Did the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger prevent a priest, Fr. Lawrence Murphy, from facing the law for crimes of sexual abuse?

Well, The New York Slime argue a mendacious case that yes, Cardinal Ratzinger did prevent Fr. Lawrence Murphy from being penalised. How does the evidence on The NY Times own website contradicts itself, and make their case based on these sources null and void? And how was The NY Times prioritising individuals with a vested financial interest? The link below answers these questions and more, as well as being an impeccable defence of Pope Benedict. This article by Fr. Raymond J. de Souza explains ‘The [NY Times] story is not true, according to its own documentation.’ 

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDkxYmUzMTQ1YWUyMzRkMzg4Y2RiN2UyOWIzNDVkNDM=

Fr. de Souza’s article is first and foremost a portrayal of the now Pope Benedict's blamelessness, but it does not shirk from pointing to the culpability of some ordained Catholic priests who were guilty. Namely Fr. Murphy and his bishop, the infamous Archbishop Weakland. 

Is it just Fr. de Souza who is pointing to Archbishop Weakland’s guiltiness in all this? No. Bishop Fred Henry’s pastoral letter is not kind to Archbishop Weakland, but it’s the reality. See here: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/wrong+point+finger+Pope+abuse+scandals/2741576/story.html

What does the judge for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee have to say about Fr. Murphy, the trial and now The NY Times? And why does this judge assert that ‘Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse’? See here: http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601#more-601

Sometimes real life reads too much like a bad novel – Archbishop Weakland’s name, including the adjective ‘weak’, has a glaring relevance to the life of a bishop who didn’t take the appropriate actions against Fr. Murphy, and who withheld key details of Fr. Murphy’s furtive abuse for twenty years. Bishop Weakland incriminates himself; he lied, in writing, about the extent of his knowledge to the Vatican. But then, what respect did Bishop Weakland show for his own superiors and for Rome? Bishop Weakland on one occasion wrote to his own priests; "We are not a corporation with head offices in Rome ... it is my obligation to insist on the rights and duties of the local bishop in the Catholic Church"

For more on Bishop Weakland’s regrettable Curriculum Vitae see here; http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0797-editorial

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=1103-notes-shame

 

PS - There is ONE benefit to getting The New York Times in my inbox every day. Let me explain. The majority of their stories about Catholicism are ragged fabrications of unreality, designed to make the Body of Christ look like a shabby tramp, but this manufactured nastiness is read by an online audience of millions globally. And what begins as a story there becomes the accepted ‘gospel’ for the next year. And so many use The New York Times as a reference in post-graduate studies, scholarly books and in their conversations, ‘but The New York Times reported it that way!’ But you need to read it to know what you’re up against. Having read The New York Times, I then look for the Catholic apologetics and the actual truth of the matter, so that I am prepared for the debates to come.