[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by La literatura

Yes, it does matter. And it's not what Ratzinger did, the issue is what the office did not do, which was be more pro-active in pursuing the claims. If we're going to charge Ratzinger with complicity in child molestation, we better have evidence that shows he knew it was occurring and allowed it to happen.

Proactive? Yes, but not in the direction you're claiming. And spare me the following JP2's orders malarkey.

In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture.

The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church’s own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated “in the most secretive way … restrained by a perpetual silence … and everyone … is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication.” (My italics). Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism!

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...and-ratzinger/