The Catholic Message Board

I don't think that's a fair assessment of either of the sources I suggested.

I wasn't talking about any of the sources you suggested, of which I am unfamiliar; it's a general principle, better to be bluntly honest about the problems in the Church and the scandals of the past than to try to hide them and create unnecessary scandal.

Look at Mormonism as an example, new converts are generally given a rosy history of Mormonism that glosses over controversies, and then 6 months to. a year later, when they learn about stuff like Joseph Smith's past as a con man using a magic rock to find buried treasure, or the original 1830 text of the Book of Mormon, which is frankly quite racist, or the past history of banning men of African ancestry from the priesthood (which is Mormonism is something more like the sacrament of confirmation in it that being ordained to the priesthood is a sign of full initiation into the Church), they leave.

There is a place between the extremes.

In general, I would say, that truth can never be a threat to the faith, even unpleasant ones that we would rather not admit.

Of course. It is possible to admit to failures and shortcomings without explaining them away or using them as a weapon to attack the Church. That middle ground is what I would seek in a source, especially when first taking on a subject.