This piece is simply baffling to me. On the one hand, we are told that the Pope is conspiring to keep molesting priests in office. The proof? A document in which the Pope is agreeing to “defrocking” a priest. Huh?
My wife looked at it and thinks the “clause” the Pope is referring to is not about “how to keep this guy a priest” but rather is about whether or not he should be sent away from the area after he is defrocked. Hard to say. There’s only a couple of lines quoted, surrounded by a lot of extremely confident statements by a reporter eager for a scoop.
I get the sense the reporter is hoping she’s found the Scoop of the Century and is eager to go to press on the basis of some rather sketchy textual evidence. I’d want to see something more than a couple of interpolated lines before rendering any judgment at all. I’m particularly unimpressed with the Nuremburgish “just following orders” line when the entire import of the Pope’s words is not at all about giving Law “orders” but is rather (apparently) referring him to some point in canon law about *his own* discretionary capacity as the local ordinary. There does not appear to be nearly as much There there as the reporter seems to have hastily assumed.
Hey! Pete Vere! What do you make of this?