It all seems so clear, doesnít it?

As this Laurie Goodstein/Michael Luo/NY Times article presents, Pope Benedict XVI and a chronically corrupt Roman Catholic Church have been complicit in the protection of child-abusing priests.

But as this William McGurn/WSJ op-ed notes, the Timesí reporters undisclosed feeding of information from plaintiffís lawyers who have made a cottage industry out of suing the Catholic Church raises as many questions as the ones the Times raises about the churchís handling of the sex-abuse cases. As McGurn notes:

The man who is now pope reopened cases that had been closed; did more than anyone to process cases and hold abusers accountable; and became the first pope to meet with victims. Isn’t the more reasonable interpretation of all these events that Cardinal Ratzinger’s experience with cases like Murphy’s helped lead him to promote reforms that gave the church more effective tools for handling priestly abuse?

Yeah, but reporting that would not sell as many newspapers. And also not comply with the objectives of undisclosed agendas.

Morality plays are comforting because they make it easy to identify and demonize the villains. The truth is usually more nuanced and complicated, but ultimately more fulfilling to understand and less likely to generate witch hunts.

Update: Father Raymond J. De Souza provides more insight into the Kiesle case.