Maybe as a blogger I should pay more attention to this stuff. After all, someone's bound to ask me about it eventually (and they have). I guess it's just not interesting to me that the New York Times is trying to pin the blame for a Michigan diocese' (and local law enforcement's) failure to stop a pedophile priest on Pope Benedict. It just seems... predictable?
I mean, I know how the story will end. The NYT will run a bunch of articles throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall to see what sticks. A lot of it will stick because a lot of their readers don't like the pope anyway and are happy to take their accusations at face value. The Church will (and has) provide a series of reasons why it's simply not true that the pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger) had anything to do with it and may not have even been aware of it.
But, most people who read the NYT won't really care what “the Church” says because “the Church” HAS to protect the pope, right? So we can't be trusted, obviously. It'll quickly descend into a he-said-she-said thing and everyone will get a little grouchy (I think this is where we are right now).
After a while the whole thing will go away because our Attention Deficit Disorder culture can't focus on one topic for long and the people who don't like Catholicism will still not like Catholicism and people who think fair media reporting is a thing of the past will continue to think it's a thing of the past.
I guess that's why I just don't really care.
That said, my prayers are with Pope Benedict as this must be tough personally. He has done more to purge the Church of sick offenders like the fellow in Michigan than arguably anyone else in the Church. It must be personally difficult for him to be personally accused of failure to act in this particular case by a newspaper with such wide readership.
Anyway, if you're interested in a pretty decent summary of what's going on, you can find one here.