Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)
Options
Comments
-
I don't think it is. Because Rome makes the rules on doctrine, liturgy and some other things, many people think that the Church is like a multi-national where everything is controlled from the centre, like WalMart or Tesco. It actually is not. Normally, every bishop and every superior of a religious order has almost complete freedom in administering his or her area of responsibility (her in the case of orders of nuns). That is why the Pope has now ordered what is called a Visitation of the Irish dioceses. John Cooney, for whom usually I have very little time, has accurately said that the Irish church is "in receivership". What he means is that Rome has concluded that the Irish dioceses have been incompetently run and must be completely reformed. But this is something that Rome does only when a national church is in a catastrophic condition.
But given that this appears to be an international problem, where abuse and subsequent cover up are taking place, surely Rome has / had responsibility.
If it is as suggested Rome was in correspondence with individual dioceses and gave instructions to conceal the truth then they are just as guilty.0 -
I would question your statement that it is an "international problem". It has happened in a number of countries; not in others. While Rome is not to blame for what happened in individual dioceses and religious orders in those countries, it has taken charge of dealing with the consequences.philiporeilly wrote: »But given that this appears to be an international problem, where abuse and subsequent cover up are taking place, surely Rome has / had responsibility.
Not "in correspondence with individual dioceses" but it does seem that there may have been a document sent to all dioceses that suggested that cases of sexual abuse should be dealt with in secret. It would not be possible to defend that now, and the Pope has made it clear in his Letter to the Catholics of Ireland last week that abusers should not be protected from the criminal law.philiporeilly wrote: »If it is as suggested Rome was in correspondence with individual dioceses and gave instructions to conceal the truth then they are just as guilty.
This is a difficult argument to make, but just ten or twenty years ago most people did not think homosexual child-molesting was so serious. They did not think it would have a long-term bad effect on the child. I have just been reading Nigel Slater's autobiography, Toast. The way he was treated by his father's gardener would nowadays have been considered serious child abuse. At the time, the gardener was sacked, not reported to the police, and Mr Slater's account does not suggest that he was at all upset by his experiences.0 -
You are joking, right?I would question your statement that it is an "international problem". It has happened in a number of countries; not in others. While Rome is not to blame for what happened in individual dioceses and religious orders in those countries, it has taken charge of dealing with the consequences.
Not "in correspondence with individual diocese" but it does seem that there may have been a document sent to all dioceses that suggested that cases of sexual abuse should be dealt with in secret. It would not be possible to defend that now, and the Pope has made it clear in his Letter to the Catholics of Ireland last week that abusers should not be protected from the criminal law.
This is a difficult argument to make, but just ten or twenty years ago most people did not think homosexual child-molesting was so serious. They did not think it would have a long-term bad effect on the child. I have just been reading Nigel Slater's autobiography, Toast. The way he was treated by his father's gardener would nowadays have been considered serious child abuse. At the time, the gardener was sacked, not reported to the police, and Mr Slater's account does not suggest that he was at all upset by his experiences.
You are not a priest, right?
You haven't been really following the news these last few years, right?
Please say yes, yes, yes or start reading and watching, very fast. Start with this;
http://www.slate.com/id/2247861/0 -
I'm not joking, I am not a priest, and I have been following the news — the facts, not the opinion pieces and commentaries.You are joking, right?
You are not a priest, right?
You haven't been really following the news these last few years, right?
Please review the news, write down what are objective and demonstrable facts (not opinions or inferences), analyse them and then post here again. Whenever you read a comment (like mine but also anyone else's), please ask yourself: Who is he, where is he coming from and what is his agenda?
Also read Nigel Slater's book, which is worth reading just because it is a very good book.0 -
You state:" I would question your statement that it is an "international problem". It has happened in a number of countries; not in others."
I do not wish to say that this is pathetic but it is silly. Two countries makes it International. I have logged at least twenty seven countries in my own notes on reports abroad.
You go on: "While Rome is not to blame for what happened in individual dioceses and religious orders in those countries, it has taken charge of dealing with the consequences.
Not "in correspondence with individual diocese" but it does seem that there may have been a document sent to all dioceses that suggested that cases of sexual abuse should be dealt with in secret. It would not be possible to defend that now, and the Pope has made it clear in his Letter to the Catholics of Ireland last week that abusers should not be protected from the criminal law."
Holy maloney ! You say you have been looking at the news? Ratzinger's letter to all bishops as head of the curia has been widely reported and reproduced in full. It clearly shows that the vatican and ratzinger in particular have been co-ordinating an international campaign for years to hide the truth, deny local police forces and justice systems of their legal entitlement to details of crimes by priests and other religious and limit the compensation available to victims.
I am disgusted by your following comment, quote : "This is a difficult argument to make, but just ten or twenty years ago most people did not think homosexual child-molesting was so serious. They did not think it would have a long-term bad effect on the child. "
I doubt any sane, decent person would say such a thing in an honest way. I will not reply to anything further from a person capable of such a comment.0 -
Advertisement
-
The instruction to the Bishops bound them to secrecy on condition of excom but it did not bind the victims, who were free to go to the police.You state:" I would question your statement that it is an "international problem". It has happened in a number of countries; not in others."
I do not wish to say that this is pathetic but it is silly. Two countries makes it International. I have logged at least twenty seven countries in my own notes on reports abroad.
You go on: "While Rome is not to blame for what happened in individual dioceses and religious orders in those countries, it has taken charge of dealing with the consequences.
Not "in correspondence with individual diocese" but it does seem that there may have been a document sent to all dioceses that suggested that cases of sexual abuse should be dealt with in secret. It would not be possible to defend that now, and the Pope has made it clear in his Letter to the Catholics of Ireland last week that abusers should not be protected from the criminal law."
Holy maloney ! You say you have been looking at the news? Ratzinger's letter to all bishops as head of the curia has been widely reported and reproduced in full. It clearly shows that the vatican and ratzinger in particular have been co-ordinating an international campaign for years to hide the truth, deny local police forces and justice systems of their legal entitlement to details of crimes by priests and other religious and limit the compensation available to victims.
I am disgusted by your following comment, quote : "This is a difficult argument to make, but just ten or twenty years ago most people did not think homosexual child-molesting was so serious. They did not think it would have a long-term bad effect on the child. "
I doubt any sane, decent person would say such a thing in an honest way. I will not reply to anything further from a person capable of such a comment.
Remember also, that the Bishops were advised by clever experts who claimed this fellow could be cured and returned to active service in parishes. They followed the advice. I don't see any psychiatrists being questioned or called to account.0 -
You really do over-estimate the capacity of an old-fashioned bureaucracy like the Roman Curia to "co-ordinate an international campaign ... for years to hide the truth " etc. I can see what you would like to believe, but at some point you will have to rely on what you can show to be true.You state:" I would question your statement that it is an "international problem". It has happened in a number of countries; not in others."
I do not wish to say that this is pathetic but it is silly. Two countries makes it International. I have logged at least twenty seven countries in my own notes on reports abroad.
You go on: "While Rome is not to blame for what happened in individual dioceses and religious orders in those countries, it has taken charge of dealing with the consequences.
Not "in correspondence with individual diocese" but it does seem that there may have been a document sent to all dioceses that suggested that cases of sexual abuse should be dealt with in secret. It would not be possible to defend that now, and the Pope has made it clear in his Letter to the Catholics of Ireland last week that abusers should not be protected from the criminal law."
Holy maloney ! You say you have been looking at the news? Ratzinger's letter to all bishops as head of the curia has been widely reported and reproduced in full. It clearly shows that the vatican and ratzinger in particular have been co-ordinating an international campaign for years to hide the truth, deny local police forces and justice systems of their legal entitlement to details of crimes by priests and other religious and limit the compensation available to victims.
Don't be afraid to quote the rest of my comment, and let people read Nigel Slater's book. I know well that some people were hurt by perverts. Others, if Mr Slater is to be believed, were not.I am disgusted by your following comment, quote : "This is a difficult argument to make, but just ten or twenty years ago most people did not think homosexual child-molesting was so serious. They did not think it would have a long-term bad effect on the child. "
I doubt any sane, decent person would say such a thing in an honest way. I will not reply to anything further from a person capable of such a comment.0 -
The leading Irish dissident priest, Father Brian Darcy, spoke on RTE's Late Late Show.Fr Brian also spoke of his own suffering at the hands of an abusive priest in Omagh before he was ordained and the code of silence that protected him.
"My parents went to their graves not knowing but when I mentioned it in my book people in Omagh could tell me who it was. It was the code of silence."
That quote is from the horrendous Sunday World website. I won't link to the scandalous rag.
But anyway, my question is, why didn't the young Brian Darcy go to the authorities - either religious or state? From his own words on that TV show, it would appear he placed his own future ordination ahead of reporting a priestly offender. Is that so different from accusations that have been hurled at the young Father Sean Brady, rightly or wrongly?0 -
I think Fr Darcy is wrong about many things, but he means well. I would not doubt that those things happened to him, and that they were hidden; and it was a great thing that he went on to be a priest, however wayward he has become since.The leading Irish dissident priest, Father Brian Darcy, spoke on RTE's Late Late Show.0 -
Meaning well is not enough when we are dealing with the salvation of souls.I think Fr Darcy is wrong about many things, but he means well. I would not doubt that those things happened to him, and that they were hidden; and it was a great thing that he went on to be a priest, however wayward he has become since.
I wonder though can he not understand how priests and bishops could have made bad decisions about how to handle these matters, particularly since they were being advised by psychiatrists and lawyers, in a completely different culture and knowledge base to that which we have now? His treatment (in the Sunday World) of Pope Benedict has been quite awful and most unfair.0 -
Advertisement
-
I do not mean to be uncharitable, but Fr Darcy has made a name for himself as an "independent" voice of Catholicism in the Sunday World and he has to write stuff to fit it. I am sure he means well, on the whole.Meaning well is not enough when we are dealing with the salvation of souls.
I didn't doubt that he had been abused.
I wonder though can he not understand how priests and bishops could have made bad decisions about how to handle these matters, particularly since they were being advised by psychiatrists and lawyers? His treatment (in the Sunday World) of Pope Benedict has been quite awful and most unfair.0 -
I do not mean to be uncharitable, but Fr Darcy has made a name for himself as an "independent" voice of Catholicism in the Sunday World and he has to write stuff to fit it. I am sure he means well, on the whole.
Hmmm... I read what Fr Brian writes then I look at my Catechism and it doesn't compute. He does not speak for the Catholic Church, only for himself and those who follow him!
One must choose between a name based on petty gossip and prevailing opinions, or a stand for truth, and the temporal loss that may occur as a result.
Meaning well is not enough if not founded on the truth.0 -
Hmmm... I read what Fr Brian writes then I look at my Catechism and it doesn't compute. He does not speak for the Catholic Church, only for himself and those who follow him!
One must choose between a name based on petty gossip and prevailing opinions, or a stand for truth, and the temporal loss that may occur as a result.
Meaning well is not enough if not founded on the truth.
Everything to you seems to be black or white. If you disagree with how the church hierarchy are dealing with the abuse scandal you must be "anti-catholic". If Fr Brian speaks out on certain issues he obviously is only doing this to suit his own interests, not that he believes that it is the right thing for society.
Obviously you are on the extreme right of catholicism. I know many good priests and I have to say their views on different issues would be on a varied spectrum of opinion.
I usually don't read the Sunday World but I read that article following your link. For many people Fr Brian and similar priests that are not afraid to speak against the system when they believe it to be wrong, is what a priest should be. Those priests are usually the ones that are heavily invested in working directly with all the community and have first hand experience in seeing how the general public live their lives.
I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but I do respect him for being in the difficult position of speaking out for what he (and probably most of the general public) believes is right.0 -
philiporeilly wrote: »Everything to you seems to be black or white. If you disagree with how the church hierarchy are dealing with the abuse scandal you must be "anti-catholic". If Fr Brian speaks out on certain issues he obviously is only doing this to suit his own interests, not that he believes that it is the right thing for society.
Obviously you are on the extreme right of catholicism. I know many good priests and I have to say their views on different issues would be on a varied spectrum of opinion.
I usually don't read the Sunday World but I read that article following your link. For many people Fr Brian and similar priests that are not afraid to speak against the system when they believe it to be wrong, is what a priest should be. Those priests are usually the ones that are heavily invested in working directly with all the community and have first hand experience in seeing how the general public live their lives.
I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but I do respect him for being in the difficult position of speaking out for what he (and probably most of the general public) believes is right.
Nah, not extreme right, just at the heart of the Church, where every faithful priest is. There is no left or right, just orthodox or heterodox. Holy Mother Church teaches the faith definitively, infallibly, and authoritatively, and is so caring as to give us a summary in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Dissenters defile the Holy Faith and lead souls to hell by depriving them of the Gospel, although they mean well... The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Priests and Bishops are open to fair criticism when they have failed to do the right thing, but anti-Catholic bashing is another story and I don't tolerate that.
Anyway, this just in from Archbishop Dolan of NY who demolishes the NYT piece on Papa Benedict:
http://www.catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=&id=57030
***
Here’s a summary of the key points:
The New York Times relied on tort lawyers who currently have civil suits pending against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and the Holy See, who are aggressively supporting the radical measure right now before the Wisconsin legislature to abrogate the statute of limitations on civil cases of abuse, and who have high financial interest in the matter being reported. Hardly an impartial source…
The documentation that allegedly supports these sensational charges is published on the website of the New York Times; rather than confirming their theory, the documents instead show that there is no evidence at all that Cardinal Ratzinger ever blocked any decision about Murphy. Even a New York Times columnist, Ross Douthat, calls this charge “unfair” in his column of March 29.
We also find on the website a detailed timeline of all the sickening information about Murphy, data not “uncovered” by any reporter but freely released by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee a number of years back, and thoroughly covered at that time by the local media in Milwaukee. One wonders why this story, quite exhaustively reported in the past, rose again this very week. It is hardly “news.” One might therefore ask: Why is this news now? The only reason it is news at all is because of the implication that Cardinal Ratzinger was involved. Yet the documentation does not support that charge, and thus they should have no place in a putatively respectable newspaper.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 8202
underclass wrote: »I don't want my child being taught by a member of Hell's Angels. Nor do I want my child being taught by a Freemason or a homosexual or someone who enjoys paying prostitutes to whip him at weekends.
Well maybe we should make sure they are not Catholic teachers then.0 -
Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has said he cannot agree with Catholics who want the Church to 'move on' from grief about the child abuse scandals.
He said that there was 'no way' his diocese could 'impose fast-track healing' on victims.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0401/abuse.html0 -
Cardinal Ratzinger An Evil Monster?
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/cardinal?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+NCRegisterDailyBlog+%2540The+Daily+Register%2541#When:14:59:46Z
The Pope and the abuse scandal: a guide for perplexed Catholics
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000551.shtml0 -
Out of touch Church is out of touch:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7086143.ece0 -
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/04/because-this-week-wasnt-bad-enough-already/Out of touch Church is out of touch:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7086143.ece
World is out of touch with the ultimate reality. I wouldn't worry too much about one comment made by a Jewish friend of the Papal Preacher and foolishly repeated.
This just in:
The dictatorship of relativism strikes back—and goes nuclear
http://www.logia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&catid=39:web-forum&Itemid=180 -
Cardinal Ratzinger An Evil Monster?
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/cardinal?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+NCRegisterDailyBlog+%2540The+Daily+Register%2541#When:14:59:46Z
The Pope and the abuse scandal: a guide for perplexed Catholics
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000551.shtml
Interesting and worth reading but it doesn't completely discredit the NY Times article or any of the other revelations that other independent media sources have found since.
Obviously those sources you listed are from two different Roman Catholic newspapers and the odds of them EVER printing "The Pope is Wrong" is probably a billion to one, if that!
Although the articles are correct in saying the basis for the NY Times articles included evidence supplied from victims lawyers. Those documents were subpoenaed from the church and nobody has refuted their authenticity.
It is newsworthy that a priest abuser was not defrocked and that correspondences had been sent to the directly to the future Pope's office begging for leniency, which he received. If he didn't see those correspondences as stated there still was a failure by members in his office in dealing with this.0 -
Advertisement
-
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/04/because-this-week-wasnt-bad-enough-already/
World is out of touch with the ultimate reality. I wouldn't worry too much about one comment made by a Jewish friend of the Papal Preacher and foolishly repeated.
Im not interested in a wacky blog0 -
The canonical trial was not dropped, it was on-going when the priest died.philiporeilly wrote: »Interesting and worth reading but it doesn't completely discredit the NY Times article or any of the other revelations that other independent media sources have found since.
Obviously those sources you listed are from two different Roman Catholic newspapers and the odds of them EVER printing "The Pope is Wrong" is probably a billion to one, if that!
Although the articles are correct in saying the basis for the NY Times articles included evidence supplied from victims lawyers. Those documents were subpoenaed from the church and nobody has refuted their authenticity.
It is newsworthy that a priest abuser was not defrocked and that correspondences had been sent to the directly to the future Pope's office begging for leniency, which he received. If he didn't see those correspondences as stated there still was a failure by members in his office in dealing with this.The declining John Paul II may indeed have been somewhat remiss in addressing this evil, but the press, spoon-fed by Roman Catholic Modernists, cannot be expected to highlight insignificant details such as the fact that Benedict XVI has vigorously addressed this issue from the first days of his papacy (remember the disciplining of Fr. Maciel, once the protecting hand of the former Pope was withdrawn?). The Manchester Guardian (another allegedly “quality” newspaper from the UK) announced the other day that, for twenty-four years, Ratzinger failed to act on clerical sexual abuse of children; its journalists forgot to mention that the issue was only directly handed to his congregation in 2001! (Check out http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/keeping-record-straight-benedict-and-crisis ) When guilt is foreordained and execution already carried out, mere supporting evidence is of no account. Barely a week ago the New York Times headlined the “news” that, as cardinal prefect in 1996, Ratzinger quashed the canonical trial of a priest of the Milwaukee archdiocese accused (and believably guilty) of unspeakable crimes. There is no likelihood of the NYT apologising for its barefaced lie, uttered after it declined to interview the canon lawyer who presided over the judicial proceedings in Milwaukee. http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601 According to him, the canonical process was still in full swing when the accused priest died; we can’t expect the secular press to get the point that the case then moved to the final court of appeal.
=> http://www.logia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&catid=39:web-forum&Itemid=180 -
The canonical trial was not dropped, it was on-going when the priest died.
=> http://www.logia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&catid=39:web-forum&Itemid=18
Any sources besides religious newspapers?
Worth reading but as I said earlier somewhat predictable in editorial.0 -
philiporeilly wrote: »Any sources besides religious newspapers?
Worth reading but as I said earlier somewhat predictable in editorial.
That one is from Lutherans, not Catholics. The other sources can be found in links with the other articles I posted. I'm not going to post links to largely anti-Catholic newspapers and websites. What other sources are there?0 -
That one is from Lutherans, not Catholics. The other sources can be found in links with the other articles I posted. I'm not going to post links to largely anti-Catholic newspapers and websites. What other sources are there?
LOL. As usual if they report on something you don't like they are "anti catholic".
Those documents the NY Times based their article have not been refuted. They are church correspondences and the response was shocking. It wasnt proved that the now Pope had seen those documents but it is newsworthy and worth investigating.0 -
philiporeilly wrote: »LOL. As usual if they report on something you don't like they are "anti catholic".
Those documents the NY Times based their article have not been refuted. They are church correspondences and the response was shocking. It wasnt proved that the now Pope had seen those documents but it is newsworthy and worth investigating.
The articles I've posted show that the NYT article was inaccurate and misleading. They tried to smear the Pope. Sadly, after the event, few people are interested in the facts. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to suggest, except maybe read them, again?0 -
The articles I've posted show that the NYT article was inaccurate and misleading. They tried to smear the Pope. Sadly, after the event, few people are interested in the facts. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to suggest, except maybe read them, again?
Is it not newsworthy that a priest who abused many children and sent a letter to the now Pope's office asking for leniency, was given it?
This does not prove that he saw those documents or acted upon them but it is worth reporting.
Although this may not be palatable for many to read, reporting of these facts can hardly be seen as a smear campaign. Further independent investigation is warranted.0 -
This is article explains his position in a little more depth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8601381.stm0 -
thank god, someone has spoken up, this is how the other religions see the catholic church,
our problems go all the way to the vatican
which means we need to do a clean sweep starting at the top down to the bottom,0 -
Advertisement
-
The canonical trial was not dropped, it was on-going when the priest died.The articles I've posted show that the NYT article was inaccurate and misleading. They tried to smear the Pope. Sadly, after the event, few people are interested in the facts. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to suggest, except maybe read them, again?
M6, you are not keeping up with the developing story. Last week, Brundage had to walk back his claims that the NY Times had misquoted him, and that the canonical trial was ongoing when the priest died.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01chrono.htmlFather Brundage, who is now working in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, posted an essay this week saying he was never informed that the trial of Father Murphy had been halted.
He also said that he had been misquoted in both The New York Times and The Associated Press. In an interview on Wednesday, Father Brundage acknowledged that he had never been quoted in any Times articles about the Murphy case — and the paper did not misquote him. He said he was misquoted in an Associated Press article that was posted temporarily on the Times Web site, and he mistakenly attributed that to The Times.
He said the documents show that the Vatican had encouraged the Milwaukee Archdiocese to halt the trial, but they did not use strong language and actually order a halt. He said that he never saw the letter from Archbishop Weakland abating the trial until it appeared on the Times Web site last week.
You can read for yourself Weakland's 19/08/98 letter, in which he tells Bertone, "I have instructed my Judicial Vicar to formally abate the judicial process that had begun against Father Murphy," in the original documents here: http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case?ref=us#document/p75
At that same address you can also read for yourself the translated notes (13/07/98) of the 30 May Vatican meeting at which Weakland argued for the continuation of the canonical trial of Murphy, but was overruled by Bertone. To summarise,
In his plea for continuation of the trial, Weakland argued that in addition to the many victims of Murphy there were still victims yet unidentified, that the community of victims had rejected lesser "pastoral solutions," that because of the time elapse there could be no civil trial (instead of canonical trial), Murphy had no remorse, and that there was a danger of a great scandal if the Church didn't proceed.
Then Bertone lists the problems of continuing a trial: difficulty in furnishing proof and testimonies without increasing scandal, the need for secrecy, the long period of time that had elapsed and the lack of other accusations from the Superior diocese; that “there are not enough elements to instruct a canonical trial.” Bertone outlines what should be done by way of “penal remedies,” such as restricting where Murphy can celebrate Eucharist (only in Superior, not Milwaukee), and requiring permission in writing. Also that Murphy must give clear signs of repentance, “otherwise he must be applied to a trial.” (Interesting, since Weakland had just told him that Murphy was not repentent.)
Then Bertone “restates the two central points to be followed”: “1) the territorial restriction of the celebration (of the) Eucharist and 2) the needed remorse and reform of the priest.”
The meeting concludes with Weakland’s pained “difficulty he will have explaining this to the community of the deaf.”
He knew it was a bad decision and that the people back home would be outraged. Which brings us back to Brundage. When he tells the NY Times that he never saw Weakland's obedient follow-up letter to Bertone telling him that he'd told Brundage to drop the trial, he says
“The only possible explanation I can come up with is that Archbishop Weakland withheld the letter, knowing the reaction I would have had,” Father Brundage said.
Father Brundage said he would have been appalled because he was absolutely convinced that Father Murphy should be put on trial, because, “This was a horrendous case.”
So, at best, by his own reckoning, Brundage was purposely left in the dark about the decision to end the trial. He didn't need to be told, because Murphy was about to die anyway.
EDIT: Of course, this does mean that Brundage is accusing Weakland of telling Bertone a bald-faced lie in his letter -- i.e., that he [Weakland] had told him [Brundage] to halt the trial. Ah, the finger-pointing!0
Advertisement