Does Magister have the goods on the Pope or not?

Over at Amy Welborn's Blog, Open Book, which I enjoy from time to time.

Kevin Miller (who you can find at Heart, Mind and Strength) and Rich Leonardi are going at it in the comment page here:

The long and the short of it stems from the whole Pro-choice politician fiasco where the US Bishops were at odds with one another about refusing or not refusing communion to Catholic politicians who favor abortion. At the time, Cardinal McCarrick sent a memo of the impending policy that they drafted to the then Cardinal Ratzinger to see if it was in line with the directives from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Short answer from Ratzy was that they were in compliance.

So here's the skinny on the argument:

A blogger named Magister has posted information that basically states that Ratzinger was upset with the USCCB's directives.

Kevin Miller points out that the then Cardinal Ratzinger sent a memo stating that the USCCB policies were very much in accord with their directives on the matter of pro-choice politicians and the Eucharist. I think any moron could tell that the memo was authentic and we don't really have any reason to think otherwise. If it wasn't wouldn't Ratzinger rant and rave that he didn't write that?

So why then does Magister suggest something to the contrary--which is what I believe Kevin is suggesting is a question we should be asking. To me, that sounds legit. What is Magister implying? Was there another memo? Was Ratzinger under pressure to give assent to the policy by someone? What?

And if we look at the context more accurately than Rich even came close to doing we'll see something very interesting and sheds light on McCarrick positively here:

1) The memo acknowledges receipt of the policy from McCarrick to Cardinal Ratzinger. So it's McCarrick who was making sure that the USCCB had all it's ducks in a row and not Ratzinger issuing some kind of theological smackdown (which could be a new fox series starring Kevin and Rich on Tuesday nights at 9:00PM).

2) With that in mind, why would McCarrick share the memo? They were already on the right track. There wasn't a need to share the memo.

3) With regards to Magister, if he is stating that Cardinal Ratzinger was upset with the USCCB then he needs to produce some evidence to that fact. Anything else is simply poor journalism and smacks of libel. Kevin is right to ask that exact question. Where the heck is the proof that Ratzinger was unhappy?

There isn't any. Unless Magister has an ace up his sleeve. In the words of Jesus: "If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if rightly, why hit Me?"