The mob should lay off. The pope is completely innocent

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/15/pope-mob-benedict-misreading-abuse

“Richard Dawkins’s case against the pope is nonsense. Benedict has striven to rid the church of child abuse”

“But shouting down the truth doesn’t make it go away. I don’t defend the pope because I think it is the duty of a good Catholic; I defend him because he is completely innocent of the charges made against him, and because the media has merged with the mob and misreported the facts”

(…)

Not only was Cardinal Ratzinger not complicit in these failures, he was the Vatican official who most clearly saw what was needed to tackle the problem. Then, in 2001, Pope John Paul asked him to review the local churches’ handling of clerical abuse cases. Cardinal Ratzinger asked bishops around the world to forward to him all cases where credible allegations had been made against priests.”

Jack Valero // The Guardian

The decisive context of the Kiesle case

“Most important point: the Vatican was not being asked to deal with Fr Kiesle’s sexual offences — that had already been done by California courts and Kiesle’s bishop. No, it was dealing with a request for dispensation from priestly celibacy.”

Carolyn Moynihan // Mercatornet

http://www.mercatornet.com/justb16/view/6983/

Che ridere l’Associated Press

Paolo Rodari // Il Foglio

http://www.ilfoglio.it/palazzoapostolico/2559

Journalists abandon standards to attack the Pope

“We’re off and running once again, with another completely phony story that purports to implicate Pope Benedict XVI in the protection of abusive priests.”

Phil Lawler // CatholicCulture.org

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=632

La «exclusiva» de ayer de AP que ha circulado a lo largo de hoy por decenas de medios de comunicación importantes, nunca habría visto la luz si se hubiesen aplicado los estándares periodísticos habituales. Los editores deberían haber sondeado, y a la vista de la respuestas habrían concluido que era una «historia sin piernas».

http://infocatolica.com/blog/delapsis.php/1004110248-los-periodistas-abandonan-los#more7550

Kiesle Case

From: http://popebenedictandclergyabuse.blogspot.com/

The Case of The Rev. Stephen Kiesle of Martinez, CA

• Pope Put Off Punishing Abusive Priest, by Laurie Goodstein. New York Times April 9, 2010.
• The Document Trail: The Rev. Stephen Kiesle

Critical Responses on the Case of Stephen Kiesle

• Vatican rebuts allegations of stalling on California sex abuse case, by John Thavis. Catholic News Service. April 12, 2010.
• The Times Take 3: The Stephen Kiesle Files, Whosoever Desires April 12, 2010. Good analysis by Aaron Pidel, SJ, upon which he concludes: “In no way, that I can see, did Ratzinger’s treatment of the Kiesle case put children in danger. It suggests no attempt to cover up a crime. It suggests no particular indulgence toward abusers.”
• The Frustratingly Poor Quality of Press Coverage, by Michael Sean Winters. America April 11, 2010.
• Key questions concerning Ratzinger’s deferment of the laicization of Father Stephen Kiesle, by Phil Lawler. Catholic Culture. April 10, 2010.
• Let’s Get the Story Straight: Defrocking and Divorce, by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J. The founder and editor of Ignatius Press, in response to the breaking story about a 1985 letter written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to Bishop John S. Cummins of Oakland.
• Some bullet points about the California case, by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf. What Does The Prayer Really Say? April 10, 2010.
• And so the relentless attempts to ‘get’ Pope Benedict XVI continue…, by Damian ThompsonTelegraph April 10, 2010.
• Vatican says letter on abusive Oakland priest being taken out of context Catholic News Agency April 9, 2010.

The Pope and the abuse scandal: a guide for perplexed Catholics

The Catholic Herald

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000551.shtml