The Pope and the New York Times

It now appears to be clear that recent attempts on the part of the New York Times to link Pope Benedict with the horror of what has happened to children under the influence of priest-abusers have been woefully misdirected. I think Jimmy Akin has the clearest portrayal of the facts of the situation involving the horrible Fr. Murphy in Wisconsin, including the actions of the archdiocese, the local authorities, Rome, and what role Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) actually had. Read Jimmy here. What the New York Times has attempted to do is capitalize on abuse cases in order to launch a smear campaign. How can this possibly be considered honest journalism?

And one more thing: Just yesterday, Fr. Thomas Brundage, JLC, who was Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and who presided over the case of Fr. Murphy, has now spoken out to clear things up with the facts of this case that have been completely distorted by the New York Times. Smear campaigns do nothing to bring justice to abuse victims:

The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.

My intent in the following paragraphs is to accomplish the following:

-To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;

-To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;

-To 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 and provide for those who have been injured;

-To set the record straight with regards to the efforts made by the church to heal the wounds caused by clergy sexual misconduct. The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history.

And there is still much work to do.