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.
I 
