Slander from the NY Times

  • Thread starter Thread starter KJW5551
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The New York times managed to write about two of their favorite subjects - homosexuality and the Catholic Church crisis and scandal - in the same article. If only they would have incorporated feminism, racial grievances and identity politics into the article they would have covered most of the bases.
 
Last edited:
Having been affected by 2 gay priest scandals in my diocese in the last 5 years and a pedophilia case. I’ve come to the conclusion that gay priests should be removed from parish life. Just too many people being affected by this.
 
Fortunately a significant number of people do trust great newspapers like the New York Times. Sorry, you do not.
Newspapers, like a true friend, tell us what we need to hear, not necessarily what we want to hear.
 
The New York Times tells you what they
want you to know because they are promoting the liberal progressive agenda
which prevents them from presenting the
true facts in many articles.
 
Last edited:
YourNameHere said:
Fortunately a significant number of people do trust great newspapers like the New York Times. Sorry, you do not.
Click to expand...
The New York Times has made its share of mistakes and had to print its share of corrections. It also clearly prints stories from a leftist/ liberal biased viewpoint. I say this as a lifelong registered Dem who prefers the WaPo my whole life because the WaPo is more balanced particularly on Washington news. The Post also skews left but not as bad as NYT. I have disliked and often distrusted the NYT for 35 years and couldn’t care less if the entire rest of the country is in love with it (which they clearly aren’t ).

Many times throughout my life I have read stuff in NYT and just laughed because it clearly reflects the mindset of its reader base (as does WaPo and it is more balanced precisely because a significant percentage of its readers are conservative).

There is no reason to put these newspapers on a pedestal. If somebody doesn’t trust them, that’s understandable. I’ve read plenty of suspect stuff in all newspapers. They are first and foremost in the business of selling papers, as all news outlets are in the business of selling a story.

If you truly think newspapers are “a true friend” then I guess they successfully sold themselves to you. I take every single thing I read, watch or hear with a huge grain of salt, especially having known many journalists and written for smaller papers myself. I often think we’d be better off if most newspapers went out of business because of the current poor quality writing and editing of much of what is printed, but I don’t want my newspaper friends to be unemployed.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
Getting 2 dozen (anonymous) gay priests on record is no small task.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe it’s 2 dozens. I don’t believe it’s “on record”. I don’t believe they are actively priests (might be ex-priests, might be seminarians, might be guys with SSA that have a solid vocation - and anything they likely didn’t say would have gotten twisted&distorted anyway…). And I don’t believe a single thing in that article, and btw: the Catholic League has denounced NYTimes anti-catholic bigotry editorial line countless times.
 
JimG said:
  • They leapt to their feet in applause.”
  • It left me a little puzzled.
  • Would the reaction have been the same had he reported that he was heterosexual and celibate?
Click to expand...
POST OF THE YEAR!!!
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I don’t get why we need to know the sexuality of someone who is required to be celibate. Unless maybe the priest is tired of hearing negative remarks about gay people from his parishioners. As I don’t make such remarks, I’m not really interested in whether the priest swings gay, straight, or both directions.
Click to expand...
I think it may help a gay parishioner to know that their Priest is also gay.
 
adgloriam said:
I don’t believe it’s 2 dozens. I don’t believe it’s “on record”. I don’t believe they are actively priests (might be ex-priests, might be seminarians, might be guys with SSA that have a solid vocation - and anything they likely didn’t say would have gotten twisted&distorted anyway…).
Click to expand...
In other words, “I don’t like the story, so I’m just going to claim it’s false without any evidence to back me up.”
 
That is totally garbage. I have read the New York Times for years. There mantra has always been All The News That Is Fit To Print.
If you want slanted news, pick up some rag like the National Inquirer.
 
The Catholic League has its own agenda. That is to bash everything that is not strictly Catholic.
 
The Washington Post and the New York Times are two of the top newspapers in the history of this country.
 
I have no use for that rag either. Predictable one sided agenda. They have all these radical professors writing opinion pieces without any articles with opposing viewpoints. They completely lost me when they hired as an editor that nasty racist Sarah Jeong.
 
Elf01 said:
I think it may help a gay parishioner to know that their Priest is also gay.
Click to expand...
That’s possible I guess, but as a straight person it’s never helped me very much to know that my priest is heterosexual.

Sexuality is not a piece of information I need to know about anyone unless I’m planning to date them or marry them. I understand why gay people come out of the closet if they are planning to date and have relationships and marry, but a priest isn’t going to be doing that, and when one makes a big deal about his sexuality either way, I would wonder if he were struggling with his celibacy and thinking of quitting to go have a sex life.
 
KJW5551 said:
The fact of the matter is that the only reliable data says that 15% of clergy are gay. Not 30%. Not 40%. Not 75% . Shoddy journalism.
Click to expand...
How reliable is that? If you are relying on people to self-report, especially in a religious setting, you can expect significant under-reporting. Especially when the stakes are so high.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top