The Present Pope had been in charge of dealing with sex abuse cases when he was a Cardinal for more than 20 years.
Yeah, I say he did wrong.
For example , he stopped a trial of a Priest accused of molesting about 200 deaf boys over the protests of at least two Archbishops.
Here is more info
Evidence that Ratzinger knew about child abuse and did nothing
Ratzinger altered canon law to soften Maciel punishment, book argues
It takes almost full-time work to refute the vile slanders against Pope Benedict --- and even to re-refute them, since so many of them were exposed as false years ago. But dont expect retractions from the New York Times and the British tabloid press.
Anybody with an interest in the truth about the Milwaukee case (Lawrence Murphy)is invited to read Raymond J. de Souza's article at National Review: A Response to the New York Times [Pope falsely accused].
The principal responsibility for the Lawrence Murphy sexual-abuse case lay with local Ordinary, Archbishop Rembert Weakland. Leaving the accused abuser priest "without assignment," and likewise without supervision from 1977 until 1996, and neglecting any effort to discover the scope of his abuses or to minister to his victims, Weakland essentially did nothing.
It was not until 1996 (19 years after Fr. Murphy was put out of circulation and out of the diocese on "sick leave") that Weakland first notified Cardinal Ratzingers Vatican office, which promptly moved forward on having a canonical trial. Neither Ratzinger nor anyone in his office in any way impeded the local process. In fact, Card. Ratzingers Deputy, Cardinal Narciso Bertone, tried in every way to expedite the process, despite the huge gap created by Abp Weakland's negligence and the statute of limitations.
Fr. Murphy died in 1998, before a canonical trial could take place.
The real fault in these cases is with the local bishops in the 1970's and 10 - 20 years following (like Weakland and Mahony), who were derelict in their duties.
But because the NYT and the MSM are in general reluctant to lodge fault with Weakland and Mahony ---who, as progressives, longtime enablers/protectors of anti-papal dissenters, were immune from all criticism --- there was a concerted, international effort to find some way to drag in Pope Benedict.
What the New York Times was churning out against the Pope 3+years ago --- and repeated here --- was vicious, prejudicial, and (it seems to me) probably legally libelous. The Queen of Slander herself in this game was Maureen Dowd, whose comments were echoed by well-known individuals disgracing our opinion-forum.
Let the blame fall squarely on the shoulders of those who protected and enabled abusers --- like Weakland and Mahony. But don't splatter slime on the innocent --- like Benedict XVI. The New York Times and the British tabloids will scarcely be expected to acknowledge their factual errors. However, there may be lurkers still reading: it is for your sake, lurkers, that I offer the true account of the Murphy/Weakland case.