Defending Pope Benedict

The facts that Tim Minchin and other celebrity hate-mongers ignore when lying about Pope Benedict and his response to sex abuse within the Catholic Church.

Most anti-Catholics who incorrectly try to link Pope Benedict XVI to the covering up of priestly sex abuse use one of three cases:
1. The case of Fr Lawrence C. Murphy
2. The case of Fr Stephen Kiesle
3. The case of Fr Peter Hullermann
Responses to the misinformation promoted by anti-Catholics against Pope Benedict in relation to the above three men are below:

1. The case of Fr Lawrence C. Murphy. Responses to the misinformation of the New York Times' Laurie Goodstein regarding the case of Fr Lawrence C. Murphy:

Scot P. Richert - The Pope and Fr. Murphy: Fact, Fiction, and Anti-Catholic Bias

Phil Lawler - The Pope and the Murphy case: what the New York Times story didn't tell you

Cardinal Levada - The New York Times and Pope Benedict, a response

Fr Raymond J. de Souza - A Response to the New York Times

Archbishop Dolan (New York) - A response to the New York Times

Cardinal George - Defending Pope Benedict

George Weigel - The Scoundrel Times(s)

Mary Kochan - News Flash - The Pope and the New York Times are fallible

Patrick J. Buchanan - Anti-Catholicism and the Times

Catholic News Agency - Lawyers suing the Church feeding documents to the New York Times

George Weigel - Scandal Time once more

Ed Koch - Jerusalem Post - Enough already, He that is without sin, let him cast the next stone 

Piers Akerman - Atheists line up to nail Catholic to the wall

Note - After being inundated with complaints regarding the misinformation in Laurie Goodstein's article, the New York Times published a response to their critics. In that response Clark Hoyt said:

“Many readers, including church officials, took [Laurie Goodstein's] article as a direct attack on Pope Benedict. But much of their criticism does not hold up.
[Fr Raymond] De Souza, writing this time on National Review Online, said The Times accused Ratzinger of “intervening” to prevent Murphy from facing penalties. The paper did not. The Times article did not establish what role, if any, Ratzinger played, saying only that communications about the case were addressed to him and that his deputy intervened. That’s a long way from saying Ratzinger did. “
So the New York Times is now saying Laurie Goodstein's article doesn't infer any wrongdoing by Pope Benedict. Yet anti-Catholics regularly quote Goodstein's article as proof of Pope Benedict's wrongdoing.

Responses to the misinformation of Christopher Hitchens:

Sean Murphy - A Response to Christopher Hitchens' The Great Catholic Coverup (short version, 22nd March 2010)

Sean Murphy - A Response to Christopher Hitchens' The Great Catholic Coverup (full version with 80 references, 24th March 2010)

Tom Piatak - Christopher Hitchens and the Days of Rage


2. The case of Fr Stephen Kiesle. Responses to the misinformation regarding Cardinal Ratzinger's 1985 letter in the case of Fr Stephen Kiesle. From xt3:
From Phil Lawler and Fr Joseph Fessio via more important information on the Kiesle case


3. The case of Fr Peter Hullermann. Responses to the claims regarding the case of Fr Peter Hullermann:

Wikipedia entry on Fr Peter Hullermann

Other Information:

Crimen sollicitationis - The smoking gun that never was.

Wikipedia - Inaccurate reporting in media

Wikipedia - Pope Benedict XVI

USA Specific - Study I and II Published by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York:

Study I. The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United State, 1950 - 2002. Published 2006.

Study II. Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the USA -1950-2010. Published 2011.

Pope Benedict's letter to abuse victims and their families:

The Pope to the victims of abuse and their families (reading of the 6th paragraph of the Pope’s Letter)
Click for Video