[TSgt]

It's interesting that a self-styled conservative would point to the umpteenth NYT hatchet job on the Pope as "even-handed."

Did you read the article and can you tell me what is factually incorrect? The focus is on the failure of the church to execute its laws not specifically on the Pope though he did play a part in the failure.

[wideawake]

Did you read the article and can you tell me what is factually incorrect?

An observer of the NYT would know that their specialty is not in making up "facts" but in selectively reporting certain facts, editing out others, and using this carefully edited approach to twist the story toward their favored interpretation.

Here is a key example of this technique, from the article:

"The office led by Cardinal Ratzinger, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had actually been given authority over sexual abuse cases nearly 80 years earlier, in 1922, documents show and canon lawyers confirm. But for the two decades he was in charge of that office, the future pope never asserted that authority, failing to act even as the cases undermined the church’s credibility in the United States, Australia, Ireland and elsewhere."

It is factually true that the predecessor congregation to the CDF, the Holy Office, was given this authority in 1922.

What the article fails to mention is that in 1967, in the wake of the Sercond Vatican Council, the various congregations of the Roman Curia were radically restructured: some disappeared, some were merged, some were created, some were given new responsibilities and some had responsibilities taken away.

One pre-Vatican II congregation - the Congregation of the Council, was transformed into the Congregation for the Clergy and was assigned the responsibility of the discipline of the clergy.

So from 1922-1967 the predecessor to the CDF was responsible for such cases. From 1967-2001 the CftC was the responsible entity and then, after Pope John Paul II specifically transferred these responsibilities to the CDF with an official motu proprio (namely Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela) in 2001, it was the CDF from 2001 until now.

The NYT conveniently leaves these facts out of their abbreviated timeline, preferring to imply that from 1981-2001 the current Pope was responsible for this discipline and did nothing.

[wideawake]

I'd also like to point out that the NYT deliberately frames each article for maximum psychological effect.

The photograph that leads this article is carefully chosen: a black and white photo of Cardinal Ratzinger walking in review of a bunch of German guys at attention wearing identical uniforms.

There are any number of photos of the Cardinal from that time period that are in full color, with him sitting down and smilingly conversing with students and parishioners, etc.

The NYT staff clearly combed the archives looking for a photo that would subconsciously evoke a Nazi era feel - black and white photography, obviously German setting, rows of men in identical costume standing at attention, etc.