What Really Happened In Fr. Murphy Case?

Benedict CARDINAL RATZINGER Welcome readers of The Anchoress and Andrew Sullivan.

See also: EVIL MONSTER UPDATE: THE INSIDE STORY.

The level of vitriol being directed at Pope Benedict by the mainstream media right now is truly extraordinary. It’s primarily drive by desire for cash (scandal sells), followed closely by hatred, along with a hefty dose of ignorance.

Reading Maureen Dowd’s latest opinion column is just a cringe-inducing experience.

Even in ostensible news pieces the misrepresentation of facts is staggering. That’s where the ignorance comes in. Reporters in the mainstream media are seldom well versed in the matters they are reporting on, and it is clear that—even when outright malice is excluded from the equation—they simply do not have the background to properly understand or report on how the Vatican works and what its actions mean.

I am not saying that the Holy See’s handling of abuse cases can’t be legitimately criticized. I’m not saying that then-Cardinal Ratzinger/now-Pope Benedict XVI didn’t experience a learning curve on this point. And I don’t know what else is out there that remains to be discovered.

But I am saying that the media is getting this story wrong, particularly in the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy, the American priest whose case was dealt with by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when Cardinal Ratzinger was its head.

The New York Times has done a great service to those wanting to look into this story by putting online a large number of primary source documents pertaining to the case. No doubt they mean these to incriminate Pope Benedict, but if you read them carefully—and if you know the relevant background—they don’t. (The documents are also posted here in .pdf format.)

So let’s look at the facts of the case in light of the documents:

Lawrence Murphy was born in 1925 and was ordained a priest in 1950. He served at St. John’s 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.

His victims also hung “most wanted” posters of him outside Milwaukee’s cathedral to urge Church authorities to deal with the situation. According to a document from the 1990s produced in preparation for a Church trial, virtually no documentation was available on the details of what the Milwaukee archdiocese did regarding the case back in the 1970s, but the result is known in broad brush.

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.

He was never granted a pastoral assignment by the diocese of Superior, in which he was now living, but he occasionally said Mass at parishes and was used in some capacity at retreats for deaf people, due to his ability to communicate in sign language.

There were no further allegations of sexual abuse against him.

In 1995, some of Murphy’s victims and their lawyers contacted the now-archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland (ironic, yes, but that’s a different issue), reporting Murphy’s 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 confession—an offense that was (and is) reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—Weakland 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. 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 hadn’t 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.

Here are two important points:

1) The delay in response. Weakland first wrote to the CDF in July 1996. He got his reply (after a further prompting) in March 1997—nine months later.

If you want to criticize, here is a possible thing to criticize. The CDF could have gotten back to him in a more timely manner. On the other hand, the CDF does not have a huge staff but it does have a huge mission as the Church’s theological quality control department. I think this one is debatable.

2) 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 in charge, it is the Secretary (Bertone) who is the actual “show-runner”—the one who oversees the day-to-day functioning of the department. So while you would write to Ratzinger as a matter of protocol, you would expect him to hand the matter off to Bertone and to hear back from the latter. 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.

This creates a situation where we don’t really know what Ratzinger’s involvement was. In the documentation presented by the New York Times Ratzinger never replies. It’s always Bertone who does so. Bertone (not Ratzinger) even chairs a meeting at the Vatican on the matter.

Did Cardinal Ratzinger even see the initial letter regarding Murphy? Maybe. Or maybe it was given to Bertone as part of his role as show-runner. Maybe the mail room at the CDF automatically gives correspondence addressed to the Cardinal Prefect to the Secretary, who serves as his filter. I don’t know. (Maybe someone who knows such things can clarify in the combox. Please cite sources.)

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.

Guess why.

So we don’t know if Ratzinger saw the letter, or if he was told about it, or what if anything he did.

That’s important to how we evaluate the story. Criticize the way these departments are run if you want, but we don’t have evidence that Ratzinger did anything in bad conscience.

He’s also been the leading change-agent pressing for tougher measures against abusive priests for nearly ten years.

So what did Bertone say in his reply to Weakland’s request for a waiver of the statute of limitations? He said for Weakland to continue the judicial process against Murphy, thus waiving the statute of limitations, while asking him to pay attention to certain prior norms that must be read in light of current law.

In other words, Bertone 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). In this month, Murphy writes his own letter to the CDF.

As you’d expect, he addresses it to Cardinal Ratzinger, and as as you’d expect, Bishop Fliss of Superior (now handling the case) gets a reply from Bertone.

This is the crux letter—where people in the press want to find fault with Cardinal Ratzinger.

There are, again, a number of important things to note:

1) The text of the Murphy letter itself. Mainstream media sources will quote only a sound bite or two (at best; some flat-out misrepresent it), but thanks to the Internet and the NYT’s putting the document online, you can read it for yourself and make your own judgments.

HERE IT IS.

2) In the letter, 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 in Bertone’s reply and suggests that the case be handled in another way (more on that in a moment). The point is: The CDF refuses to invalidate the pending action of the diocese of Superior against Murphy. No ground of faulting Ratzinger there.

3) 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 [Cardinal Ratzinger], 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.

So when the response came from Archbishop Bertone, what did it say?

It did not prohibit a canonical trial. It didn’t say that this couldn’t be done. But it did hint at another path, saying:

[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 provides that:

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.

So Bertone urges the relevant ordinary (now Fliss due to the change of diocese in which the trial would occur) to heed what the Code of Canon Law says regarding when to use a judicial process. Criticize the Code if you want, but we don’t have evidence of wrongdoing on Ratzinger’s part.

Note that Bertone doesn’t say Fliss can’t or shouldn’t go forward with the trial. He just says think about this canon and if there is another way to resolve the matter.

In May Fliss concluded that the scandal in the deaf community was such that the trial needed to go forward.

At the very end of the same month, he and Weakland were in Rome for their ad limina visit, and they had a meeting with Bertone about the Murphy case. Ratzinger was not present.

Bertone again did not say that the trial could not proceed. He pointed out certain canonical and practical difficulties it would involve, but he did not prohibit it. He further recommended that Murphy be examined by three psychiatrists, that he be assigned a spiritual director to keep tabs on him, that he be prohibited from doing anything with the deaf community, and that he be allowed to celebrate Mass only with permission given in writing by both Weakland and Fliss.

This seems to be the last action the CDF took on the matter—except for forwarding the minutes of the meeting a few weeks later (July 1998).

The next month, August 1998, Murphy died.

He really was in poor health.

Murphy had written his letter of appeal—the crux letter that the media is up in arms about—in January of 1998 and in August of 1998 he was dead.

One can fault any number of things about process or policy in this case, but we don’t have evidence that Ratzinger did anything in bad conscience. He didn’t stop the trial against Murphy from proceeding. At most (attributing everything to him that Bertone did) he recommended waiving the judicial proceeding due to the man’s 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 aren’t portrayed in the press as evil monsters, and from the facts of this case, Pope Benedict shouldn’t either.

Your thoughts?

There Isn’t Anything You Can’t Do With Duct Tape

Ht_icarus_ii_3_100326_main Here's an interesting little home-made device.

Mind you, it's nowhere near as cool as a gasoline-powered alarm clock, but it'll do nicely.

An English man made it with a camera he got off eBay, a weather balloon, a GPS tracker, some fiberglass insulation, and–yes–duct tape.

ABC News reports:

He buys weather balloons from a supplier in the United States. . . . He uses an off-the-shelf GPS locator, which gets signals from U.S. satellites, so he can track the balloon on Google maps. He bought a Canon pocket digital camera (a model discontinued in 2008) and attached a circuit board so that it would take pictures every five minutes.

The balloon rises, carried randomly by the wind, until it bursts. The camera then parachutes to the ground in its housing. Harrison put his phone number and a printed label on the outside: "Harmless Scientific Experiment."

GET THE STORY. 

BTW, the picture is one of his. Yorkshire from 20 miles up.

But I *Want* A Gasoline-Powered Alarm Clock!

200px-Energy_Star_logo  According to the Government Accountability Office

American consumers, businesses, and federal agencies rely on the Energy Star program to identify products that decrease greenhouse emissions and lower energy costs. 

Lower energy costs, okay. Lowering greenhouse emissions, ihh.

In addition, the federal government and various states offer tax credits and other incentives to encourage the use of energy-efficient products including Energy Star products. Specifically, approximately $300 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be used for state rebate programs on energy-efficient products. 

Ah. So my tax dollars are underwriting this thing. I want it held accountable! What are you going to do about that?

The Energy Star program, which began in 1992, is overseen jointly by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Nice to know, but again: What are you going to do to hold this government thingie spending my tax dollars to "lower greenhouse emissions" accountable? I want to know!

Given the millions of dollars allocated to encourage use of Energy Star products and concerns that the Energy Star program is vulnerable to fraud and abuse, . . . 

My thought exactly!

. . . GAO was asked to conduct proactive testing to (1) obtain Energy Star partnership status for bogus companies and (2) submit fictitious products for Energy Star certification. 

Ooooo! This should be interesting!

To perform this investigation, GAO used four bogus manufacturing firms and fictitious individuals to apply for Energy Star partnership and submitted 20 fictitious products with fake energy-savings claims for Energy Star certification. 

So . . . our government is admitting . . . to lying . . . to itself?

GAO also reviewed program documents and interviewed agency officials and officials from agency Inspector General (IG) offices.

Okay, but that's less interesting than the government admitting to lying to itself part.

GAO's investigation shows that Energy Star is for the most part a self-certification program vulnerable to fraud and abuse. 

I knew it! I knew it! (Just like all that climate science junk.) Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Oh . . . I guess that's the GAO.)

So what happened?

GAO obtained Energy Star certifications for 15 bogus products, including a gas-powered alarm clock. 

WOO-HOO!!! Gas-powered alarm clocks! Oh wait . . . it's fake.

Two bogus products were rejected by the program and 3 did not receive a response. 

So 75% of the fake products (15 of 20) were approved.

In addition, two of the bogus Energy Star firms developed by GAO received requests from real companies to purchase products because the bogus firms were listed as Energy Star partners. This clearly shows how heavily American consumers rely on the Energy Star brand. 

Indeed!

The program is promoted through tax credits and appliance rebates, and federal agencies are required to purchase certain Energy Star certified products. 

So . . . you're saying that I could come up with a fake product, get it approved by Energy Star, and then government agencies would be required to purchase it? I mean, not–er–me, but–well–somebody?

GAO found that for our bogus products, certification controls were ineffective primarily because Energy Star does not verify energy-savings data reported by manufacturers. 

So you are saying that I–er–someone could do this!

At briefings on GAO's investigation, DOE and EPA officials agreed that the program is currently based on self-certifications by manufacturers. 

Does Al Gore know about this? He might want to get in on the action.

However, officials stated there are after-market tests and self-policing that ensure standards are maintained. 

Uhhh-huh.

GAO did not test or evaluate controls related to products that were already certified and available to the public. 

Be interesting if it did, though.

In addition, prior DOE IG, EPA IG, and GAO reports have found that current Energy Star controls do not ensure products meet efficiency guidelines.

Okay, then.

MORE. (See links to report/highlights at top of page)

AND SOME FROM POPULAR MECHANICS.

AND WIKIPEDIA REPORTS PAST PROBLEMS WITH ENERGY STAR.

A Word Of Comment

TypePad is having problems with the comments on some blogs, including this one.

I've communicated with them about it, and they say they are working on it and should have it fixed soon.

My apologies to those who have been trying to comment but who have been unable to do so.

I'll let y'all know once it's fixed.

In the meantime, I'm going to put up a couple of posts for your reading enjoyment.

I wonder what y'all'll say once the comments are fixed . . . 😉

Underwater Mortgage Ethics

Underwater-hotel-turkey A reader writes: 

I'd like to hear your thoughts on what (if any) ethical obligations are due to a mortage contract in the current environment. I bought a home, and it's now severely underwater; worth maybe 50 – 60% of the purchase price. The payments are affordable to me for now, but much better homes can be had for much less now. Banks are not very accommodating to restructuring loans; many people in this situation are choosing to walk away. It makes a lot of financial sense to do so.


While at least I'm on a fixed-rate mortgage, it still features several of the creative financing schemes so popular at the time. Payments for now are 100% interest — not a penny is going to pay off the house itself (not that I would want to sink any more money into it than I have to). Then there's a big balloon payment due in a few years, and monthly payments go up at that time as well. So this mortgage is a ticking time bomb. The balloon payment is a few years off, but it's doubtful that the value will recover sufficiently by then, barring rampant inflation.

I can't give advice about what to do in the reader's specific situation (and I've edited out some additional details for purposes of protecting the reader's identity), but I can offer thoughts on the principles involved.

The Church recognizes the institution of private property and the legitimacy of sales and contracts. All of these require respect for the institutions in question that require respect for agreements made, the keeping of one's word, and respect for the property of another. 

Society couldn't function if people took each others' property willy-nilly, never honored their word, etc.

So there is a basic obligation to honor one's agreements in business matters.

But just as private property is not an absolute (a starving man may steal food to feed his family provided he is not stealing it from someone who also can't afford to lose it), so contracts are not an absolute).

The truth is that in a mortgage, both parties are taking risks, but at the time they judge the risks acceptable.

Circumstances may change, however, such that terminating or breaking the contract becomes rational.

This is something to be discouraged–because society needs contract-keeping to be the norm in order to function–so there are penalties spelled out in contracts and in civil law more broadly to discourage people from doing it. 

This is analogous to the penalties that are inflicted for stealing. Society needs those to discourage widespread stealing. Yet sometimes it is morally permissible to take and use another's property without his permission. 

Theft is the taking of another's property against the reasonable will of the owner (meaning, it's no longer the sin of theft when it is not reasonable for the owner to prevent you from using his property).

I would suggest that a parallel principle applies here: One is obliged to fulfill one's mortgage obligations provided it is within the reasonable will of the lender.

But if one's family or personal finances will be gravely harmed by failure to walk away, if the consequences that you will suffer due to walking away are less than those of failing to do so, and if you will not be inflicting similar grave harm on others by walking away, then it is legitimate to do so.

The final condition I mentioned–not inflicting proportionate harm to others–is somewhat tricky to evaluate, but in general, pain is more bearable the more it is spread around. Generally an institution like a mortgage lender can bear the pain of a mortgage going bad than can an individual family–even though it means the pain of that loss is going to be passed on to those who own or invest in the lender or (given the involvement of the government) to taxpayers more broadly.

What happens when there are massive numbers of such mortgages going bad means there is a lot of pain being heaped on the system, but in general terms it is more likely to be handled well if distributed broadly rather than concentrated narrowly. 

That's just a general principle of pain management. 

So, short answer: One in general should keep one's mortgage obligations, but there are circumstances in which it is both rational and moral to walk away. This should not be done lightly (and one should not underestimate the negative consequences of doing so), but one is not obliged to drive one's finances into the ground or otherwise do grave harm to them by continuing to try to do so.

Is Obama The Antichrist?

ObamasmileThere’s a meme going around certain quarters that Republicans are nuts because a massive number of them believe that President Obama may be the antichrist.

I first encountered this on the Drudge Report, which linked to the British paper the Daily Mail, which has a story headlined:

Almost a quarter of Republicans think Obama ‘may be the Antichrist’ as 14 states sue over healthcare reforms

Here’s the entirety of what that article has to say on the antichrist subject:

Nearly a quarter of Republicans believe the Democrat president ‘may be the Antichrist’, according to a survey.

That’s it! No link to the original poll. No clue about how it was run. Nada!

A lot of other people are blogging it without linking it, to which I can only say, “Shame on you. Linking is an essential part of blogging. You’ve got to show people the source so they can make their own judgments. Blogging an inflammatory subject with no link is Just Plain Wrong.”

So I’m not going to do it. Here’s a summary of the Harris Interactive poll at the root of the meme

According to the Harris Interactive group, the poll . . .

. . . finds that 40% of adults believe he is a socialist. More than 30% think he wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns and that he is a Muslim. More than 25% believe he wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a world government, has done many things that are unconstitutional, that he resents America’s heritage, and that he does what Wall Street tells him to do.

More than 20% believe he was not born in the United States, that he is “the domestic enemy the U.S. Constitution speaks of,” that he is racist and anti-American, and that he “wants to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers.” Fully 20% think he is “doing many of the things that Hitler did,” while 14% believe “he may be the anti-Christ” and 13% think “he wants the terrorists to win.”

Among Republicans, the numbers are different:

Majorities of Republicans believe that President Obama:

* Is a socialist (67%)
* Wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns (61%)
* Is a Muslim (57%)
* Wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government (51%); and
* Has done many things that are unconstitutional (55%).

Also large numbers of Republicans also believe that President Obama:

* Resents America’s heritage (47%)
* Does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do (40%)
* Was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president (45%)
* Is the “domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of” (45%)
* Is a racist (42%)
* Want to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers (41%)
* Is doing many of the things that Hitler did (38%).

Even more remarkable perhaps, fully 24% of Republicans believe that “he may be the Anti-Christ” and 22% believe “he wants the terrorists to win.”

While few Democrats believe any of these things, the proportions of Independents who do so are close to the national averages.

What the press release doesn’t tell you, but what is in the poll summary table, is that a surprisingly number of Democrats believe similar things. They proportions are smaller than the above numbers, but significant number of Democrats believe that President Obama:

* Is a socialist (14%)
* Wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns (17%)
* Is a Muslim (15%)
* Wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government (12%).
* Has done many things that are unconstitutional (9%).
* Resents America’s heritage (12%)
* Does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do (15%)
* Was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president (8%)
* Is the “domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of” (8%)
* Is a racist (7%)
* Want to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers (8%)
* Is doing many of the things that Hitler did (6%).
* May be the Anti-Christ (6%).
* Wants the terrorists to win (5%).

The Republican party, of course, has a large Evangelical component that is interested in the end-times, inclined to think we are living in them, and thus on the lookout to scope out current political figures with an eye to whether they might be the antichrist. That’s just going to happen to some degree. (Note also: It says “may be” the antichrist, not “is”). It’s like back in the ‘80s when some were suggesting that Ronald Wilson Reagan was the antichrist because he had six letters in each of his three names.

The more surprising number—if any of these numbers were real (more on that in a moment)—is how many Democrats think Obama might be the antichrist. If six percent of your own party think you may be the antichrist, that’s potentially newsworthy.

Rather than the nutty/scary/evil Republican meme, the more newsworthy headline based on these numbers would be something like,

“More Than 1 in 20 Democrats Think Obama May Be Antichrist (And Compare Him To Hitler)”

But are these numbers even real?

The poll was an online one that apparently used leading questions. (It wasn’t the completely unscientific kind of online poll, but it used methodology that is at least questionable.)

SEE HERE FOR A CRITIQUE.

So at bottom what it looks like we have is an iffy, leading poll being used to feed the meme of “conservatives have Obama Derangement Syndrome.” (As if we hadn’t just suffered through eight years of Bush Derangement Syndrome.)

When this kind of thing happens, and particularly when it involves religious matters (like who might or might not be the antichrist), it’s important to have a response.

So I wanted to give you the scoop on the poll (including a link! I had to search hard to find that!) and some perspective in case someone throws this your way (and they may; it was on Drudge, after all).

As a final bit of perspective, I’ll say this: Whatever his flaws may be and however profound they may be, President Obama does not fit the model presented in the Bible of the figure commonly referred to as “the antichrist.”

MORE INFO HERE.

The book of Revelation presents the Beast from the sea (commonly identified with “the antichrist” that John’s epistles speak of, though they may not be the same) as a European monarch who literally demands worship and who puts Christians to death and whose name adds up to 666 in a common alphabetic/numbering system in use at the time. That fits Caesar Nero (right down to the name adding up to 666), but it does not fit President Obama.

MORE HERE.

Of course, there may well be a future fulfillment of the antichrist archetype (I expect that there will be)—and there is a great deal of liberty of interpretation here since the Church’s teaching in this area is very limited—but we shouldn’t feed the meme identifying President Obama as the antichrist.

Your thoughts?

Bart Stupak Thinks You’re A Hypocrite

Bart-stupakNot all of them, mind you. But, at least, he’s accused the U.S. bishops and the National Right to Life Committee of hypocrisy.

According to The Daily Caller:

“The [National] Right to Life and the bishops, in 2007 when George Bush signed the executive order on embryonic stem cell research, they all applauded the executive order,” Stupak said in an interview with The Daily Caller.

“The Democratic Congress passed [a bill] saying we’ll do embryonic stem cell research. Bush vetoed it in 2007. That same day he issued an executive order saying we will not do it, and all these groups applauded that he protected life,” Stupak said.

“So now President Obama’s going to sign an executive order protecting life and everyone’s condemning it. The hypocrisy is great,” he said.

To my mind, the addle-headedness of his comments is great.

President Bush, for all his flaws, vetoed a Bad Bill and then issued an executive order to further protect unborn life.

What Stupak did was vote for a Bad Bill with only a hope that the next pro-abort president (or even Obama himself, or the courts) won’t void the executive order he got in exchange for his vote.

Whatever else, Mr. Stupak does not seem gifted in finding good analogies to back up his charges of hypocrisy.

But perhaps he’s just expressing things badly (and offensively).

He goes on to suggest that had he not accepted the offer of the executive order that Mrs. Pelosi would have had the votes for the Bad Bill anyway, and it would have been passed without the executive order to blunt its effects on the unborn.

If so, his flippage on the issue would have been reasonable and praiseworthy (though his accusations of hypocrisy would not).

But is he right?

The bill passed with three votes to spare, 219-to-212.

But the Stupak gang provided more than four votes. Had they not voted for the Bad Bill, on its face it would not have passed.

Could Pelosi have had enough representatives who voted “no” who would have voted “yes” if Stupak hadn’t cut his deal to pass the Bad Bill anyway?

It’s possible, but it doesn’t strike me as plausible (else why make the deal with Stupak’s group?).

On the other hand, Pelosi could have just lied to Stupak about how many votes she had, and Stupak may have been stupid enough to believe her.

The Daily Caller is also running a piece titled Bart Stupak is either not very smart or he’s not very honest.

These certainly seem reasonable hypotheses, particularly given this video from November 2009 (CHT: Fr. Z):

So what do you think? Is Stupak’s reasoning good, bad, both? And what do you make of his charges of hypocrisy?

OH, AND THEN THERE’S THIS.

Just who is the hypocrite, now?

Copper Scroll Treasure Found?

Copper_scroll_fragment Okay, I didn't get a post done Saturday, so let's do a second one today and talk about the Copper Scroll, one part of which is pictured (left).

The Copper Scroll is one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and one of the most unusual.

Why?

Well, for a start, it's made out of copper. That's very unusual, suggesting it was very important and meant to be durable. It required special work to make the thing (it being harder to engrave on copper than to write on parchment or papyrus).

It's also unusual because it contains a cryptic list of locations where treasure is hidden.

What treasure?

Answer Unclear. Ask Again Later.

Perhaps the treasure of the Second Temple, which was destroyed by the Romans. Some have suggested the treasure of the First Temple (destroyed by the Babylonians). Perhaps treasure owned by the Qumran Community.

Hard to say.

Has the treasure been found?

Possibly. It's quite possible that all or virtually all of it has been found over the ages by people who quietly used it to fund their own lifestyles.

It's also possible that it never existed. Some have suggested the whole thing was a hoax, though personally I'm inclined to doubt that. Why would someone go to the bother of making a copper scroll (difficult work, that; expensive copper sheet, hammers and chisels and all that)?

Have any of the treasure items mentioned on the scroll be found in modern times, providing authentication for the list?

Maybe.

Some have argued that one of the sites mentioned in the copper scroll is to be found in a place known as the Cave of Letters, near the Dead Sea.

The Cave of Letters is so-named because letters dating from the time of the Second Jewish War (A.D. 130s) were found there. In fact, documents authored by the revolt's leader–Simon bar-Kokhba–were found there. Also, a notable cache of personal documents belonging to a woman named Babatha were also found.

More on Babatha and her personal documents.

Interview with man who helped find the documents.

The claim that one of the copper scroll sites has been found, like everything about biblical archaeology, is controversial, and quite debatable.

BUT THAT DIDN'T STOP NOVA FROM DOING A DOCUMENTARY ABOUT IT. (Transcript if you don't want video.)

Interesting stuff, regardless of whose theory may be true.

Suppose You’re a Priest . . .

Confessional  Generally not.

Or at least that’s the answer of Bishop Gianfranco Girotti (pictured) of the Apostolic Penitentiary.

According to Catholic News Service:

A priest who confesses sexual abuse in the sacrament of penance should be absolved and should generally not be encouraged by the confessor to disclose his acts publicly or to his superiors, a Vatican official said.

Likewise, the confessor should not make the contents of such a confession public, said Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, a Vatican court that handles issues related to the sacrament of penance. . . .

When a priest confesses such acts, “the confession can only have absolution as a consequence,” he said.

This may be an eye-opening response, but there are some qualifiers. The first is this:

Bishop Girotti spoke strictly about the response of a confessor, and not about the wider responsibility to acknowledge and investigate priestly sexual abuse outside the confessional.

So he’s not saying that everything possible shouldn’t be done outside the confessional to investigate abuse. He’s dealing with what goes on under the seal of confession, which—among other things—prohibits the confessor from himself revealing the penitent’s sin.

Then there is this:

“It is not up to the confessor to make them public or to ask the penitent to incriminate himself in front of superiors. This is true because, on one hand, the sacramental seal remains inviolable and, on the other hand, one cannot provoke mistrust in the penitent,” he said.

“From the confessor, (the penitent) can only expect absolution, certainly not a sentence nor the order to confess his crime in public,” he said.

In the first quotation Bishop Girotti seems to be saying that (a) the confessor cannot make the sins public because of the seal and (b) he should not ask the penitent to incriminate himself because to do so would provoke mistrust in the penitent.

(a) is very certainly true. (b) would seem to be questionable.

In the second quotation Bishop Girotti refers to “a sentence” and “the order” to confess publicly. There may be a translation issue here, but he may be alluding to one of a number of things.

Perhaps by “a sentence” he means (c) sentencing the penitent to self-incriminate as part of the act of penance required for absolution.

Perhaps by “the order” he refers to (d) demanding that the penitent self-incriminate but not as a condition of absolution.

If he is saying that a confessor must not require the penitent to self-incriminate as a condition of absolution then he is absolutely correct. If that were possible then any priest in the world would be able to circumvent the seal of confession by simply requiring penitents to publicly self-incriminate. It would defeat the whole purpose of the seal.

“You committed a sexual sin? I think it would be spiritually advantageous in motivating you not to do it again by admitting it publicly. Your penance is to admit it on YouTube.”

“You stole something? It would serve you well in motivating you not to do it again by self-incriminating. Your penance is to go turn yourself in to the cops.”

While public self-accusation was sometimes practiced in the early years of the Christian faith, the pastoral experience of the Church has been that it is much more pastorally advisable to assure penitents that they will not be publicly exposed, which is why the seal was created in the first place. To require penitents to publicly reveal their sins would defeat its whole purpose.

Rome is very serious about the integrity of the seal, and to keep anybody from even thinking about ways to circumvent it, the Code of Canon Law bluntly states:

Can.  983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.

Can.  984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

So the priest could not sentence a penitent to self-incrimination as a requirement of absolution.

Could he order him to self-incriminate?

Apart from the elements required for the sacrament, such as the assignment of a penance, the confessor does not have authority over the penitent. A confessor could not say, “For your penance say three Hail Marys. Oh, and apart from your penance, I also order you to take up a career in journalism (or fill in the blank with some other act that isn’t part of the penance).”

For lack of ability to order the penitent to do something, the most the confessor would be able to do would be to implore, encourage, urge, etc., the penitent to self-incriminate, either before Church or civil authorities.

To what extent should he do that?

Here there is room for debate.

From the news story, Bishop Girotti appears to think that this should not generally be done out of concern that it could alienate the penitent—to discourage him from seeking God’s mercy in the way that is ordinarily required for the forgiveness of mortal sin.

To answer the question one would need to take into account both the goods to be achieved by encouraging the penitent to turn himself in and the harms that could result.

So I’m wondering what the readers think.

How strongly and in what circumstances should a confessor urge a penitent to turn himself in? Does it matter whether the penitent is a priest or a layman? If it is you? Does it matter whether the sin is sexual abuse or something else? What sins should be ones that a confessor encourages self-incrimination for? What ones shouldn’t he? How can we distinguish the two? And what would happen to your willingness to go to confession if you knew you would meet with a strong encouragement to self-incriminate?