The two former Mexican seminarians had gone to the Vatican in 1998 to personally deliver a case recounting decades of sexual abuse by one of the most powerful priests in the Roman Catholic Church, the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado.
As they left, they ran into the man who would hold Father Maciel’s fate in his hands, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and kissed his ring. The encounter was no accident. Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to meet them, witnesses later said, and their case was soon accepted.
But in little more than a year, word emerged that Cardinal Ratzinger ”” the future Pope Benedict XVI ”” halted the inquiry. “It isn’t prudent,” he had told a Mexican bishop, according to two people who later talked to the bishop.
For five years, the case remained stalled, possibly a hostage to Father Maciel’s powerful protectors in the Curia, the Vatican’s governing apparatus, and his own deep influence at the Holy See.
I find it interesting that every other source I have read about this case makes it very clear that Benedict was the driving force behind getting Marciel removed and that he pressed for an investigation while still a Cardinal.
I am disappointed that so much credence is being given to the NYT coverage of Benedict’s role in this and other past abuse cases as it as been shown over and over again that they do not hesitate to outright lie and distort facts.
I should mention I did not even finish the article because it became clear they were just following the NYT’s agenda of trying to destroy this Pope’s good name. The reference to Munich and other cases (forgive me for not remembering the exact wording) clued me in as they implied quite clearly all of this was his fault.
Paula just because something is posted doesn’t mean it is to be given credence, it means it was something I read or saw and considered important. This front page New York Times story from Monday falls into that category.
I have already posted pieces critical of the NY Times coverage of this story, and a pretty supportive piece about Benedict XVI from highly respected reporter John Allen, among others.
Kendall, I should have been clearer I did not mean you specifically. But was referring to the fact that other news agencies pick up on NYT articles and elevate it to unquestionable source for the truth.
I have noticed your posting of other coverage which is why I honestly was not thinking of you when I wrote that. Sorry for not being more precise.
Paula makes an important point. The press often repeats earlier stories and parts of stories. An incorrect statement of fact or formulation or slant on a story can be repeated many times as newspapers and other news outlets essentially re-print just one source. Once the AP writes a story it is uncritically repeated.
#4, the business with the earlier stories seems to me to be even worse than that. When the story is discredited, there is no further reporting on it, yet the innuendos based on the now discredited story are blandly repeated. Not to mention the complacent arrogance on display in, say, Nicholas Kristof’s piece posted further down. Having said all that, this is a truly unsettling story. However, I say that because it involves a pattern of protection over 50 years; it is equally unsettling that the story as written is a transparent effort to lay the blame for fifty years at Benedict’s door. Worse, as so often in these stories, it turns out that Benedict is the one who is (in context) out front on the issue. I found it significant that Fr. Maciel was removed from office by Benedict in his first year as pope. Up until then, Maciel would have been under the protection of JPII and then Cardinal Ratzinger’s hands would have been tied.