The anti-Catholic ravings of the NYT

The most recent NYT article on Benedict XVI is stunning: It alleges that "Pope Put Off Punishing Abusive Priest." Let me give you a few snippets to demonstrate the overall picture that they seem to be attempting to paint. Here's the first line:

That decision did not come for two more years, the sort of delay that is fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal in the church that has focused on whether the future pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops.

You see their interest?

It goes on:

The letter that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later pope, wrote in Latin in 1985, mentions Father Kiesle’s young age — 38 at the time — as one consideration in whether he should be forced from the priesthood.

So there they finally have what they have been searching for, right? The previous findings have, by their own admission failed to really place His Holiness in a conclusively incriminating position. But here they finally have a letter signed, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

In the Munich case on the other hand they had been left hanging. We have found that the priest in question was not from Ratzinger's diocese, that Ratzinger's knowledge of his misconduct was limited, and that the decision to give the priest pastoral duties was made by a delegate, without the Archbishop's direct knowledge.

Ditto the case of Fr. Murphy: Not only have we found that the letter questioning the prudence of a trial of Murphy was based on the fact that Murphy was very close to death (he died days after the letter was sent, at the time still officially under Ecclesiastical investigation), but there is no evidence that the decision was made by Ratzinger.

Of course the inconclusiveness of the evidence never stopped the media from publishing sensationalist, scandalous innuendo and making all sorts of nasty implications.

But now at last the AP/NYT media vultures have unearthed a letter signed by Ratzinger. You can imagine their sense triumph, salivating at the scent of clerical blood. The problem is that the letter, although certainly signed by Ratzinger, isn't actually incriminating at all. Let's considered the facts:

The priest had been convicted in court for his sexual indiscretions. Any disciplinary or punitive actions were the responsibility of the local bishop, (who details some of his some of his attempts to deal with the priest in a letter dated 19 June 1981).

The CDF was involved only because the priest himself had decided to leave the priesthood and wished to be released from his vow of celibacy. This is clear from the very first line of the very first letter sent to Rome: "I am writing to you concerning a petition of Stephen Kiesle for a dispensation from the obligation of the Priesthood, including that of celibacy." (Emphasis added.) Later letters are similarly clear. The request is from the priest himself, and it is primarily a request for a release from his vow of celibacy.

The bishop was not petitioning Ratzinger to take some punitive measure, he was not asking the CDF to conduct a trial, he was asking, on behalf of the priest himself, that the (no longer active) priest be allowed to marry.

Trying to construe this as Ratzinger "puting off punishing", or refusing to "force [a paedophile] from the priesthood" is simply preposterous: the request in question originated from the priest himself, and has nothing to do with punishment.