What? That can't be. We've been told John Allen is a liberal wacko who hates the pope.
Oh, wait. That description was invoked when RCs disagreed with a few minor quibbles Allen had with Rome.
After all, Allen, the official biographer of Ratzinger and CNN correspondent to the Vatican, has to keep up the pretense of being "fair and balanced" so it helps his sagging credibility to weather a few RC complaints.
But now we are to believe what this "liberal wacko" writes. We are to believe that identifying pederast priests and handing them over to police authorities is equal to a "Nazi smear campaign."
And we are to believe that Pacelli was some kind of freedom fighter when he was a fascist Nazi appeaser. The encyclical tried to make nice with the Nazis. It didn't mention Hitler by name nor even National Socialism. It was a mild complaint to the Nazi authorities to be nicer to the Roman Catholic church (which had made a pact with the devil years before.)
No doubt we will now hear how beefy and resolved Pacelli's encyclical was. And that would be a lie.
The Vatican struggles daily to rewrite history; it knows no shame.
That just goes to show you the redemptive powers of Christ and His Church. It means there is even hope for you.
It is typical that you didn't actually read the article or you would have known that the introduction was written by Allen but the test was written by MASSIMO INTROVIGNE.
Read it. You might recognize your useful idiot status, but that would only be half right. Your continual overreaching on this makes you not particularly useful and actually strengthens the Church.
Oh? I just read the Same thing in Richard J, Evans, “The Third Reign in Power.” Penguin edition. But you are right about one thing: Allen would love to be in charge of PR for the Vatican.