I find all this, especially from my brother deeply distressing. I pray for him, I think you should too.
Anyway, I left the textual conversation there, no doubt he thought he'd won; I went to bed and when I woke up I was greeted by a very interesting comment posted on Fr Ray Blake's blog. I think I will simply copy and paste the argument which the commenter has;
Fact: The revolting abuse took place over a long period up to the 1970sIt appears to be, as Damian Thompson suggests a stitch-up of the most disturbing kind.
Fact: Archbishop Weakland was enthroned in 1977. He first raised the issue in a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger in 1996; the only letter he wrote to the Cardinal.
Fact: Cardinal Ratzinger acted immediately and designated his deputy to conduct the investigation.
Fact: The investigation was in progress when the errant priest wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger asking for mercy because he was dying.
Fact: Fr. Murphy died 7 months later.
Fact: Those in the diocese who had the power to act when the allegations began to surface did not very much.
It's all in the documents, which most of the hysterical anti-Pope brigade won't bother to read.
The former Archbishop Weakland when asked directly to confirm the Pope did nothing, merely said those in authority should have acted sooner. He added he should have acted sooner.
But then Fr Weakland's record on such matters doesn't bear much scrutiny.
The most troubling question is who released these internal church documents, knowing that they could and would be misused to injure the Pope?
Thank God that at last someone has spoken out for the Pope. Thank you, Archbishop Nichols.
In my text to my brother this morning I outlined all that the comment leaver said and concluded with the simple line; 'If the Pope is guilty of anything, he's guilty of showing compassion and being a Christian."