Due to the category in which put me Falso Idillio ("weaver"), I've to insert a post of a sort of balance, so I put my complete adhesion to the public homily of Benedict XVI. Also for the Family Day organized by italian syndacilist Savino Pezzotta, I've thoughts of appreciation. If I could, I would have gone too to the Family Day in Rome. The founding, useful, more important faith in the family like society nucleus, of every religious or civil ordering that is, a brick of the irrenounceable human society at in these years "under attack" from economics, politic, social institutions and individuals that don't see importance amid included ones.

Many other things, in fact, can be added to the debate on Ratzinger. In social networks as in blogs it depopulates to speak badly of and therefore takes me to deepen another argument, a lot in order to understand wether that the so-called blogosphere drowns in worrisome informative and cultural superficialisms or not, it's simply is baldy thinking.

Therefore, leaving from a link to a Family alternativ Day, I have uncovered blog, in which it is spoken about an indictment of Ratzinger in the USA. From it starts a moment where - on Internet - by now you can find a version that Ratzinger "covered the pedofiles priests", and was elected to save himself. I find it highly improbable, to not say impossiblee but Pandemia resumed a BBC video that turns on the Internet sometimes. That does not turn out me Ratzinger has never covered these sick priests, if in order not to defend an institution from a plague that is assaulting it more and more, and they give within. The priests are men, and like all therefore they are inclined to mistake itself. However, nobody has never said that they are divine. But: people believes that they must be perfect, without spot neither sin, because they are priests, therefore is presumed also saint, and that the every serious, indeed most serious lack also, must be endured shown the entire world, they must be every cutted off any assignment, judged, condemned without appeal, and finally eliminates to you, also even offcommunicated so that we can remain in topic.
But, keep calm: who said it? Dan Brown?
It seems a bit strange to trust it: no structure, society, family, or atmosphere of whichever level have not been looked at, in which the lack of a member it is endured, immediately, with seam of rumbles of blast of bugles, capacity to the public opinion, and from this same one put the sentence, condemned without appeal, even from one hungry society of monster, and finally eliminated. It is not expected goodness knows from the civil society but because it is expected from the Church.
We go ourselves repeat, much plan: the recent developments of the case of Rignano Flaminio, on which the blogger Leonardo just writes ,they perhaps are there to demonstrate that at the end, it is better to inquire before, that to throw persons with problems without try to resolve the problem, and that's can be very uncorrect. And if it is expected from the civil society, it is also expected from the Church. Sure, in the moment in which from the simple suspicion you can rely on a substantial certainty, the same conclusions that carry the civil justice to undertake hard actions also they must induce the Church to make equally, obviously with the due confidentiality and in the respective differences. But as all known, this has its times, generally not much short..

Finally, on purpose of the video, and on purpose above all of the cited document, the Crimen sollicitationis that memory to be of 1962, and deployed by Giovanni XXIII, I think opportune to bring back - with to a corollary of explanation of the eccelsiastic Rights from this post of Angelo Bottone:

On the homepage of the journal Republica, today, an article appears that references to a documentary of the BBC on the saddest vicissitudes of sexual abuses perpetuated from some priests Irish homosexuals in Ireland and the USA.
The documentary had provoked wide protests when it was transmitted in full TV perche' of sensazionalistiche affirmations and references not documented.

In the article of Republic a document ' segreto' ( in real is made reference to the Crimen Sollicitationis for null secret inasmuch as it was published on the Acta Apostolicae Sedis) of 1962 and asserts, falsely, that ' guarantor of the application of those directives he was Benedict XVI, to the age of the facts still cardinal Joseph Ratzinger'. False affirmation two times is because in 1962 was not part of the Sant' Uffizio but simply one of the greater teologi catholic progressives, neither was a cardinal (was made bishop 15 years after).
About the document in issue of it John Allen spoke correctly, my preferred vaticanist, in 2003 here.

Why Republic has resumed just hour this old issue seems to me obvious: to throw I discredit in the comparisons of the ecclesiale institution.

Living in Ireland, I have been able to follow the sad and tragic vicissitude. This kind of crimes does not deserve no justification, neither it can diminish itself. Some bishops in the past have silenced or covered the behavior of some of their priests and the Irish Church he is still paying and suffering for these errors.
Said this, false arguments aren't convenient to nobody and the article of Republic contains falsities.
To who it interests the truth, can begin to document itself and to follow the suggested connections here and here.

update Thanks to the "El testamento del pescador", the documentation page of the BBC video has been translated in espanol too: here the link.