New york times continues its agenda

[Soutane]

NEW YORK TIMES CONTINUES ITS AGENDA

May 6, 2010

Catholic League president Bill Donohue looks at the latest article by the New York Times on the Catholic Church:

There is no media outlet more obsessed with old stories about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church than the New York Times. Today’s story is a gem. On the front-page, complete with a color photo, there is a story on William Cardinal Levada, former archbishop of Portland and San Francisco and current head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. One might expect a front-page story to contain something dramatic, but there is nothing there: it is just a rehash of old stories.

The headline says more about the Times than Levada. It reads, “Cardinal Has a Mixed Record on Abuse Cases.” Front-page stories, of course, typically deal with current events, exceptions being new revelations about important historical events. But neither is the case with Levada. To learn that a leader has a “mixed record” extending back a quarter century is not exactly news. Unless, of course, there is an agenda at work.

Here is what the reader learns. When Levada was an archbishop, he learned that some homosexual priests molested post-pubescent males. Of course, the Times refuses to use the term homosexual, but it is obvious from reading the story that the victims were not kids. Then Levada did what nearly all leaders did at the time—and many still do—he sent the abuser to therapy. As usual, it didn’t work.

For Catholics to be convinced that the Times is not motivated by an agenda to get the Church hierarchy, they need to see front-page stories on the role that two contributing actors have played in the scandal: homosexual priests and their enabling psychologists. One more thing: we’d like to see a series of stories on ministers, rabbis, imams, public school teachers, athletic coaches, guidance counselors, camp officials…

catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1849

 

[Non_Serviam]

Again Donohue gives a misleading, biased and incomplete summary of a news story. It shows that the current head of the CDF (which investigates claims of sexual abuse) may not be the best choice for the post based on his past actions related to sexual abuse investigations.

These questions were raised in 2006 (not 25 years ago) when he first assumed his role as head of the CDF and involve the Cardinal’s conduct in multiple dioceses over the course of his career.

For those with a commitment to hearing the whole story before drawing judgment, it can be found here.

An excerpt:

"In January 2006, Cardinal William J. Levada, the highest ranking American official in the Vatican, slipped into a San Francisco office building, sidestepping a gaggle of media lying in wait. On leave from Rome, he was submitting to a day of questioning before a flotilla of plaintiffs’ lawyers.

For eight strenuous hours, the cardinal was pressed to explain why he had decided to return priests who were confirmed sexual abusers back to ministry. He acknowledged that he had failed to notify the authorities of allegations of abuse. He struggled to recall why he had chosen not to share information with parishioners."

nytimes.com/2010/05/06/world/europe/06levada.html?src=me

 

[brettfeeley]

I work for the Department of Corrections and one of my assigned responsiblities is to track sex offenders. I can tell you the Department of Corrections that I work for strongly believes that sex offenders can be rehabilitated through numerous methods of therapy to help them with their problem. To clarify these individuals have been found guilty or plead guilty to any number of sexually related offenses. The sex offender’s that I am responsible for come from all types of backgrounds; uncles, brothers, step fathers, neighbors, babysitters etc. I think that if the New York times has decided to take up the “fight” against sex offenses, then why are they only focused on the Catholic Priests? I think a better story for the New York times might be on all of the charitable organizations run by the Catholic Church and the work they perform. But back to the question that therapy is the correct course of action for sex offenders for maximum rehabilitation, then weren’t the Bishops ahead of their time by sending these poor souls to therapy?

 

[OriginalJS]

I think that if the New York times has decided to take up the “fight” against sex offenses, then why are they only focused on the Catholic Priests? I think a better story for the New York times might be on all of the charitable organizations run by the Catholic Church and the work they perform.

The focus is not only on Catholic Priests; the focus is also on bishops who enabled offenders. Yes, the good done might be a better story, but it is reports of the bad that sells media, as they say, “if it bleeds, it leads.”

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

NEW YORK TIMES CONTINUES ITS AGENDA

May 6, 2010

Catholic League president Bill Donohue looks at the latest article by the New York Times on the Catholic Church:

There is no media outlet more obsessed with old stories about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church than the New York Times. Today’s story is a gem. On the front-page, complete with a color photo, there is a story on William Cardinal Levada, former archbishop of Portland and San Francisco and current head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. One might expect a front-page story to contain something dramatic, but there is nothing there: it is just a rehash of old stories.

The headline says more about the Times than Levada. It reads, “Cardinal Has a Mixed Record on Abuse Cases.” Front-page stories, of course, typically deal with current events, exceptions being new revelations about important historical events. But neither is the case with Levada. To learn that a leader has a “mixed record” extending back a quarter century is not exactly news. Unless, of course, there is an agenda at work.

Here is what the reader learns. When Levada was an archbishop, he learned that some homosexual priests molested post-pubescent males. Of course, the Times refuses to use the term homosexual, but it is obvious from reading the story that the victims were not kids. Then Levada did what nearly all leaders did at the time—and many still do—he sent the abuser to therapy. As usual, it didn’t work.

For Catholics to be convinced that the Times is not motivated by an agenda to get the Church hierarchy, they need to see front-page stories on the role that two contributing actors have played in the scandal: homosexual priests and their enabling psychologists. One more thing: we’d like to see a series of stories on ministers, rabbis, imams, public school teachers, athletic coaches, guidance counselors, camp officials…

catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1849

To pretend the NYT has no agenda and to rush to its defense, as many do, is to align oneself with the enemy.

Why not defend Holy Mother Church with the same fervor?

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

To pretend the NYT has no agenda and to rush to its defense, as many do, is to align oneself with the enemy.

Why not defend Holy Mother Church with the same fervor?

To attempt to find the Times guilty of having an agenda is the rankest ad hominem argument. We should deal with the issues: Church hierarchy deserves criticism for its actions in the abuse scandal. The laity will be paying for its mistakes for decades.

Criticizing the actions of a few is defending the Church.

 

[Non_Serviam]

To attempt to find the Times guilty of having an agenda is the rankest ad hominem argument. We should deal with the issues: Church hierarchy deserves criticism for its actions in the abuse scandal. The laity will be paying for its mistakes for decades.

Criticizing the actions of a few is defending the Church.

Overall, I find that the article gives positive and negative points about the Cardinal’s responses to abuse, mentioning both his early support for the 2002 reforms and some of his more questionable actions.

To me it seems that if more abuse were to become public and at that point his past were to become known that it would prove incendiary. With this article Catholics have in effect been asked "Is this the man you want responsible for the church’s efforts against sexual abuse? They can then answer yes or no based on their level of comfort and make their voices heard.

That seems to me a much more transparent and responsible process overall.

 

[jay29]

To attempt to find the Times guilty of having an agenda is the rankest ad hominem argument. We should deal with the issues: Church hierarchy deserves criticism for its actions in the abuse scandal. The laity will be paying for its mistakes for decades.

Criticizing the actions of a few is defending the Church.

When the NYTs ignores worse offenders, like the public school system, it does have an agenda.

1% of 6.2 MILLION teachers are molesters. 62,000
4% of priests are child molesters. 1,750

You tell me they don’t have an agenda!

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

When the NYTs ignores worse offenders, like the public school system, it does have an agenda.

1% of 6.2 MILLION teachers are molesters. 62,000
4% of priests are child molesters. 1,750

You tell me they don’t have an agenda!

Let’s deal with the fact of abuse by priests. Worrying about other teachers or if the scandal gets undue publicity moves us no farther forward.

 

[Corki]

With this article Catholics have in effect been asked "Is this the man you want responsible for the church’s efforts against sexual abuse? They can then answer yes or no based on their level of comfort and make their voices heard.

To what end? For better or worse, the Pope chose him as the best person for the job. We don’t (and shouldn’t) get a vote on who the Pope choses for positions in the curia. Getting the layity riled up against him serves no purpose but division. To whom would you want them to “make their voices heard”? To the Pope? “Dear Pope Benedict, I think you did a bad job picking this guy. Please pick someone else cause I don’t like him.” NOT

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

When the NYTs ignores worse offenders, like the public school system, it does have an agenda.

1% of 6.2 MILLION teachers are molesters. 62,000
4% of priests are child molesters. 1,750

You tell me they don’t have an agenda!

Of course they have an agenda, but their allies are shrill in rushing to their defense, while pretending to deal in facts and figures.

 

[Non_Serviam]

To what end? For better or worse, the Pope chose him as the best person for the job. We don’t (and shouldn’t) get a vote on who the Pope choses for positions in the curia. Getting the layity riled up against him serves no purpose but division. To whom would you want them to “make their voices heard”? To the Pope? “Dear Pope Benedict, I think you did a bad job picking this guy. Please pick someone else cause I don’t like him.” NOT

And why not? Don’t children go to their father when they believe an injustice has been committed? Don’t they expect him to make it better? Catholic dogma nowhere claims that curia picks are protected by infallibility. If a certain choice has the potential to cause scandal for the church, then it is the duty of the faithful to make this known, not sit back in “obedience” and if there is a problem later on, say “oh well, there was nothing I could do.”

Remember that the Apostles got the church in Jerusalem to pick their deacons-the ones who would serve them. There is precedent for (name removed by moderator)ut. It is the faithful who have children that need protecting, not the hierarchy. As parents, they deserve to be reassured that the process which claims to protect their children is a solid as it can be, including the person who manages it.

 

[MJE]

A Roman Catholic clergyman, in persona christi, who violates another person, specifically the young, has committed a great evil & more evil then the layman who is not in persona christi. But the evil acts against the young by laymen, teachers etc, must be exposed simultaneously. The church has turned herself inside out in order to purge herself of homosexual predators et al. The reporting of the NYT’s for example, hoodwinks the general public. So while there is no excusing the guilty Catholic clergy it must be put in context! This context includes: homosexual predators (typically) and crosses all professions. This perversion is not a result of being a Catholic clergyman. We owe this much to those faithful clergyman who have served Christ and his church.

 

[josie_L]

When the NYTs ignores worse offenders, like the public school system, it does have an agenda.

1% of 6.2 MILLION teachers are molesters. 62,000
4% of priests are child molesters. 1,750

You tell me they don’t have an agenda!

The 4% which was cited is I believe incorrect, in that, this is the percentage of priests who were accused of abuse, i.e., the percentage of priests who were guilty of child molestation is 1.8 %.

 

[Soutane]

I just love Catholics who can NEVER say ANYTHING good about Donohue and the Catholic League who are one of the few and most effective voices in defending the Church.I don’t see the these whingers,complainers and uber critics doing ANYTHING but hiding behind their keyboards and whining about this brave man.Round up the Usual Suspects.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I just love Catholics who can NEVER say ANYTHING good about Donohue and the Catholic League who are one of the few and most effective voices in defending the Church.

1. A broken clock is correct twice a day so sooner or later Donahue would have to say something all Catholics can believe in.
2. Self-appointed defenders of Catholicism are not required to be followed by anyone and I object to their donning the mantle of piety in the face of the barbarians. They tend to be more political operatives than anything else, and try to wrap political viewpoints as Catholic orthodoxy.
3. Let the Church defend the Church. Then we can at least have one voice. Places like the Catholic League and the Thomas More Law Center and not the fonts of Catholic dogma.

 

[Soutane]

I just knew you couldn’t let that go especially the part of the "Usual Suspects"What is it?A personal liberal animus to this conservative Catholic?Donahue,not me.You are becoming rather a broken record on the subject and your posts about him are becoming predictably kneejerk and a little boring.

"They tend to be more political operatives than anything else, and try to wrap political viewpoints as Catholic orthodoxy."And you’re not?Oh my,that IS amusing

 

[Soutane]

1. A broken clock is correct twice a day so sooner or later Donahue would have to say something all Catholics can believe in.
2. Self-appointed defenders of Catholicism are not required to be followed by anyone and I object to their donning the mantle of piety in the face of the barbarians. They tend to be more political operatives than anything else, and try to wrap political viewpoints as Catholic orthodoxy.
3. Let the Church defend the Church. Then we can at least have one voice. Places like the Catholic League and the Thomas More Law Center and not the fonts of Catholic dogma.

No one said they were but they’re doing more than whinging and complaining, and hiding behind their keyboards,they’re actually doing something.I don’t believe that God granted them the charism of impeccability but no one has that particular charism,not even the Pope, do they? The Church is doing a bang-up job in defending itself.