Ok apparently the media does not care to actually report the truth and when called out for it, to save face still manages to twist things.
But one newspaper doesn't think bad journalism is a good thing. So here is the Wall Street Journal on the NY Times and the Pope.

Unlike the Roman papacy, in certain circles the New York Times still enjoys the presumption of authority. So when the front page carries a story headlined "Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Deaf Boys," people notice.

Written by Laurie Goodstein and published March 25, the thrust is twofold. First, that the Rev. Lawrence Murphy, a priest who abused children at St. John's School for the Deaf in Milwaukee from the 1950s to the 1970s, went unpunished. Father Murphy, she wrote categorically, "was never tried or disciplined by the church's own justice system."

This all feeds the kicker: "the effort to dismiss Father Murphy came to a sudden halt after the priest appealed to Cardinal Ratzinger for leniency." In other words, Murphy got off scot-free, and the cardinal looked the other way.

Ms. Goodstein cites internal church documents, which the Times posted online. The documents were provided by Jeff Anderson and Mike Finnegan. They are described as "lawyers for five men who have brought four lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee."

What she did not tell readers is that Mr. Anderson isn't just any old lawyer. When it comes to suing the church, he is America's leading plaintiffs attorney. Back in 2002, he told the Associated Press that he'd won more than $60 million in settlements from the church, and he once boasted to a Twin Cities weekly that he's "suing the s--t out of them everywhere." Nor did the Times report another salient fact about Mr. Anderson: He's now trying to sue the Vatican in U.S. federal court.

.None of this makes Mr. Anderson wrong or unworthy of quoting. It does make him a much bigger player than the story disclosed. In fact, it's hard to think of anyone with a greater financial interest in promoting the public narrative of a church that takes zero action against abuser priests, with Pope Benedict XVI personally culpable.

Asked about the omissions in an email, Ms. Goodstein replied as follows: "Given the complexity of the Murphy case, and the relative brevity of my story, I don't think it is realistic for you to expect this story to get into treating other cases that these attorneys have handled."

Martin Nussbaum, a lawyer who is not involved in the Murphy case but who has defended other dioceses and churches in sexual abuse suits, emailed me four interesting letters sent to Murphy from three Wisconsin bishops. These documents are not among those posted online by the Times. They are relevant, however, because they refute the idea that Murphy went unpunished.

In fact, the letters from these bishops—three in 1993 and one in 1995, after fresh allegations of Murphy's misconduct—variously informed the priest that he was not to celebrate the sacraments in public, not to have any unsupervised contact with minors, and not to work in any parish religious education program.

It's accurate to say Murphy was never convicted by a church tribunal. It's also reasonable to argue (as I would) that Murphy should have been disciplined more. It is untrue, however, to suggest he was "never" disciplined. When asked if she knew of these letters, Ms. Goodstein did not directly answer, saying her focus was on what was "new," i.e., "the attempts by those same bishops to have Father Murphy laicized."

As for Rome, it did not get the case until 1996, when the archdiocese of Milwaukee informed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Back then, the CDF handled abuse cases when they involved a breach of confession (Murphy was accused of using the confessional to solicit boys). At that time, too, the only real option for reducing Murphy to the lay state was a church trial. And the bishops in Wisconsin did begin a trial.

Ms. Goodstein's original article said simply that Cardinal Ratzinger's deputy halted Murphy's trial after the priest sent the cardinal a letter saying he was dying and asking for clemency. A follow-up Times article last Thursday clarified that Rome came down the way it did because Murphy had shown "apparent good conduct" for the last 24 years, and "it would be difficult to try him" because "so much time [had] passed between the crimes and the trial."

Plus, his bishops had already stripped Murphy of his priestly faculties, the equivalent of taking a doctor's medical license. Does all this really suggest people callously looking the other way?

A few years later, when the CDF assumed authority over all abuse cases, Cardinal Ratzinger implemented changes that allowed for direct administrative action instead of trials that often took years. Roughly 60% of priests accused of sexual abuse were handled this way. The man who is now pope reopened cases that had been closed; did more than anyone to process cases and hold abusers accountable; and became the first pope to meet with victims. Isn't the more reasonable interpretation of all these events that Cardinal Ratzinger's experience with cases like Murphy's helped lead him to promote reforms that gave the church more effective tools for handling priestly abuse?

That's not to say that the press should be shy, even about Pope Benedict XVI's decisions as archbishop and cardinal. The Murphy case raises hard questions: why it took the archbishops of Milwaukee nearly two decades to suspend Murphy from his ministry; why innocent people whose lives had been shattered by men they are supposed to view as icons of Christ found so little justice; how bishops should deal with an accused clergyman when criminal investigations are inconclusive; how to balance the demands of justice with the Catholic imperative that sins can be forgiven. Oh, yes, maybe some context, and a bit of journalistic skepticism about the narrative of a plaintiffs attorney making millions off these cases.

That's still a story worth pursuing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304017404575165792228341212.html

One more thing, Murphy died before anything was done to him. So the question remains, how does one prosecute a dead man?

Are you saying that the abuse of children did not occur in the Roman Catholic church and that there wasn't a conspiracy to cover it up? Please, a simple yes, no, or it's complicated answer.

abuse of children did happen but there was no cover up

chukwudi44:

abuse of children did happen but there was no cover up

Have you followed the reports at all? Or perhaps you went somewhere when Cardinal Brady acknowledged there has been cover-ups and apologised for his role? I think you have some catching up to do on this matter.

The article pasted above is a spin doctor's job. The level of cover ups in these matters, in which Benedict as Archbishop Ratzinger, and later, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was involved, "to protect the interest of the larger Church" is mind-boggling. There has been more than one specific allegation against him which the Vatican has refused even to acknowledge, much less, clear up. The above article does nothing for the Vatican's image. People need to stop lying and face the issues otherwise no progress will be made. Please.

Lady and her incoherent defense of anything catholic.

^^^anti-catholic?

Are you saying that the abuse of children did not occur in the Roman Catholic church and that there wasn't a conspiracy to cover it up? Please, a simple yes, no, or it's complicated answer.

Please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that the article is saying that there was no cover up?

I'm giving u the benefit of the doubt that you do have reading comprehension skills.

davidylan:

Lady and her incoherent defense of anything catholic.

Wow, I didn't know the Washington Post was incoherent. But thanks for the heads up.

I really await the day u use logic to reply to a discussion.

miss/mr. lady. are u a christian or a catholic?

@mudley313 that ur question get as hin be.lol.well i am a catholic christian

Catholic priests who molested boys are cowards and they deserve the death penalty. How can a Catholic priest officiate mass on Sunday morning and

then sodomize a boy or girl on the same Sunday AFTERNOON. Christians are hypocrites. I heard that Jews have the same problem too now. Some

rabbis were jailed for sodomizing boys in a New York Yeshiva. You see how disgusting some hypocrites. The punishment of God is coming upon them.

Mudley313:

miss/mr. lady. are u a christian or a catholic?

please ask educated questions. What's the difference between a Catholic and a Christian?

I'm a Catholic Christian.

ifele: Catholic priests who molested boys are cowards and they deserve the death penalty. How can a Catholic priest officiate mass on Sunday morning and

then sodomize a boy or girl on the same Sunday AFTERNOON. Christians are hypocrites. I heard that Jews have the same problem too now. Some

rabbis were jailed for sodomizing boys in a New York Yeshiva. You see how disgusting some hypocrites. The punishment of God is coming upon them.

Not just Catholics, not just Jews, but teachers in schools, fathers and mothers at home, uncles and aunts, cousins do it to their cousins as well. Now I take it that you've never seen a Priest molest a child, therefore when you say that it is done on Sunday afternoon, you agree that that claim is unfounded

Lady welcome back.where on earth did you disapear to