One should not give oneself the human vulnerability to accuse this statement of insincerity.

Here someone is writing who, in view of the approaching death, appeals to his God, calling him, as it were, to be a witness to the three-page letter that Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Emeritus, had published yesterday by the press room of the Holy See.

The fact that an experience of faith is discussed that goes beyond the fact check of meeting minutes and accusations of lying cannot be dismissed as a pious accessory and eludes any classification from the outside.

Certainty about life after death

Towards the end of his letter, Ratzinger writes: “Looking at the hour of judgment, the grace of being a Christian becomes clear to me.

It gives me the acquaintance, even the friendship, with the judge of my life and allows me to walk through the dark gate of death with confidence." not as a church-political act. And, to put it succinctly, it makes people jealous of people for whom the improbable – life after death – has become a subjective certainty.

Succinctly also the statements on the matter that is being argued about.

We learn (in the legal rebuttal of allegations against him attached to Ratzinger's personal letter) who wrote the 82-page statement in the Munich Abuse Report that Ratzinger signed.

In this statement, four legal experts have brought the logic of the legal system to bear even where a word of personal responsibility would have been appropriate, at least if someone wants to show that when it comes to investigating and punishing abusers, they are not only responsible for the action, but also for that omission is cause for an examination of conscience.

Ratzinger has now tried to explain the misrepresentation ("You shouldn't lie!", "Bild" newspaper) in one of his answers: There are "almost 8000 pages of digital file documentation to be read and evaluated in addition to the questions the law firm asked me". been.

“During the huge work of those days – the drafting of the Opinion – an oversight occurred regarding the question of my participation in the Ordinariate meeting of January 15, 1980.

This mistake, which unfortunately happened, was not intentional and is, I hope, also excusable.” In fact, an objectively misrepresented fact is not necessarily a lie, otherwise every fact check would always be a lie check, which is one permanent short-circuit in the moral evaluation.