As I said, Roman Catholic apologists habitually misdirect.
You wrote:
“I’ve read both books. Have you?”
No, but I see no reason to doubt the author on his own admission of his own mistake. I also have no reason to believe you’ve read either book. Are you also going to claim you read the original Ratzinger biography? Strange how you apparently didn’t know the story of how the second one came about.
“They are BOTH slavish compliments to the Vatican.”
He said he wanted to be OBJECTIVE. If you find objectivity slavishly complimentary to the Vatican, then that’s your problem.
“As I said, Roman Catholic apologists habitually misdirect.”
And you’re STILL wrong and the facts stand opposed to you. You’re probably used to that by now.