Likewise, we are not possessed of the knowledge that is the Vatican's. We can know that there was an awful lot of very naughty behavior by priests in the Archdiocese of Boston in recent decades and that Boston was by no means alone. We can generally have a good idea of what discipline, if any, was imposed (at least public discipline) upon offending priests or bishops. Hans Kung was disciplined. So was Edward Schillebeeckx. So were the "liberation theologians." We have to recognize the authority and responsibility lie with the Vatican and its subsdiaries and not with us. As Americans, we do not like to do that.
As Catholics, we practice the principle of subsidiarity and attempt to resolve problems on as local a basis as possible. If a priest preaches from the pulpit a heresy (say: Christ did not know He was God even on the Cross which is one that I have heard in Connecticut from a now dead Dominican priest), first go to the priest directly. If that does not work, go to the pastor. If that does not work, go to the bishop. The USCCB has no authority of its own because apostolic succession is not collective. Ignore USCCB. At that point, you may consider going to the Vatican to the Congregation for Priests or to the Holy Office or to the pope. It is not likely that any of these Vatican congregations or their leaders or the pope will track down the truth as to each accusation or that they could. Their numbers are limited compared to the numbers in diocesan authority. The Vatican is more remote and not as familiar with the individuals. These are reasons why the Church uses subsidiarity.
There are drawbacks and obvious ones to subsidiarity. Often the miscreants are close to their diocesan authorities (see AmChurch generally). The dioceses may refuse to carry out Vatican policy in ways less than obvious like claiming that there was insufficient proof of allegations or that it depended on the definition of "is" or other Clintonian or Mahoneyan or Weaklandian devices. Or like Bishop Grahmann, they may say: "I will resign when I get good and ready whether you Vatican reactionaries like it or not. Harrumph!!!" or some such thing less honestly stated.
We certainly have more than enough info in our own country on Mahoney, Hubbard, Loverde, Pilla, Pilarczyk and so many, many more to justify launching them to the planet Pluto or at least to set up for burnings at the stake. We can indeed so conclude accurately and justly.
We did not need the press and media coverage to know that there was a great scandal and probably still is a diminished one of utterly unacceptable behavior. We have been there before and survived nicely. See the Cluniac Reform, inter alia.
Before there was declared an SSPX schism, E. Michael Jones did an article in Fidelity Magazine about the sexual and physical abuse of a child of a very wealthy Chicago couple (lawyers both), the wife descended from a 1930s founder of the present Democratic machine, who had given many millions to the Archdiocese of Chicago and to the Vatican itself. Their son had been sexually abused by a priest at a parochial school and he was then so physically abused by an ex-nun functioning as principal that he was rendered steriile. the parents are or were worth hundreds of millions (courtesy of machine patronage). They investigated the priest and found that he had been moved repeatedly by Bernardin at very short intervals. They went to Bernardin and he gave them the runaround. They went to Cardinal Gagnon (formerly of Toronto) then serving as head of the Congregation on the Family in the Vatican. With his permission, they taped the conversation. The cardinal told them that the pope would not meet with them because there would be no purpose in doing so. Bernardin would refuse to obey and be backed by the American Church. He also told them that the American Church was effectively in schism then nearly twenty years ago. Maybe the Vatican is using attrition and surely that is one truth. OTOH, many bad bishops have been appointed here and elsewhere since Cardinal Gagnon spoke. Lately it has seemed to improve.
I don't really care what the secular world expects and I hope the Church never does either> I simply hope that the Church faithfully follows its own commission from Jesus Christ. Always imperfectly but as perfectly as the leadership can follow that commission.
We can also recognize the unlikelihood of dramatic solutions from on high so late in this papacy and so late in JP II's life. If I made the decisions, he would resign to a well-deserved retirement out of the world's view. Ronald Reagan is in much worse shape and even older but his isolation brings dignity. Margaret Thatcher is considerably younger but a bit affected by age and is restricted as to public appearances. Resignation is not without precedent (Gregory VII, previously known as Hildebrand). I would like to see a young, vigorous, orthodox and determined pope prepared to purge as necessary regardless of secular or finite consequences. That should be the policy of the next conclave and of the next pontiff.
It is not up to me or you or anyone but His Holiness. One begins to feel as the Lubavitchers must have felt as their final Schneerson Rebbe was struck dumb by a stroke in his 90s and yet enjoyed generally decent health. Unlike the Lubavitchers, we can elect a successor to Peter and to John Paul II now or later. JP II's condition is such that we have a bit of the quality of interregnum. He is an ecclesiastical Arthur after the betrayal by Guinevere and Lancelot and before the war with Mordred. Unlike Arthur, his frailty is irreversible.
I believe that JP II's health has crumbled and that those "excuses for why the Vatican has refused...." have not; that we simply must hold on, resist schism and heresy, pray, do our individual parts (what we can actually do personally and not just say the right thing), recruit others from outside the Church, have many children and raise them well with piety and morals and Catholic orthodoxy and courage and determination to overcome the Church's enemies when we are gone or to raise similar generations. I we can have no more children of our own, we can help those hardcore catholic parents who can and do.
Having stated that, we can safely agree a faithful catholic can indeed "discuss" the Pope's actions without malice.
With respect to discipline, there is precedence that JP2 has put the foot down when he wanted to, for instance, in the case of firing the "Condom bishop -- Jacques Gaillot of France" in 1995.
As far as that missing phrase "with due reverence ...." in Canon 212, it is irrelevant in light of the substance of the discussion. Besides, the authors did not display disrepect or malice towards the Holy Father. The article is a fair and honest critical analysis of the "content" of his speech.