If there is some evidence of his covering up abuse scandals in his diocese during his time as bishop, I'd really like to see it (honestly! reply with a link).
Otherwise, why do you say he's directly linked to the scandal?

1-in many places, not just the Catholic church. Thankfully that's changing.
2-I've seen nothing demonstrating this point in the main-stream media (and I've been following it closely). Again, if you have a link or two I'd appreciate it. I'm not blind to facts, I just haven't seen any.
3-Well it hasn't worked on me, I'm listening to you ;)

I'm aware of how complicit the media says he is. When I read the actual quotes it paints a very different story. If you do have anything that demonstrates this, I'd like to see it, if you could provide a link or two.

That said, if the facts do show that he is complicit as you say, his being Pope doesn't change the fact that his actions would then be despicable. There have been bad Popes before, and though I hope it will never happen, there probably will be again. In the least, bad Popes in the past have been so busy disgracing their position that they've failed to have much to say on doctrine. These days, their predecessors have given up so much power, that hopefully the damage they do to people and the world would be much more limited.

Yes, I agree.

Also from the wikipedia link:

Crimen sollicitationis (Latin: the crime of soliciting) was a 1962 letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (or Holy Office) codifying procedures to be followed in cases of priests or bishops of the Catholic Church accused of having used the sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents.

The document is primary concerned with disciplinary matters regarding the priests violating their promise of celibacy. A quick look at the details will demonstrate that it was not written to address paedophilia, as that is a criminal offence and should always be handled by the civil authorities.

Well I have nothing to back up that statement, so I'm happy to retract it. It's only an observation from the outside that the most vocal atheists in the media seem to be anti-Catholic.

Most likely no one will listen to me, but I may as well try and reach a few people.

The Pope is speaking specifically about the effect that the internet will have on individuals, as this is his primary function as the Pope. I don't think this message should be taken as some condemnation of internet transparency. It seems to me that he's primary speaking about the dangers that arise (with respect to the soul) in any "wild west" situation like the internet.

Oh, and since TFA seems primarily concerned with the child abuse scandal (obviously this is a despicable thing that has happened), it might also be worth mentioning that the Pope is the bishop of Rome, and his primacy is in matters of faith. He is *not* the CEO of the Church like you might find in an ordinary industry. If we want to find resolutions to the abuse scandal, we have to bring the local bishops to account. If somehow the Pope is removed, it will not get rid of the problem. All it will do is make a few Atheists happy.

we still have a proposed Internet Filter, no R18+ rating for video games, and a South Australian government that passed a law saying that every person commenting about the election online must provide their real name and postcode. We have a long way to go yet.

If they work anything like those in Australia, then they wont be advertised as unlimited, but the actual cap will be in small print. Still, most ISPs here give you tools to monitor your usage, so hopefully the same will be implemented in the US. Why not shape rather than charge extra though?