Implicating Ratzinger/Benedict is not just interpretatively wrong in this case but factually wrong: Sexual abuse cases as such were not his to judge.
Here's how it was explained by Michael Sean Winters in BishopsAccountability.org, a group which has been documenting the abuse crisis (I am condensing here for length, but this is his analogy):
Let’s take an example from another story to illustrate. There have been threats and acts of vandalism against members of Congress. Those threats were referred to the FBI. It is hoped the FBI will catch those responsible. One such case involved the cutting of a gas line; this, perhaps, necessitated calling the Environmental Protection Agency. But, if the criminals are not caught, I am not going to blame the EPA, I am going to blame the FBI. In the article, they are trying to blame the EPA.
My impression here is that media operatives are throwing out as wide a net as possible into lurid cases going back 25, 30, even 45 years or more (e.g. the Milwaukee School for the Deaf case) in order to implicate Ratzinger/Benedict by any means necessary.
The fact that Benedict has done more than any other man in the Vatican to weed out abusers and restore doctrine and discipline--- means nothing to them.
The fact that (according to the John Jay College of Criminal Justice) the vast majority of the abuse cases took place from the mid-60s to the mid-80s, and since then, due to vastly more effective protective measures, have been reduced in most Dioceses to zero-- means nothing to them.
The fact that the latest report, covering 2008-2009, shows exactly six credible allegations made against over 40,000 priests serving 60 million Catholics in the U.S. --- means nothing to them.
The New York Times and the AP are banking on two easy assumptions about most readers: that they won’t get past the headline and the first sentence; and that they’ll say “Yup, guilty” without asking “Where’s the rest of the story?”
Thank you for the clarification Mrs. Don-o.
So, are you contending that Cardinal Ratzinger was improperly responding to a misrouted letter to which he had no authority? Also, how do you know that only on 2001 did that office start being responsible for such cases?