Father Z on that California case

Father Z has more details on that latest smear job by the NYTimes:

1. At the time, the CDF did not have competence in the cases of clerical pedophilia.
2. The case before the CDF concerned a request by a priest for a dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state.
3. It was not a punitive case or an appeal about a sanction.
4. The request was submitted by the priest and not the priest’s diocese of Oakland.
5. The CDF didn’t not grant immediate dispensations to men who were not at least 40 years old.
6. Once the CDF studied the case and the priest reached 40 years of age, the dispensation was granted.
There was no cover up.
7. If the Diocese of Oakland was pressing the Holy See to dispense this man so quickly, why did that same Diocese of Oakland permit the suspended priest to work as a volunteer with young people? The Holy See had nothing to do with that.
8. The AP and now all other MSM outlets who without hesitation or verification pick up the AP’s sloppy work, never bother to do background and ask basic questions about procedures and timing. They fail in the basics of curiosity, much less journalistic professionalism.

Why are they trying to smear Pope Benedict?

To shut him up or to cast into doubt what he has said and what he will say concerning moral issues.


ah, and Father didn't ask the real question: Who released this 25 year old letter? Was it to cover their tushie (i.e. blame someone else for their mistake) or by a lawyer out to make money?

We already know that some of the leaks are by lawyers who stand to make money from abuse cases.
How many of these leaks are by those trying to destroy the pope.