ago. Why would we want to return to something we found distasteful at the declaration of our freedom. It is no more tasteful now. The Progressives will call themselves some other euphemism once the American people catch on to who and what they are.
...What seems like a catastrophe is a grand opportunity, and the only thing that can save Barack Obama and the Democrats is the Republican Party. If they Republicans cave in, if they return to their traditional role as tax collectors for the welfare state, then and only then will Obama's coup d'état become a success. If, however, under fierce pressure from the Tea Party Movement, they stick to their guns, if they articulate the argument for limited government and balanced budgets, if they are unwilling to compromise, there will be a realignment. If Mark Steyn is right about the plight we are in and he may well be right it will not be because the American people are corrupt beyond repair. It will be because the Republicans are a worthless lot. This is their testing time and ours, for if we keep the pressure up, if we push from office anyone inclined to cave in, the Republicans may surprise us by conducting themselves in an honorable fashion.
#2
Whoa there, comment number one. I am not happy with the Republican Party (and let them know it) but I am far less happy with the Democrats (who don't give a flying damn what I think). And I do NOT - most emphatically DO NOT - agree that most Americans are corrupt. And beyond repair? Go find your meds, now.
An aside: Want to experience Dem arrogance first-hand? Try calling Senator Kerry's Boston office and see if you can get past the arrogant, snotty, haughty little pricks answering the phones there to even ask/leave a question. Nauseating.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
04/10/2010 4:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Half the electorate who bothered to turn up decided to vote for Obama, a man with no public record, no evidence of his citizenship let alone his college grades, no friends from college for that matter and - by stark contrast - known links to Marxists, terrorists and cop killers.
So, Whiskey Mike, you might want to cut that first commenter some slack. Are the American people corrupt beyond repair? Not in the light of a merciful God. But it is difficult to argue the point given the countless millions of taxspender Americans willing to live as parasites with the government as their enforcer.
#4
As long as John McCain is a republican leader, the GOP will be spineless and gutless, because despite his wartime service, that is what McCain has become: a punk for the Dems.
Politically the GOP leadership have become like McCain - gutless, no real principles, a tax collector for the Welfare State, a DC insider, a servant who grows the master he serves (big government).
hmmm? Do you know anybody outside the LSM that refers to McLame as a party leader?
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/10/2010 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If, however, under fierce pressure from the Tea Party Movement, they stick to their guns, if they articulate the argument for limited government and balanced budgets
In other words if like in the Wizard of Oz, they find their heart, courage, and brain and stick to conservative principles, they will do O.K. If there is not a dime's worth of difference between liberal donks and Rhinos, the country is in for a whole lot more trouble.
#7
unfortunately I kind of have to agree w/#1...when 50% of the electorate knows more about American Idol then they do about the American Constitution I have no faith that the ship will get righted...
#9
I have NEVER seen American Idol. I say that with pride and not a bit of self-satisfaction. Not a bit
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/10/2010 17:20 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I stick with my comment. You should not be conflating ignorance, laziness, lame-brained starry-eyed idealism, and stupidity (and combinations thereof) with corruption. None of the comments made supporting comment 1 seem to grasp that distinction.
That said; Commenter 1, I withdraw the meds comment. It was uncalled for, in retrospect. Not enough coffee at the time of comment.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
04/10/2010 18:01 Comments ||
Top||
#11
One thing to be corrupt, and I don't see the Volkes as being so. Ignorant? Yes, and that's a feature, not a bug. This has been 40 years in the making. I don't see it lasting past Teh One.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
04/10/2010 22:20 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Given the interest in the Tea Party movement from voters on both sides of the aisle, not to mention the independents in the middle of it, the percentage of ignorant is clearly shrinking.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef has all the credentials to write a book titled My Life with the Taliban. He was 11 years old when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He became a refugee in Pakistan and went to a madrassa. He was intimately involved in the movement that came to be known as the Taliban. He was in the same room as Mullah Omar when the latter lost his eye in a firefight with the Soviet forces. Zaeef was among those who proposed Mullah Omar's name for leadership of the Taliban movement when it was formally launched in the autumn of 1994. Mullah Omar agreed, without too much fuss, but demanded total loyalty to him. Zaeef later occupied important positions in the Taliban government in Kabul, rising to the high posts of deputy and acting defence minister. Mullah Omar appointed him the Taliban regime's ambassador to Pakistan, which he resisted but had to accept; no one could defy Mullah Omar once he had made up his mind. His stint in Islamabad provides the most interesting insights on Taliban rule, coinciding as it did with 9/11, the negotiations over handing over Osama bin Laden, the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, isi's repeated efforts to win or buy over the author, etc. Surprisingly, Mullah Zaeef does not seem to have met, even once, Osama. He spent four years in Guantanamo, and now lives in Kabul.
