OK, the New York Times feels they have successfully hung the rap on the Pope.
Over and over again, in as many stories as they can, they include this paragraph, or one very like it. It is designed to misinform and decieve the public:
Since January, hundreds of cases of sexual abuse connected to the church in Germany have come to light, embroiling even Pope Benedict XVI over his handling of an abusive priest who was moved to the Munich archdiocese in 1980 while Benedict was archbishop there. Questions have also arisen about Benedict’s role in handling the case of an American priest who abused as many as 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin, which came before an office he headed at the Vatican before being named pope.
His handling of the abusive priest in Germany, we later learned, consisted solely of a decision to allow him to come into his archdiocese – from another archdiocese where the priest abused someone – for psychological counseling. The priest was later returned to a parish, but that was only 7 months after the Pope had been called to Rome to serve in the Vatican. The priest who made the decision to return him to a parish said the Pope had nothing to do with the decision, and he has said it was a huge mistake. In 1977, when this happened, no one had any experience with these cases, and psychological counseling was thought to be the correct way to handle these cases. The Civil authorities showed almost no interest in prosecuting back then.
And saying “Questions have arisen” about the Wisconsin case is devious, don’t you think? At first the Times kept repeating that the Pope, or his agency had refused to defrock a priest that had abused over 100 boys. But later on we learned they did no such thing; they ordered a defrocking trial, and it was only suspended when they learned the man was dying and would not be able to take part in his trial. The Times tried to portray the notorious Wisconsin bishop Weakland as the hero, bravely trying to get the Vatican to do something about this priest, and the Vatican was only portrayed as refusing to do anything. In fact, we learn later, the Vatican did everything they were asked, and more. And we learned that Weakland was using church money to pay off his gay lover, was seemingly frustrating attempts by teachers in his schools to remove abusive priests, and was reprimanded by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for his callous behavior towards victims.
Yet the Times only told their twisted story about the Pope somehow refusing to do anything about abusive priests.
These are dirty people at the Times.
It appears more and more that the Times is intent on diverting attention from the real criminals, and is trying to shift the focus to the Pope. In so doing, I believe they may be helping the real criminals to get away, to stay in power, or to remain unseen.
There is a lot of filth to be rooted out in the church, that much we know. But it appears the Pope is the main man doing the rooting out, and the Times wants to drive him from office.
The question is why?