Credit due

The NYT as an institution is going to need to do a lot to recover from the smear campaign it has been waging against the Pontiff. But this op-ed by Ross Douthat is an excellent first step. I can't agree with every line, but overall it is stunningly perceptive and fair.

You should really read it, but here are a couple points that stuck out:

But there’s another story to be told about John Paul II and his besieged successor. The last pope was a great man, but he was also a weak administrator, a poor delegator, and sometimes a dreadful judge of character. . . . The church’s dilatory response to the sex abuse scandals was a testament to these weaknesses. So was John Paul’s friendship with the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ.

Wait you mean it might not be appropriate to style JP II "the Great"? \sarcasm

JPII, for all accounts, was a great Archbishop. I have no doubt that he was a very holy man. He did a wonderful job of upholding the Church teaching on life-issues. He put out many documents that said the right things.

BUT, as an administrator, as a judge of character, as a leader of an international Church he left something to be desired. His actions and inactions often left the faithful scratching their heads, and more than once outright scandalized. In a time, that frankly, was chaotic in the Church (in every respect, doctrinal, liturgical, moral) John Paul II, said many good things, but what he did and did not do did little to clarify and regularize. For anyone who is unsure of what I could mean, I refer you to Fr. Brian Harrision's excellent article on the topic.

He goes on,

Only one churchman comes out of Berry’s story [about Marciel] looking good: Joseph Ratzinger. Berry recounts how Ratzinger lectured to a group of Legionary priests, and was subsequently handed an envelope of money “for his charitable use.” The cardinal “was tough as nails in a very cordial way,” a witness said, and turned the money down.

This isn’t an isolated case. In the 1990s, it was Ratzinger who pushed for a full investigation of Hans Hermann Groer, the Vienna cardinal accused of pedophilia, only to have his efforts blocked in the Vatican.

He lists several other cases in which Ratzinger was a prime mover in taking care of the dirty business, often when it was unpopular or opposed by others in the Vatican. This is a story that desperately needs to be told. The recently unearthed allegations, as Douthat says, are "more smoke than fire." The undisputed facts, regarding Ratzinger and clerical abuse, all point overwhelmingly to one conclusion: That Ratzinger was and is deeply committed to rooting out the filth that afflicts the Church, that he has done more than perhaps any other individual to correct the lamentable situation and ensure that such problems do not arise again. There are plenty of people who through malice or negligence deserve to be blamed, but Ratzinger certainly is very near the bottom of that list.

And he makes bold to say what some have only dared to think:

So the high-flying John Paul let scandals spread beneath his feet, and the uncharismatic Ratzinger was left to clean them up. This pattern extends to other fraught issues that the last pope tended to avoid — the debasement of the Catholic liturgy, or the rise of Islam in once-Christian Europe. . . . as unlikely as it seems today, Benedict may yet deserve to be remembered as the better pope.

Wow.

It really deserves a read. So off you go.