I started with this at the end but it needs to be at the beginning. It is the best read comes from comes from Father Raymond J. de Souza in National Review Online. Father de Souza pulls no punches and gives a clear timeline:
It’s possible that bad sources could still provide the truth. But compromised sources scream out for greater scrutiny. Instead of greater scrutiny of the original story, however, news editors the world over simply parroted the New York Times piece. Which leads us the more fundamental problem: The story is not true, according to its own documentation.This is a must read for Catholics serious about defending their faith and their pope.
A second author, John Allen, of the National Catholic Reporter sets the record straight regarding what Pope Benedict was really responsible for in his days at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This has to do with the NY Times' accusation that Benedict, then Ratzinger, was complacent in the face of an abuse case from Milwaukee. He is pointed to say blame does belong to certain leaders of the Church- and even to Benedict- but not in the way he is demonized by the NY Times.
Yet as always, the first casualty of any crisis is perspective. There are at least three aspects of Benedict's record on the sexual abuse crisis which are being misconstrued, or at least sloppily characterized, in today's discussion. Bringing clarity to these points is not a matter of excusing the pope, but rather of trying to understand accurately how we got where we are.Finaly, if you aren't worn out, a good read is from Zenit, a news service from Rome. They have a translation from the Italian Bishops' Conference publication Avvenire.
The documentation published by The New York Times contradicts its own thesis, which accuses Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of not being sufficiently energetic in the case of an American priest who the Church punished for acts of pederasty.Read the whole thing here.