Pope Benedict, Leadership and Silence

Yesterday, Maureen Dowd of The New York Times took the position in her op-ed "A Nope for Pope" that Pope Benedict should go home to Bavaria for his silence regarding child molestation by priests. I agree with Dowd; however, I object to the "holier than thou" attitude of someone who remained silent in the face of depraved abuse, e.g., "honor killings", of Saudi women. Although Dowd is not the pope, she had the power, owing to her position at The Times, to make a difference. She also chose to remain silent.

Today, Ross Douthat of The New York Times , in an op-ed entitled "A Time for Contrition", pontificates on the issue of Benedict and child molestation from the other side of the spectrum. My online response, if The Times deigns to post it (The Times' "moderators", who have repeatedly demonstrated that they are anything but "moderate", refused to post my prior comment to Dowd's op-ed, but as is often said, miracles do happen):

Silence in the face of child molestation is not a matter for mere contrition. There is nothing more wicked and depraved than the sexual abuse of helpless children, and there should be no room for silence regarding this issue.

Also, in December Benedict approved a decree recognizing the "heroic virtues" of Pope Pius XII, moving Pius one step closer to sainthood. Notwithstanding the opposition of Catholic scholars from around the world who have implored Benedict to delay the sainthood of Pius, Benedict seems intent upon canonizing a pope who remained silent during the Holocaust.

Douthat writes "Popes do not resign." Not true: Pope Gregory XII resigned to end the Western Schism, and Pope Celestine V decreed it permissible for a pope to resign and did so.

Benedict, for the benefit of his flock, should call it quits.

Sorry, Ross, there is no room for contrition here. Contrition be damned! Leaders do not remain silent in the face of child abuse. Benedict must go.