Jimmy Akin – Page 351

Post-Lenten Blogging Plans

Well, Lent is now over and my blog-every-day-but-Sunday Lenten resolution has now expired.

I think I more or less made it, with the possible exception of one or two posts (I haven't done an exact count).

So what now? Do I plan on stopping to blog, or to blog only on rare occasions?

Not in the slightest!

For a start, I haven't finished my Theological Connections series (that got delayed, in significant measure, due to the time sink that the current priestly sex scandal has created–wow has that required a lot of research!).

But even beyond that, I want to keep blogging at an increased rate, and so the current plan is to blog every weekday, or at least the great majority of weekdays.

I may miss days here and there, but then there also can be days with multiple posts (like today, which has two).

I've been getting requests via e-mail for more sci-fi blogging (as well as fiction blogging in general), so I'm going to be doing some of that (as well as finishing Theological Connections, considering various moral and canonical problems, and doing lead-ins to my Register posts, which I hope to make value-added when I can).

In particular, I plan to do my long-promised review of the finale of Battlestar Galactica (the final three hours of which I have just re-watched to refresh my memory), as well as telling you about the sci-fi series I am currently watching.

Enjoy!

Smoking Gun Memo Finally Translated

This will be a long one, so let me summarize the key points right up front:

* One of the documents contained in the New York Times files on the Fr. Lawrence Murphy case is a memo in Italian summarizing a meeting that was held at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about Fr. Murphy.

* This memo has not had a professional English translation until now.

* The new translation is a smoking gun in that it reveals how badly the New York Times and others have botched the story.

* Then-Cardinal Ratzinger was not present at the meeting. It was run by the Secretary of the CDF, then-Archbishop Bertone.

* Cardinal Ratzinger’s name never comes up, making it impossible to determine anything regarding his involvement in this case.

* In the meeting Bertone points out the difficulties in proceeding with canonical trial for Fr. Murphy, but he does not forbid one.

* The chief difficulty, according to Bertone, is gathering the needed proof against Murphy given the passage of time (not Murphy’s advanced age or ill-health, neither of which is mentioned at all).

* Bertone is appalled at how long this case has been allowed to linger and by the fact that Murphy apparently still has the ability to celebrate Mass for the deaf community in Milwaukee. He insists that this be rectified.

* He also insists that Fr. Murphy be made to reflect on the gravity of his crimes and to furnish proof of his repentance.

* If he fails to do so, Murphy can have additional penalties inflicted on him, including “dismissal from the clerical state” (i.e., laicization, “defrocking”).

* The CDF is thus not opposed to defrocking Murphy.

* A note on the same meeting by Bishop Sklba states that Bertone also said that a new canonical process can be initiated against Murphy if he violates directives not to have contact with the Milwaukee deaf community.

* In audio interview referencing the same meeting Archbishop Weakland also characterizes the CDF’s response as a “suggestion,” says that he doesn’t think Cardinal Ratzinger was personally involved with these types of cases at this point, says that everyone—including Weakland himself—moved slowly, and says that trying to initiate a canonical case to defrock a priest was something unusual at the time.

One can still criticize the way the CDF handled the case, but the memo does not reveal a portrait of Bertone—much less Ratzinger—as unwilling to take action against Fr. Murphy. A current trial is not prohibited, and even if one is not held, Murphy is not off the hook. He must be prohibited from contact with the community he has harmed, if he fails to provide proof of his repentance he is at risk of being defrocked, and if he breaks the new rules a further canonical process against him could begin.

Now the long form . . .

The other day while composing the first post regarding Cardinal Ratzinger’s (non-)involvement in the Lawrence Murphy paedophilia case I was frustrated by the fact that one of the key documents was available only in Italian and with a really, really lame machine translation done back in 1998.

The document was a memo summarizing a meeting on May 30, 1998 at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith between Archbishop Bertone, the secretary of the CDF and thus the man responsible for its day-to-day operations, and the American bishops involved in the Murphy case.

I figured I’d do the best with it I could, but there were likely additional facts in the document that would emerge in future discussion, once the matter was out on the blogosphere.

Boy, was that right!

This is the smoking gun memo for the case. It reveals just how completely wrong the New York Times and the mainstream media have gotten this story.

I owe a Ten Gallon Cowboy Hat Tip to translator Lori Pieper (BIO) (BLOG) for THIS PROFESSIONALLY DONE TRANSLATION. (HER COMMENTARY.)

Just as the New York Times and other media outlets never contacted key figure Fr. Thomas Brundage before running the story, it appears that they also never got a professional translation of the document, with the result that important facts were left out entirely—or ended up being misrepresented in the press to convey the opposite impression.

So much for the MSM’s “layers of fact checkers.” They couldn’t even have their correspondent in Italy (I assume that person can translate Italian to English?) do a translation of an obviously key document (a meeting held at the Vatican regarding the very case they’re investigating? Sheesh!).

But thanks to the blogosphere and its Army of Davids, we now have a translation. (All emphases, both bold and italics, in the original.)

So what does it say?

Summary of a meeting between the Superiors of the CDF and Their Excellencies the Prelates involved in the case of Lawrence C. Murphy, a priest accused of solicitation in Confession (Prot. No. 111/96).

As the title reveals, the reason that the CDF was involved in this case is that it involved a priest accused of sexual solicitation in the confessional—not because it involved paedophilia. At the time, the CDF did not have a mandate to cover paedophilia (those were normally handled by the local bishop or, if appealed to Rome, by a different Vatican court—the Roman Rota). But the CDF did (and does) have a mandate to deal with cases involving priests who commit sexual solicitation in the confessional.

The meeting took place on Saturday, May 30, 1998 in the office of the CDF. Present for the CDF were: His Excellency, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary, who presided over the meeting, the Rev. Father Gianfranco Girotti, Undersecretary. Don Antonio Manna of the Disciplinary Office, Don Michael Jackels (translator) and Fr. Antonio Ramos. Present were Their Excellencies the prelates who had requested the meeting: His Excellency, Rembert Weakland, Archbishop of Milwaukee (USA), his Auxiliary, His Excellency, Richard Sklba and His Excellency, Raphael Fliss, Bishop of Superior (USA).

Note who is not in attendance: Cardinal Ratzinger. It is possible that Bertone was acting on Ratzinger’s instructions in this meeting, but it is also possible that he was acting independently. We just don’t know. Ratzinger’s name never even comes up in this document.

Also note that the CDF has a Disciplinary Office, which is represented at the meeting by Don Antonio Manna. This is not the only case the CDF has to work on.

As the meeting starts, Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland begins with a summary of the case:

1. His Excellency Archbishop Weakland briefly set forth the previous facts of the case, bringing out the following points: 1°) there have turned out to be many victims of the abuses by Fr. Murphy, all of them deaf; 2°) in 1974, there was an intervention in Fr. Murphy’s case, but nothing had been recorded in the archdiocesan archives (it appears that there was a civil lawsuit, which ended without any penalty being imposed on the accused and the intervention consisted of sending the said priest to another diocese, i.e. Superior); 3°) the deaf community is now experiencing great indignation because of this case and refuses any pastoral solution; 4°) because of the long period of time that has passed since the events took place, it is no longer possible to begin a civil lawsuit in the state of Wisconsin; 5°) Fr. Murphy has no sense of remorse and does not seem to realize the gravity of what he has done. In addition, 6°) there is the danger of great scandal if the case is publicized by the press. According to the testimonies that have been collected, Fr. Murphy’s misdeeds had their origins in Confession.

Point 2 is startling, shocking even. For there not to be diocesan records concerning the 1974 “intervention” (that is, the action undertaken by the diocese) under Weakland’s predecessor Archbishop William Cousins reveals an instance of appalling incompetence at best.

Point 3 is the primary motivator for Weakland taking canonical action against Murphy. The deaf community will not find other solutions acceptable at this point.

Actually, there is more to it than this. Though the memo speaks of the deaf community as a united whole, in a recent audio interview with the BBC Weakland states that there was a sharp division in the Milwaukee deaf community over this case, with the younger members—who had been abused—indignant and the older members—who saw Murphy as someone helping them—taking his side.

It might be more accurate, then, to say that certain elements of the local deaf community would not accept anything other than a trial at this point.

Point 4 is another reason for canonical action. Because the Wisconsin statute of limitations has expired, the deaf community cannot begin an action against Murphy in civil court. If there is to be a judicial action taken against him, it must be in Church court.

Note that the idea of keeping the case secret is not on the table. The matter is public, and the civil authorities already knew (see point 2, above). It appears that if a civil lawsuit were still possible, nobody in the room would object to it.

Point 5 is the assessment that Fr. Thomas Brundage (see link above) and others involved in the case came to, though Murphy claimed the contrary in his January 1998 letter, in which he said that he had repented of his past transgressions. Nevertheless, as we will see, it is the assumption that he is not properly repentant that the meeting will proceed on.

Point 6 reflects the natural desire to avoid scandal. But be careful here. In ecclesiastical-speak, “scandal” does not just mean controversy. It means “to cause (others) to stumble” in their faith or morals (Greek, skandalizein, “to cause to stumble,” “to trip”), such as alienating people from Christ and his Church through the actions of sinful ministers—something any bishop would and should want to avoid.

Note that Weakland wants to pursue canonical action against Murphy to provide justice for abused members of the deaf community and heal the rift Fr. Murphy has created. And at the same time he wants to avoid the scandal and alienation that sensationalistic press coverage would generate.

It is one thing to try to avoid taking action in order to minimize press coverage. It is another to want to take action while minimizing scandal. It’s hard to fault Weakland for wanting to take the latter path.

One note on Weakland’s last point: The memo states that Fr. Murphy’s crimes “had their origin in Confession.” In the audio interview, Weakland clarifies that he’s not saying that they physically took place in the confessional but that they were in some way connected to the confessional. (Perhaps, e.g., he used his knowledge from the confessional to identify potential abuse victims.) This may relate directly to one of the difficulties that Archbishop Bertone points out.

Now that Weakland has had his say, Bertone of the CDF has his:

2. His Excellency the Secretary of the CDF—stressing both the long period of time that has now passed (more than 35 years!) from when the events took place, which constitutes the true problem even on the canonical side, and the fact that there has been no report of other crimes perpetrated or scandals created by Murphy during these years in Superior—maintains that there is insufficient information to instruct a canonical process. Nevertheless, he stresses, it is unacceptable for him [Murphy] to be able to go and celebrate the Eucharist in the deaf community in Milwaukee; it will be necessary, therefore, to impede him, having recourse also to some penal remedies. For precautionary reasons, he can be ordered to celebrate the Eucharist only in the diocese of Superior, especially since this is agreed to both by his Ordinary, i.e. the Archbishop of Milwaukee, and the Ordinary of the place where he resides. But such a provision must be communicated to him in writing. [1]

Note the element of exasperation at how long this has been allowed to linger (that exclamation point after “35 years” is there in the Italian). Because of this, Bertone feels that there is not enough information to properly inform a canonical process against Murphy. As a secondary point, he notes that there have been no new allegations against Murphy, but even though the statute of limitations has already been waived in terms of Church law, the gobsmacking lack of documentation and amount of time that this case has been left to linger creates significant hurdles for prosecuting this case.

That does not mean inaction at this point. On the contrary, Bertone now turns to measures that should be taken against Murphy even in the absence of an ecclesiastical trial.

He is indignant that Murphy has the ability to celebrate Mass for the deaf community in Milwaukee.

There is some confusion about precisely what Murphy did and was allowed to do in this matter. One source, from Feb 1997, suggests that Weakland and Sklba of Milwaukee have directed Murphy not to have contact with deaf people but that there is “some indication from the diocese of Superior” that he has done so by saying Mass and helping with retreats for the deaf.

Murphy’s own letter, from January 1998, indicates that his ministry was never restricted by Weakland’s predecessor, Cousins, and that thus he has on occasion said Mass at parishes in the diocese of Superior and helped at retreats for the deaf. He also states that he has complied with every directive of Cousins and now Weakland.

From the documentation I’ve been able to review, it is not clear just what the facts are. It may be there, but I haven’t seen proof that Murphy was saying Mass for the deaf in the Milwaukee archdiocese (or for the deaf in the diocese of Superior). It strikes me as unlikely that Murphy would say he had complied with all of Weakland’s directives if he knew that Weakland could produce a document showing him to be in violation. So perhaps Weakland only communicated the directive orally. Or perhaps there was miscommunication. Or perhaps the source quoted in the Feb. 1997 document was under the mistaken impression that such directives had been communicated when they hadn’t been.

In any event, Bertone is acting on the premise that Murphy still legally has the ability to celebrate the Mass for the deaf community in Milwaukee, and he is indignant and determined to end that.

The language he uses—for anyone familiar with the ultra-polite, ultra-diplomatic way that Catholic bishops speak to and about each other—is dramatic.

First, he says that is is “unacceptable” that Murphy has the ability to go and say Mass for the Milwaukee deaf community. In the language of bishops, saying this is “unacceptable” translates into normal speech as, “Why haven’t you taken care of this already, you fools? How can you possibly allow this criminal to continue to have contact with the very community he has harmed? You don’t need a trial to stop him from doing that. Use your authority as bishops!”

Thus he says it will be “necessary” (charged term) to “impede” (charged term) Murphy, including having recourse to the infliction of “penal remedies” (charged term).

BTW, Bertone may have been even more blunt about all this in person. What we are dealing with is the exquisitely politely-drafted memo version.

“For precautionary reasons” (i.e., to protect the Milwaukee deaf community from further scandalization—or even abuse—by Murphy), the two bishops can take immediate action. Together Weakland (the ordinary or episcopal “boss” to whom Murphy reports) and Fliss (the ordinary or episcopal “boss” of the place where Murphy lives) can order him not to celebrate Mass except in the Diocese of Superior, thus preventing him from doing so for the deaf community in Milwaukee.

This order “must” (charged term) be communicated to him in writing so that there can be no mistake about it. No “he said; he said.” (Perhaps this is an indication that prior directives to Murphy—if any—had been oral in nature.)

You don’t need a trial for this, guys. Do it!

Don’t let yourselves be hung up by a trial, because there are some hurdles there . . .

3. In regard to the possibility of a canonical process for the crime of solicitation in Confession, His Excellency the Secretary draws attention to some problems that it presents: 1°) first of all the difficulty of proving such a crime, the interpretation of which will have to be made in stricto sensu [in the strict sense]; 2°) the difficulty that deaf people have in furnishing proof and testimonies without aggravating matters, keeping in mind both the limits inherent in their disability and the distance of the events in time. Nevertheless, he stresses, it will be necessary to make Murphy reflect seriously on the grave nature of the evil he has done and on the fact that he will have to give proofs of reformation. 3°) He mentions finally the broad right of [self]-defense that exists in the U.S. and the difficulties that would be put forward by the lawyers in this direction.

Point 1 is Bertone’s real concern here: “the difficulty of proving such a crime.” Notice that, despite the fact that Murphy had sent a letter pleading ill-health as a reason not to proceed. Bertone’s concern is with the difficulty of using a trial under these circumstances, not with Murphy’s health. The latter may well have been one motivating factor in the CDF’s recommendations, but it doesn’t appear in the minutes of this meeting.

And so Bertone points out several difficulties with the proposition of going to trial.

Here we arrive at a place where the previous, machine translation, is positively misleading. Contrary to Andrew Sullivan and reader Carolyn Disco, who are dependent on the machine translation, Cardinal Bertone does not speak of increasing scandal or the need for secrecy. What Cardinal Bertone refers to is the need to prove that the crime has been committed “in the strict sense” (not proving it “in strict secrecy”) and that this will be difficult without “aggravating matters” (not “increasing the scandal”).

The first difficulty Archbishop Bertone mentions (dealt with in the latter part of point 1) is that the law applied to Murphy will have to be interpreted in the strict sense.

This refers to a point in canon law that may not be obvious. According to canon 18 of the Code of Canon Law,

Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.

The purpose of this canon (among other things) is to prevent innocent people from having penalties inflicted on them based on loosey-goosey readings of the law. If you’re going to be hit with a penalty, it should be unambiguous that you violated the law. (Note that this applies not just to priests, but to anybody who could be hit with a penalty. It’s related to the “innocent until proven guilty” ethic.)

Thus penal laws applied to Murphy will have to be interpreted in the strict sense. That means that you will have to prove that his actions clearly violated the letter of the law, not debatably violated it, not violating its spirit or intent, but clear violation of the letter of the law itself.

This opens up potential challenges that Murphy’s advocate could make in the case.

For example, remember how in the audio interview Weakland cautioned that the crimes may not have been in the confessional itself but only had some connection with it or “had their origin” in it, the way the memo states? Perhaps Weakland has a weak case against the guy in terms of proving a connection with the confessional. Murphy’s canonical advocate could certainly argue fallibility of memory after this many years.

We know how defense attorneys are (and you have to let the guy have a defense attorney or there is not even a pretense of justice): “Is Victim A really sure that Murphy said this to him in confession and not outside of it? How can he be sure after so many years? How does he know that Murphy’s abuse of him wasn’t based on attraction he felt independently and not based on what was said to him in confession? It’s one thing when these kinds of things are fresh in memory, but after 35 years?”

Remember: If Weakland wants to run this case under the auspices of the CDF then it needs to be tried on what the CDF has competency over at this time, which is abuse of the sacrament of confession. If Weakland wants to run it as a paedophilia case then the normal dicastery to contact would be the Roman Rota, not the CDF.

So Weakland may have made a mistake not only by waiting so long to deal with the case but also by picking a dicastery that doesn’t have the right jurisdiction given the evidence he can provide.

Also related, though not specifically mentioned here, is that like any priest accused of misconduct in the confessional, Murphy is hampered in making his own defense by the fact that he can never (under pain of automatic excommunication) violate the seal of confession. According to the Code of Canon Law,

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.

“For any reason” includes your own defense in a Church trial. Even to prove your own innocence, you can’t break the seal.

That makes hearing these kinds of cases harder, since one of the parties is significantly impeded from being able to tell his side of the story.

In point 2, Bertone brings out another difficulty in proceeding with the case, namely, “the difficulty that deaf people have in furnishing proof and testimonies without aggravating matters.”

I have to say that I don’t know what Bertone is referring to here. The memo tries to clarify by referencing “the limits inherent in their disability and the distance of the events in time.”

Perhaps Bertone is thinking that, given the utter lack of documentation from the 1970s, that it would aggravate matters for the deaf community by forcing members of it to undergo deposition via an interpreter in ways that could rip open old wounds about painful experiences a long time ago.

This could be particularly true if, as Weakland says in the audio interview, the local deaf community was divided, with one generation taking Murphy’s side and another opposing him.

Or perhaps he thinks that deaf people somehow have difficulty communicating matters with precision due to the nature of sign language (in which case he doesn’t—or at least didn’t—have much awareness of how American Sign Language works; it can be just as precise as spoken languages). Or perhaps he is thinking that some deaf people have difficulty communicating because their parents do not arrange for their children to have a good education in sign language and proper exposure to the deaf community (though that would not seem to be the case in a school for the deaf).

He does seem to be thinking of the fact that, for both the hearing and the deaf, our memories aren’t always as reliable as we would want concerning long-ago events, including—and perhaps especially—traumatic events.

Whatever the case here—and it may simply be bad memo drafting since we don’t have Bertone’s own words—he thinks that it will be difficult to get the needed proof for a trial.

Despite this, and in the same point, Bertone stresses that it will be “necessary” (charged word) “to make Murphy reflect seriously on the grave nature of the evil he has done and on the fact that he will have to give proofs of reformation.”

So Murphy is not to be let off the hook if a trial doesn’t proceed. He’s going to have to reflect on the gravity of his sins and provide proof that he has repented.

In point 3 Bertone cites a third difficulty for a trial, which is “the broad right of [self]-defense that exists in the U.S. and the difficulties that would be put forward by the lawyers” acting on Murphy’s behalf.

The memo doesn’t say, but it is possible Bertone is thinking not just of Murphy’s canonical advocate in the Church trial but of civil lawyers getting involved and trying to interfere with ecclesiastical proceedings. Indeed, that may be what he is thinking since under the Church’s internal law, priests in America don’t have any broader right of self-defense than priests in other countries (though American priests might seek to exercise their canonical rights more aggressively).

So, while he doesn’t exclude the possibility of a trial of Murphy, Bertone notes various difficulties that one would face, while simultaneously insisting that actions must be taken against Murphy.

Weakland then agrees to such actions . . .

4. His Excellency Archbishop Weakland commits himself to try to obtain from Father Murphy—whom he compares to a “difficult” child—a declaration of repentance; all three psychologists who have examined him consider him a “typical” pedophile, who therefore “considers himself a victim.” In this regard, the Under-Secretary [of the CDF] Father Gianfranco Girotti, stresses that the said priest will have to give clear signs of repentance, “otherwise we will have to have recourse to a trial.” His Excellency the Secretary [i.e. Bertone] proposes imposing on him a period of spiritual retreat together with a salutary admonition in order to be able to understand whether he really is repentant or not, otherwise, he would expose himself to the risk of having more rigorous measures imposed on him, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state. He then advises entrusting him to a priest as his spiritual director, with meetings every one or two months.

Here we have arrived at another point where the original machine translation is badly misleading. It is incredibly garbled. Among other things, it makes it appear that three psychologists would need (in the future) to evaluate him and determine if he is a typical paedophile. In fact, as the above translation makes clear, three psychologists have examined him and found him to be a typical paedophile.

Worse, the machine translation leaves out altogether Bertone’s proposal of “imposing on him a period of spiritual retreat together with a salutary admonition in order to be able to understand whether he really is repentant or not, otherwise, he would expose himself to the risk of having more rigorous measures imposed on him, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state” (emphasis in original). Dismissal from the clerical state is laicization or “defrocking,” so defrocking Murphy is explicitly on the table in this meeting. Yet the machine translation leaves it out entirely.

So, far from opposing a trial, on grounds of age or health or anything else, the undersecretary of the CDF indicates that “we will have to have recourse to a trial” if Murphy doesn’t furnish “clear signs of repentance.”

Bertone goes farther, saying that Murphy needs to be sent on retreat with the warning that if he doesn’t come back seriously repentant that he will risk exposing himself to “more rigorous measures [being] imposed on him,” including “dismissal from the clerical state.” He also wants a spiritual director to keep tabs on Murphy.

5. His Excellency the Secretary finally sums up the two central points of the line to be followed in regard to the priest, in a word: 1°) the territorial restriction of the celebration of the Eucharist and 2°) the admonition to induce him to show remorse.

So, whether there is a trial or not, two points are definitely to be followed: Keep Murphy from celebrating Mass for the Milwaukee deaf community and take steps to provoke repentance, with the warnings above about what will happen if he’s not properly repentant, age and anything else notwithstanding.

Weakland then get the last effective word:

Before the conclusion of the meeting, Archbishop Weakland thought it important to restate that it will be difficult to make the deaf community understand the slight extent of these provisions.

And that’s the end of the meeting.

We also have another, briefer account of the meeting in the form of notes that were taken on it by Bishop Richard J. Sklba [RJS in the notes], who was one of the attendees. He writes:

385.

Lawrence Murphy

On May 30, 1998 I joined Archbishop Weakland and Bishop Fliss in meeting with Archbishop Bertone and staff regarding the case. It became clear that the Congregation was not encouraging us to proceed with any formal dismissal on the basis of 24 years of apparent good conduct and the precept impeding exercise of orders currently in effect. We were also cautioned about the difficulty of the question of the Confessional, both in terms of the strict canonical definition of the crime as well as the time lapse between obtaining the information and acting thereon. Archbishop Bertone noted that disobedience of any precept forbidding contact with community members could form the basis for another canonical process.

RJS

So Sklba’s understanding was also that the CDF was “not encouraging us to proceed” but also not forbidding.

An interesting note that wasn’t captured in the official memo summarizing the meeting is Sklba’s last sentence: “Archbishop Bertone noted that disobedience of any precept forbidding contact with community members could form the basis for another canonical process.”

So even if there would be difficulties prosecuting a case this old, if Murphy violates the soon-to-be-imposed requirements not to have contact with the deaf community, he can be nailed for that.

In the audio interview, Weakland also offers a very brief account of the CDF meeting, which he also characterizes as resulting in a “request” to handle the case with restrictions rather than a trial (at the 3:55 mark). Weakland also states (4:40) that he doesn’t think Cardinal Ratzinger was personally involved in this kind of case at this point (i.e., before the CDF was given the mandate to handle them) and that everyone—Weakland himself included—was acting slowly. Weakland states that he probably should have acted ten years earlier (5:10). He also states, very interestingly, that at the time U.S. bishops weren’t really thinking about canonical cases to get priests defrocked (5:15), that what he was trying to do was something unusual for the time—perhaps explaining the difficulty he encountered trying to do it.

Guam To Tip Over?

That's what Congressman Hank Johnson is afraid is going to happen!

If it gets too overpopulated, Johnson fears it will "tip over" and "capsize."

Watch his comments for yourself . . .

(CHT: Hot Air.)

The Inside Story on the Fr Murphy Case

I’d like to thank The Anchoress and Andrew Sullivan for linking my previous pieceon Cardinal Ratzinger and the Murphy case, and for the kind things they said about it.

There is more to say about the story. Quite a bit, actually. In particular, I’ll be responding to Sullivan, and I’ll be able to report on the German story, but first there are some additional facts to get on the table regarding the Wisconsin one.

Let’s start with a piece by Fr. Thomas Brundage (pictured), who writes:

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.

Interesting that Brundage says two of the four men died during the process. Contrary to what you would think from press reports, Murphy appears to be one of the two, given what shortly will become clear.

In any event, a 50% death rate seems to indicate aggressive prosecution of men even when they are quite old or in ill health. So already a picture is forming of Brundage as presiding over a vigorous court.

He has not been pleased with the New York Times’ (and other outlets’) reportage on the Murphy case:

As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing from 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.

Yeowch!

In 1996, I was introduced to the story of Father Murphy, formerly the principal of St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. It had been common knowledge for decades that during Father Murphy’s tenure at the school (1950-1974) there had been a scandal at St. John’s involving him and some deaf children. The details, however, were sketchy at best.

Courageous advocacy on behalf of the victims (and often their wives), led the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to revisit the matter in 1996.

“Courageous advocacy” suggests that there was a struggle requiring courage to get the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to act, presumably this involved the argument that Fr. Murphy’s crimes were committed long ago and that he was no longer in the diocese. Nevertheless . . .

In internal discussions of the curia for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, it became obvious that we needed to take strong and swift action with regard to the wrongs of several decades ago.

So far so good, but note this:

With the consent of then-Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland, we began an investigation into the allegations of child sexual abuse as well as the violation of the crime of solicitation within the confessional by Father Murphy.

Courageous advocacy . . . discussions in the curia regarding swift and strong action . . . “consent” of Weakland. Fr. Brundage is by no means saying this, and I could be misreading, but it sounds as if the primary momentum for prosecution originated in Weakland’s curia rather than with Weakland himself.

That would make sense given that Weakland himself had spent nearly half a million dollars in diocesan funds as hush money to keep a former homosexual lover from suing him for sexual abuse from around 1980.

There might be reasons he wouldn’t want to go prying into decades-old priestly sex cases. Who knows what could get unearthed in the process?

But the intensity of Murphy’s victims and the firmness of the curia was such that . . .

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.

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.

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. Grace-filled spiritual direction has been a Godsend.

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 in a location about 100 miles from his home.

It would be interesting to learn where that was.

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.

Yeah. What is it with the mainstream media? How did they get so arrogant, or sloppy, or both?

Now here comes a very interesting point, but first let’s go back to the NYT documentation for a moment.

You will recall that there was a meeting at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that was presided over by (now Cardinal) Bertone, who did not tell Weakland, Sklba, and Fliss (the American bishops involved in the case) that they couldn’t proceed with the case but who pointed out some difficulties and made some recommendations. (More on that in a new post soon. Very interesting stuff coming up on that meeting.)

When they got back home, Weakland sent a letter to Bertone saying that he (Weakland) had decided to abate the proceedings against Fr. Murphy, and that he had instructed Brundage to do so.

But Brundage says he never got the message:

Additionally, in the documentation in a letter from Archbishop Weakland to then-secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone on August 19, 1998, Archbishop Weakland stated that he had instructed me to abate the proceedings against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, however, died two days later and the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this.

So this is why Murphy was one of two defendants who apparently died during a case that Brundage was overseeing.

Weakland may have decided to abate the proceedings, but Brundage didn’t get the message before Murphy died. Furthermore . . .

Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary. That process would have taken months if not longer.

So Brundage was thoroughly committed to seeing this thing through. Again, aggressive judge; passive Weakland.

Now what does Brundage have to say about Cardinal Ratzinger’s role in all this?

Second, 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. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information.

As we saw in the previous post.

Also, there’s this note on the timeliness of the CDF’s reply to Weakland, which took nine months. I didn’t mention it in my previous post, but by Vatican standards, that’s actually rather quick (Americans have a whole different perspective on the use of time and what counts as efficient). Brundage, though, makes the point explicit:

Third, the competency to hear cases of sexual abuse of minors shifted from the Roman Rota to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001. Until that time, most appeal cases went to the Rota and it was our experience that cases could languish for years in this court. When the competency was changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in my observation as well as many of my canonical colleagues, sexual abuse cases were handled expeditiously, fairly, and with due regard to the rights of all the parties involved. I have no doubt that this was the work of then Cardinal Ratzinger.

I know the defenses that would be made on behalf of the Rota. Small staff. Huge Church. Also, I’m an American and I want everything done yesterday. Fine. This is a point on which there can be legitimate disagreement. Should Americans have more patience? Maybe. Should the Vatican ramp up its staff to correspond to the size of the Church it’s got? Maybe.

My point is: As open to criticism as the CDF’s initial nine month delay might be, it was actually relatively swift. (And, y’know, things tend to drag in the secular courts, too. They’re not often doing drumheads these days.)

I’ll have more soon, but for now let’s let Fr. Brundage have the last word:

Fourth, Pope Benedict has repeatedly apologized for the shame of the sexual abuse of children in various venues and to a worldwide audience. This has never happened before. He has met with victims. He has reigned in entire conferences of bishops on this matter, the Catholic Bishops of Ireland being the most recent. He has been most reactive and proactive of any international church official in history with regard to the scourge of clergy sexual abuse of minors. Instead of blaming him for inaction on these matters, he has truly been a strong and effective leader on these issues.

Finally, over the last 25 years, vigorous action has taken place within the church to avoid harm to children. Potential seminarians receive extensive sexual-psychological evaluation prior to admission. Virtually all seminaries concentrate their efforts on the safe environment for children. There have been very few cases of recent sexual abuse of children by clergy during the last decade or more.

Catholic dioceses all across the country have taken extraordinary steps to ensure the safety of children and vulnerable adults. As one example, which is by no means unique, is in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, where I currently work. Here, virtually every public bathroom in parishes has a sign asking if a person has been abuse by anyone in the church. A phone number is given to report the abuse and almost all church workers in the archdiocese are required to take yearly formation sessions in safe environment classes. I am not sure what more the church can do.

To conclude, the events during the 1960’s and 1970’s of the sexual abuse of minors and solicitation in the confessional by Father Lawrence Murphy are unmitigated and gruesome crimes. On behalf of the church, I am deeply sorry and ashamed for the wrongs that have been done by my brother priests but realize my sorrow is probably of little importance 40 years after the fact. The only thing that we can do at this time is to learn the truth, beg for forgiveness, and do whatever is humanly possible to heal the wounds. The rest, I am grateful, is in God’s hands.

Your thoughts?

What Really Happened In Fr. Murphy Case?

Welcome readers of The Anchoress and Andrew Sullivan.

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?

Comments Are Back On!

Whew!

I was getting really annoyed.

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

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!

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

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.