I believe this is a good precedent to set. I don't see what all the excitement and speculation is about.
People live longer these days but endure a much, much longer period of decline because of that. A Pope must be up to the demands of the job.
Keep in mind, however, that traditionally Popes have short reigns because they are almost always of advanced years. John Paul II was a big exception.

More love from the "intellectual" left:

"You have to wonder why Catholic hierarchy elected an old, stumbling wreck of a criminal abettor to begin with."

"Maybe he needs to get laid."

"He's going deaf? That's hot.

~Father Lawrence Murphy~"

"Too much masturbation..."

The anti-religious left is far more scary than any other group these day.

"Right on cue, someone shows up to defend a guy that covered up institutional child RAPE. This isn't even an opinion, it's a stone cold fact."

This lie again? No one did more than Benedict to reform the clergy. It's why they selected him Pope. Truth seems to bother you.

That canard was responded to at the time, Alex. Try not to rely on Maria Monk sagas from the past. Please note the last sentence:

And as I posted above, the anti-religious are perhaps the most scary bloc in America today. They are dishonest, ruthless but worst of all inflamed.

Alex, can you read? It was not until 2002 Ratzinger was appointed to review the allegations. Hello?

Okay. Suit yourself, Alex. But if you can not see a difference between 2001 and 2002, throw away your calendar and watch!
First you falsely accused Benedict, and now it is the entire Church! Is there any reasoning with you?

I would venture Benedict would be the first to say he is no more important than you or I, Zara. It is essential to our theology.
Now take a moment to look up the doctrine of infallibility. It is not some totalitarian idea. It is only on matters of doctrine, which is exactly the same authority the Baptist convention or Methodist Synods claim without using the same word "infallibility."

"Meanwhile, I can find about 10 sources with no skin in the game that have a document telling priests and bishops to cover up sexual abuse of children"

Post them, but make sure "no skin in the game" means no chip on the shoulder. Make sure you vet them first, because I will.
C'mon, Alex, put up.

"Christianity is indeed totalitarian. That's why they burned people at the stake, Galileo."

Null thinks Galileo was burned at the stake? No wonder Obama got elected.

Murph, you raise so many points and all good, as always. No Ratzinger did not get these cases before 2002. He actually tightened reporting requirements (as I corrected Alex above) and got control over these cases only in 2002.
Ratzinger was hounded as "the rottweiler" by liberals during the 1980's simply because he went after the lax standards for clergy. To accuse him of abetting these monsters is libel.

"I would venture that Benedict, the rest of the religious fanatics, et al, are old, dead, white guys whose relevance to the present day is exactly nil."

Invincible ignorance.

"I'm sorry you have poor reading comprehension skills.."

I'm sorry you have such poor writing skills. All I did was quote what you wrote, Zara.

"RIght. So they're 28 when the case gets reported to the authorities? and SURPRISE the statue of limitations for child molestation has run it's course by then."

Alex, are you trying to be obtuse? Read the link I provided.
The limitation has nothing to do with anything except the time a person suffering the offense has to make a complaint to Church authorities. It is the exact same as the statute of limitations in civil/criminal law. It is NOT a prohibition on reporting an offense as you incorrectly claimed at first. You are very wrong to make such a libel.
If the offense happened before age 18, the 'statute of limitations' for REPORTING the offense starts at that age. That's all it says. It provides a longer time to make a complaint, in other words.
You first posted Ratzinger had commanded that no reporting of a crime could be made for 10 years. That's a lie, Alex. He wrote nothing of the sort. You were wrong and it's in black and white above under your name.
You wrote a lie, Alex. Ratzinger did not prohibit reporting abuse, as you claimed.

"I didn't write that, catolico."

Sorry, Zara. It was someone as dumb and bigoted as you are. My apology.

Or Freud, Darwin, Voltaire...true, Null!

"The church covered up child rape. It is well documented, and you continue to play semantics. Ratzinger allowed clergy to be moved to other places after complaints were made against them, and new victims predictably emerged. There is a LONG PERSISTENT pattern of abuse, cover-up, and lies...and you want to focus on minor details and ignore the horrible truth: Pope Benedict was in a position to do good for these rape victims, and he not only didn't, he raped them all a second time by not letting them have closure."

Alex, I gave you black and white refutation of your specific claims, and you retreat to general accusations?
Ratzinger did NOT allow clergy to be moved in order to cover up. Substantiate that and I will refute, as I did your claim he prohibited anyone from reporting abuse claims for 10 years...a TOTAL lie, Alex!
He was in a position to do something and he DID. He tightened up clergy standards and was hounded by liberals for doing so.
You call your major errors "minor details" when I refute them? You made major errors saying Benedict had prohibited anyone from reporting clergy abuse. Just admit it. Or, again, show me proof Benedict prohibited anyone from reporting clergy abuse. Go ahead....prove you know what you are talking about, Alex.

"Christians would have burned all three of them at the stake if the Christian reign of terror hadn't been stopped by intelligent people."

Really, Null? Priests showed up when Voltaire was dying to offer the sacraments and he waved them off.
Why did they not kill him? If they had such hostility, why even bother to show up?
Compare that to what the French revolutionaries did to the clergy, if your finger is not too lazy too Google.

"So you are saying he didn't know?"

Show me a case he knew about and did nothing about. The general accusation tactic is getting old.

"I know that, you know that, diablo doesn't want to know that because I got a minor detail wrong."

Minor detail? Alex, you claimed Benedict prohibited anyone from reporting an abuse case for a 10-year period. That's false, and not minor.

Alex, just admit it: you were wrong to say Benedict prohibited anyone from reporting an abuse case for a 10-year period. Just admit you were wrong.
Then on to your next canard.

"Find something wrong in here and dismiss it, diablo."

Gladly, Alex, and thanks for admitting your previous lie was...well, just getting something a little wrong. Gimme a break. Please note in the following, Ratzinger's office actually LIFTED the Church statute of limitations for investigation in this particular case you cite.

"Like I said,doing the jig. He may have not technically covered it up but he sure as hell didn't do anything about it while he was in a position to do something about it."

This too easy, rightwingd.

I see Alex and the rest now are reduced to playground retorts. Case closed.

"How many licks does it take to get to the center of a small boy, diablo?

#102 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-02-19 12:04 AM | Reply | Flag: "

First Alex lies, then he retreats into this stuff.

Zara, I refuted the claim of Alex that Benedict had prohibited anyone from reporting clergy abuse.
Then the usual swarm tactic of posts started here.
Even Alex admitted he had made a "minor" mistake.
Now you step up with ignorance. Ever been in a confessional? There's a wall between priest and penitent. Surprise! It's impossible to touch, moron.
Now, got something of substance to offer or just more playground retorts?

Thanks, Zara. Your admission of prejudice and abuse proves my case.

Nope. You and Alex tried, but lost.

Zara, despite your abusive rhetoric, my side has survived far more deadly assaults than your juvenile snipes for two millenia. You are not as potent as Cromwell, Stalin or Domitian.
We continue to live. Ephemeral views like yours die.
The love of your own time will kill you.