So I'm lying? Not misinformed, not confused, just lying? Those were my words and my opinion based on my understanding of the issue as it played out in my life. I had only been Catholic for five years when the explosion came in 2002 and it was not a welcoming present with which I was particularly pleased. I was very outspoken and offended a lot of people with my outrage, the only ally Catholics in the US had who actually believed in God was Cardinal Ratzinger. That was one of the primary reasons a lot of us were having daydreams about him being elected pope in 2005, we thought the "filth in the Church" statement was the nail in his pontifical coffin and then a miracle happened.
I'm not trying to trap you here, but you seem to be confused. In 2002 Cardinal Ratzinger was the only person in Rome who did care about what everyone else saw as an American problem.
In no way did I rationalize evil, I warned that the "civil, legal and moral authorities" to whom you were appealing, aren't. Down the path which you seem eager to run lies a great deal of danger. That is not a rationalization of evil, it is a warning that the hammer you're wanting to use may bounce back and break your nose.
Earlier in my initial response to Salvation I pointed out that the only reason any of the American bishops bothered to even issue statements about the scandalous behaviour of their priests was because of the constant pressure and scorn of the press. The American bishops are absolutely a problem, Benedict XVI is not.
I'm sure you've seen it many times before but for those who haven't:
How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that he is there! How often is his Word twisted and misused! What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words! How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him! How much pride, how much self-complacency!
He wasn't talking about the dustbunnies in the corner. But then he wasn't just talking about the abuse of minors.
And I will repeat, I do not believe that for one second. Ratzinger was tasked with covering up the crimes, keeping a lid on them, preventing further light to be shed on the dark sins of Rome's priestcraft.
The only "confusion" is evidenced by those who seem to deny the facts and instead depend of a few lines written, no doubt, by some PR flak.
In his letter to the bishops when he was head of the office of the Inquisition, Ratzinger affirmed church policy that absolute secrecy must be maintained until the child-victim turns 28! No police reports. No family members. No school counselors. No doctors. Just a carefully guarded secret of the sexual assault of a child, a secret between a church official and that child, who is under thread of excommunication if he tells anyone other than that church official, "another Christ."
And guess what? Pope Ratzinger just reiterated that restriction.
Do RC apologists even know what real scrutiny looks like? Are they without light totally?