For the record, the pope is innocent of any wrong doing. Every attempted smear story they throw at him falls short. All you have to do is read the details. For example; in Munich we're talking about one case, wherein somebody beneath Ratzinger (currently Pope Benedict XVI) transferred an accused priest without Ratzinger's knowledge or consent. Then in the case of Milwaukee, again we are talking about one accused priest, who could not be prosecuted by civil authorities and the charges were dropped. Then while the Archbishop was the one and only man who could have done anything, he decided to punt the case to the Vatican instead, where it was delayed for months. Finally, when a response was given, it was given not by Cardinal Ratzinger (currently Pope Benedict XVI), but by somebody completely different, recommending the trial be canceled since the accused priest was dying, the Archbishop of Milwaukee had not defrocked him, and criminal charges had already been dropped by civil authorities. The accused priest died four months later. Once again, the responsibility lay at the Archbishop of Milwaukee's feet, because he alone was the only one who had evidence to defrock the accused priest, and yet he tried to pass the buck to Cardinal Ratzinger's office at the Vatican instead.
That's it! That's all the liberal mainstream media has! That is their whole case! Yet with that, they are trying to implicate the pope in some sort of trial by newspaper in which they alone play the judge, jury and executioner.
Since the mainstream news media refuses to do their jobs, let us in the blogosphere once again do it for them. Here are the facts..
FACT #1In going after the pope like this the mainstream media swallows the camel to strain a gnat as it ignores 99% of sex-abuse and coverup in the public schools to go after less than 1% in the Catholic Church, which happens to be less than what exists in other religious institutions. Since the mainstream media will not report the fact that the problem in the Catholic Church is only a tiny fraction of the problem that exists in public schools, we are once again left to ask the nagging question: WHY is the mainstream news media seeking to coverup and PROTECT child sex abusers by hiding the statistics of where they do the most damage?
The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that sexual abuse of minors is a damnable sin, of the worst kind, in which Jesus Christ himself said it would be better for someone who does this to tie a millstone around his neck and be thrown into the deepest part of the sea. Catholics involved in sexual abuse have not only failed in morality, but they have also failed in Catholicism, in that they are not practicing the Catholic Christian faith at all.
The total number of all priests accused of sexual abuse of minors from 1950 to 2002 is less than 5% of all Catholic clergy. That means more than 95% of Catholic clergy have never been accused and are doing their jobs correctly, living quiet and holy lives in service to their parishes.
In spite of what people say about clerical celibacy being a "cause" of these problems, actual statistics indicate that the majority of sex-abuse of minors is perpetrated by married men; step-fathers, uncles, cousins and live-in boyfriends. Statistically speaking, being a celibate man in the Catholic priesthood actually REDUCES your odds of sexually abusing minors. That's just a matter of statistical FACT. (learn more here)
In the overwhelming vast majority of cases where sexual abuse was reported in the Catholic Church, the alleged victim was a male between the ages of 12 and 18. Victims younger than 12 were almost never reported, and sexual abuse of females was also rare. This is not the clinical definition of pedophilia. It is however a type of predatory homosexuality that seeks to take advantage of underage young men. Therefore the term "pedophile priests" is a misnomer and not based on hard statistical data. A more accurate term should be "predatory homosexual priests."
Homosexual men are not allowed to become priests in the Catholic Church. In order for a homosexual to become a priest he must lie about his homosexuality just to get into seminary and remain "in the closet" indefinitely. If he is ever discovered to be gay, he would be fired and laicized (defrocked).
Sexual abuse of minors is slightly higher in Protestant churches according to data released by insurance agencies that underwrite them. (learn more here)
Sexual abuse of minors is significantly higher in non-religious institutions that deal with children, particularly public schools, where according to a U.S. government report, a child is literally over 100 times more likely to be molested in a public school than in a Catholic church. (learn more here)
The reforms implemented in the US Catholic Church after the sex-abuse scandal of 2002-2003 have been hailed by child protective services as the most comprehensive ever seen in a public institution and have been cited as a model for other institutions to follow.
No other person in the Vatican has done more to defrock abusive priests and curb sexual abuse in general than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). He was a hawk on clerical discipline and hunting down predators. When he became pope he instituted a zero tolerance policy not only against abusive clerics but against homosexual priests in general. So it's ironic that this pope would find himself under media scrutiny for this reason.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was appointed Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1981, three years after John Paul II's election to the papacy in 1978. As you can see by the graph above, sexual allegations against priests had reached it's highest point the year Ratzinger was appointed. It had never been any higher, with nearly 9 out of every 1,000 priests being accused (almost 1%). Ratzinger went into action and quickly earned the nickname "God's Rottweiler" for his tough approach against all forms of ecclesiastical misconduct - most especially sexual abuse by clerics. Within twenty years, Ratzinger was able to reduce sex abuse allegations to a pre-1950's level with less than 1 out of every 1,000 priests being accused (less than 0.1%). This is especially remarkable when we consider that during the same time period sexual abuse of minors was on the rise in European and North American society in general. Ratzinger was able to implement this massive reform with a zero tolerance policy for homosexuality in the priesthood and by defrocking priests himself when he was canonically capable of doing so. However, Ratzinger did have limitations imposed on him while he was Prefect for the Congregation, and he was not allowed to implement all of the reforms he desired. After becoming pope in 2005, Ratzinger was able to write many of his reforms into Church law and remove many of the obstacles he encountered during his tenure as Prefect to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Now careful examination of the graph above reveals that sexual allegations against priests started to rise dramatically in the middle 1950's through 1981 (the year of Ratzinger's appointment). Who were the popes during those time periods? That would be Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul I (who reigned for less than a month). Pope John Paul II reigned only during the last three years of this time period before the numbers began to drop. So logically, which pontiffs should receive the most scrutiny? That would be Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI. The most dramatic rise came under the papacies of John XXIII and Paul VI. Why does the media not go after them? What was happening during their pontificates that might explain their lack of action and failure to deal with the problem?