Slander from the NY Times

  • Thread starter Thread starter KJW5551
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
That’s possible I guess, but as a straight person it’s never helped me very much to know that my priest is heterosexual.
Click to expand...
Gay people face many challenges in life that straight people don’t. I think the ability to be honest about one’s sexuality equates to the ability to be honest in other areas of life. I can understand why the priest wanted to come out of the closet to his parishioners. He wants to give them his best authentic self, and that does include his sexual orientation. It is an integral part of who he is.
 
Last edited:
YourNameHere said:
The Washington Post and the New York Times are two of the top newspapers in the history of this country.
Click to expand...
Since when does being the “top” anything mean we as Catholics have to care?
Also, being the “top” paper or news organization does not mean the coverage is always right, always unbiased, always should be listened to. I have seen firsthand how journalists approach stories. I know all the tricks. Writing or presenting news is like making cheese. The process is icky.

If you want to believe everything the news puts out, fine, but why a thinking Catholic would just accept stuff that runs in a newspaper because it’s one of the two “top papers in the country” is beyond me. God blessed us with brains and I think we should use them to question many things - the media first and foremost.
 
YourNameHere said:
The Washington Post and the New York Times are two of the top newspapers in the history of this country.
Click to expand...
My parents always had a subscription to the Post. Its bias is obvious. Look at the coverage they give every year to the March for Life—it’s like the March never happens. Except this year, when a few Catholic school boys were accused of racism. That was a good litmus test for media credibility.

Dad also forwards me all his emails from The Catholic League. It’s good to read multiple sources, especially these days.
 
JimG said:
Reporting one incident about a priest coming out to his parishioners, the article says. “At Sunday Mass, during Advent, he told his suburban parish he was gay, and celibate. 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? Why the obsesion with sex, especially if no one is having sex?
Click to expand...
Because in our “culture”, sexual license and freedom of expression are way more important than one’s vocation. These are absolute personal prerogatives, to the point where if I feel like it, I can deny and reshape the objective reality I see in the mirror.

That’s why they applaud: the priest is expressing the absolutes they hold dear.
 
Then you have no interest in reading the truth about what is going on in this country or the rest of the world.
There is only one truth.
How we see the world is based on our own biases and preferences.
If we disagree with the news reported, it is our opinion.
The only opinion voiced by publications like the Washington Post and the New York Times is located on their Op/Ed pages. I.E., editorials.
 
JMMJ said:
Gay people face many challenges in life that straight people don’t. I think the ability to be honest about one’s sexuality equates to the ability to be honest in other areas of life.
Click to expand...
Again, fine, if you’re actually planning to have a sex life, as most of us are.
If you’re a priest or a nun or anyone else who has vowed celibacy, your sexuality ceases to be relevant in my mind. You’re basically asexual for human purposes.
That’s why I don’t get why a priest would make a parish-wide announcement about his sex life.
The best rationale I’ve come up with is, he’s trying to get them to challenge their perhaps biased opinions about gays, or gay priests, by saying, “Hey, I’m one.”
But from a standpoint of sharing part of his identity, his sexuality to me vanished, or was supposed to, when he was ordained.
 
YourNameHere said:
Then you have no interest in reading the truth about what is going on in this country or the rest of the world.
There is only one truth.
How we see the world is based on our own biases and preferences.
If we disagree with the news reported, it is our opinion.
The only opinion voiced by publications like the Washington Post and the New York Times is located on their Op/Ed pages. I.E., editorials.
Click to expand...
There is only one truth and the media is free to report it and distort it as they please.
 
Zach said:
They completely lost me when they hired as an editor that nasty racist Sarah Jeong.
Click to expand...
That’s fair, as long as the Trump administration also lost you when they hired Stephen Miller.
 
When it comes to the media, in general, it was said best in a quote by a news reporter in the movie classic, Inherit The Wind, when the reporter said, “It is the duty of a newspaper to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
Newspapers spark debate about the issues of the day through their editorial pages.
 
My favorite media quote is from ‘The Man who shot Liberty Vallance’

‘When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.’
 
adgloriam said:
don’t believe it’s 2 dozens. I don’t believe it’s “on record”. I don’t believe they are actively priests
Click to expand...
”Two dozen gay priests and seminarians from 13 states shared intimate details of their lives in the Catholic closet with The New York Times over the past two months.”
Click to expand...
You’re right, the 2 dozen refers to seminarians also.
adgloriam said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Times isn’t bad. It mostly depends on the subject of the article. I don’t see anything anti-Catholic in this article, and I don’t ever remember seeing anything anti-Catholic from them.

If I’m ever feeling weak and backed into a corner, I could look to the Catholic League to act like a paranoid rabid chihuahua on my behalf. But I usually don’t feel so victimized and oppressed to ever turn to Bill Donahue and The Catholic League.
 
Last edited:
My favorite media quote is this entire song, and it applies to all news outlets, every one. Including NYT, WaPo, BBC and every major network.


My second favorite media quote is “If it bleeds, it leads.”
 
Last edited:
The NY Times shamelessly and baselessly claimed that up to 3/4 of our holy clergy are homosexuals. No citation, no reference to the supposed “researchers” that helped them arrive at that figure, nothing. Just conjecture and calumny. Simple as that. If that doesn’t bother you people I feel sorry for you.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
I’m guessing that the applause wasn’t an affirmation of his sexuality, but an appreciation for his courage to tell a truth, whether the parishioners needed to know that truth or not. In the context of what is happening today in the Church, it should be obvious why it would take courage for a parish priest to announce his SSA.
Click to expand...
But why even bring it up at all??? Why not just keep it where it belongs, between himself and God?
And to make matters worse, to bring it up at Mass, where the sole focus should be on Christ. Worse still, by bringing the focus onto himself, he draws a huge applause!!! I’m reminded of what then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had to say about this;
"Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attraction fades quickly - it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation.”

~Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger~
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mark121359 said:
But why even bring it up at all?
Click to expand...
The readings may have given material for a homily on sexual morality.
He may have heard some unkind comments about homosexual people and decided to address them. They may even have been made to him.
He may have thought that knowing he was gay may provide an example for gay parishioners.
 
One thing to keep in mind:
Newspapers and other media outlets exist to make money. Journalists might have altruistic motives, but when the money dries up they are done.

And this is what has happened to the NY Times and other mainstream media outlets: they are getting their heads handed to them in the information business.
And when they can’t compete on their own terms, they have to get down into the mud with Facebook and Twitter. The Covington Catholic “news” is a perfect example.
The video went viral, and they all jumped on it without verification, cause if they don’t run the video quickly with a slant their viewership will salivate over, they are last with the news.
And last place news is broke news.

And that’s where they are.
 
Last edited:
Consider three possible situations: One priest announces “I’m heterosexual and celibate and intend to remain so.” A second priest announces “I’m homosexual and celibate and intend to remain so.” A third priest announces, “I’ve always been attracted to children, but I’m celibate and have never touched a child nor will I ever do so.” All three have announced a particular sexual orientation and affirmed that they will never act on their orientation. But will all three get applause?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top