Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
In fairness, these claims are coming from the plaintiff in a lawsuit. Of course he's going to assume the worst. Also, while I do believe that Ratzinger covered up the scandal, I also believe the many accounts that he has worked to reform the situation from the inside. Does that make the cover-up better? No. But understanding how the mind of the Vatican works, I'm not surprised by their actions.
What are the laws of a nation compared to the laws of God and His retribution/absolution? The rulings of a government court system mean nothing to them.
|
The rulings of a government court system does mean something to them, otherwise there would be no need for a cover-up.
While certainly the plaintiff, Daniel Shea is going to assume the worst, you have to admit it's a good conspiracy theory with some hard evidence pointing to the conclusion that he was elected Pope to give him diplomatic immunity.
But, as far as the two letters that the article references -- Ratzinger's letter to all Catholic bishops from May 18, 2001, and the 48-year-old document
Crimen Sollicitationis it cites in its footnotes -- those are hard facts. I'd like to read them in full myself (I believe both are in Latin, so it makes it slightly more difficult, having to rely on someone's translation), but if they're at all what the article makes them sound like, it sure sounds like a cover-up to me, and across international borders, which I'm guessing makes it an international conspiracy to obstruct justice.