AP once again lying about the Holy Father. . .

"New" revelations of the future Pope Benedict XVI covering up for a clerical child molester?

Or, just another case of a lazy, Catholic-hating reporter publishing court documents leaked to her by plaintiff's lawyers?  (You know, like that NYT hit piece over Holy Week. . .)?

Here's the "reporting". . .

And here's Fr. Z.'s evisceration of the story.  . .line by line, "fact" by "fact."  The gist of Fr. Z.'s take-down is this:  the AP story ignores the time-line of Ratzinger's appt to the CDF; conflates the canonical duties of various curial offices in dealing with priests accused of molestation; completely confuses the various sorts of canonical remedies for molesters (defrocking, dispensation, etc.); and completely punts on the historical fact that Crdl. Ratzinger insisted on taking personal charge of all abuse cases sometime in 2001. 

Makes you wonder if AP reporters have access to Google or, you know, telephones. . .anything that would help them actually look stuff up, or you know, call someone to check their facts.  

Also, I have to believe that if these charges were being made against a prominent Muslim cleric or leading Rabbi, the reporter would go out of her way to learn something, anything about the internal workings of these faiths in order to better report the facts.  Cultural diversity, difference, and all that being the pinnacle of lefty ideology.  But since she's dealing with the Evil Roman Pontiff, who opposes all thing holy and good to the Left, plain ole willful ignorance serves the narrative just fine. . .so, why bother?

UPDATE:  Damien Thompson points out a few factual errors in the AP report.

UPDATE 2:  Fr. Fessio has an interesting take on why the process for granting priestly dispensations took so long after 1980.

Follow HancAquam ------------>