Hell’s Bible is at it again.
In a 4000 word article HB‘s Cumaen Sybil moos against Pope Benedict.
But the future pope, it is now clear, was also part of a culture of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction. More than any top Vatican official other than John Paul, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who might have taken decisive action in the 1990s to prevent the scandal from metastasizing in country after country, growing to such proportions that it now threatens to consume his own papacy.
It is the usual thing.
No matter how much Card. Ratzinger did, it wasn’t enough.
The same goes today.
No matter how much or what Pope Benedict does, it can never be good enough for the editors of HB.
What is so slimy about this article is that it ends with simple inuendo, because that is all they really have.
Where Benedict lies on this spectrum, even after nearly three decades of handling abuse cases, is still an open question.
Wellllll, yes… it is an open question. But it requires an open mind to drill into it.
There is no question that in the issue of the clerical abuse of children, some Catholic clergy fell down hideously. Is this news?
But HB has its sights set on Pope Benedict. They will do anything to claw at him.
The key purposeful error in the NYTimes new attack on Pope Benedict