Slander from the NY Times

  • Thread starter Thread starter KJW5551
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Including information that can potentially be untrue does have a suspicious feel to it.
 
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...
If I am looking for truth I won’t go to the
New York Times or the Washington Post just like I won’t go to CNN or MSNBC.
 
Well let’s see Julian. Less than 4% of the general population is gay for one thing, so the 75% idea is statistically absurd (as is even 30-40%). For another thing, many of the priests I have known personally have either been married (later annulled or became widowers) or speak openly about past relationships with women. Lastly, and this may sound somewhat controversial and I apologize in advance, but you can often tell that gay men are gay from their speech patterns and mannerisms (not always, of course). And in my experience I just simply have not seen that with the priests I’ve interacted with.

So I maintain: slander. Or, to satisfy the lawyers here, “libel”. Forgive my ignorance for using the colloquial phrasing in my OP.
 
I believe in Jesus Christ and I believe in publications like the Times and the Post.
 
I can tell by your disdain for the Times and the Post that you are looking for partisan media, i.e., National Enquirer and Fox News.
Historically speaking, the Times and the Post have been guardians of truth and standard barriers for news reporting.
 
YourNameHere said:
I can tell by your disdain for the Times and the Post that you are looking for partisan media, i.e., National Enquirer and Fox News.
Historically speaking, the Times and the Post have been guardians of truth and standard barriers for news reporting.
Click to expand...
Oh dear, I am sorry to disappoint you, but I
don’t read the National Enquirer either
and not a regular viewer of FOX news.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
There is no reason to put these newspapers on a pedestal.
Click to expand...
Personally, I’m more disturbed by the fact that many seem to judge everything a paper puts out by the merits of how conservative or liberal it is. Granted, the New York Times has its problems, such as the possibility that it is very much driven by the narratives the editors want to tell, and I personally tend to prefer other publications, but it’s hardly like the NY Times is completely untrustworthy.

There actually is a browser extension that let you know how trustworthy a news site is based on very clear standards that are about as neutral as you can get. If you’re ever on a site, you can click the extensions button to see how it rated. The rating will also appear in Google searches, albeit with a delay.

And sorry if that sounds like an advertisement. It is, however, much better than the constant “NEW YORK TIMES SUCKS” or “LOL FAUX NEWS” from conservatives and liberals respectively simply because the respective sites don’t conform to their bias. Also note that if you use Edge, you may already have this built into the browser. I actually learned about it when news broke that Microsoft wanted it built in.
 
I read somewhere that one practical reason for celibacy is the financial cost of supporting married priests’ families. I don’t know how it is done in other Christian groups that allow ministers to marry, but one article about married Catholic priests (some former Episcopal priests) reveal difficulties in finances, being reassigned, etc.
 
KJW5551 said:
Well let’s see Julian. Less than 4% of the general population is gay for one thing, so the 75% idea is statistically absurd (as is even 30-40%).
Click to expand...
"You are making correlations that aren’t statistically viable. The priesthood doesn’t represent the general population – at the most obvious level, the general population is 51% female, but we don’t apply that to the presbyterate."

For another thing, many of the priests I have known personally have either been married (later annulled or became widowers) or speak openly about past relationships with women. Lastly, and this may sound somewhat controversial and I apologize in advance, but you can often tell that gay men are gay from their speech patterns and mannerisms (not always, of course). And in my experience I just simply have not seen that with the priests I’ve interacted with.
[/quote]

"That’s anecdotal, not the basis for extrapolating out to an entire class."

So I maintain: slander. Or, to satisfy the lawyers here, “libel”. Forgive my ignorance for using the colloquial phrasing in my OP
[/quote]

“Using the correct word for something doesn’t require a law degree. And you are accusing the paper (well, not actually the paper – the priest they quoted in the article) of something that you seem very sure is erroneous. It well may be, but you are relying on opinion to level your accusation.”
 
Last edited:
I have heard that too. That the Church did not wish to support the Wives and/or mistresses and the children legitimate or otherwise cloaking the appeal of celibacy in a religious/mystical vein. I will have to research it further. I would submit that in certain ages celibacy, at least in the upper hierarchy of the Church, was more honored in the breach than the observance. The Borgia Popes being particular exemplars.
 
With married priest, there will be divorced priests, and when that happens, a new scandal arises.

I had a friend who was a Jesuit Priest, who left, to marry a nun. Both were married over 30 years before they both passed away.

Anyway, I asked him about the Church accepting married men into the priesthood ?

He said, absolutely not !

I found his answer surprising. However, after he left the priesthood where he was also a trained psychologists, he became a professional fund raiser. He told me that in his profession, he was often hired by protestant denominations with married clergy. He said he often ended up counseling the wife and husband as their marriages were in danger. The wive’s often ended up hating their husband’s ministry. He spoke how they were under constant scrutiny by the congregation. If she dressed too well, or they had a better car than the congregation expected, their husband’s salary was questioned. They complained that they never owned their own house or the furnishings in it, but it belonged to the church where their husband worked.

In short, my friend told me that as the priesthood is today, there is no room for a married man to be a priest.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Julian, less than 4% of men are gay. That’s just a fact. See Gallup if you don’t believe me.

Anecdotal? Absolutely. Small sample size? Not really. Priests come and go every few years where I am and like most practicing Catholics here I have interacted with dozens of priests, and I’m still in my 20s.

Still I maintain: slander. Calumny. Sickeningly irresponsible journalism.
 
YourNameHere said:
Historically speaking, the Times and the Post have been guardians of truth and standard barriers for news reporting.
Click to expand...
Whoa!!! That’s like saying that the National Catholic Reporter has historically speaking been a guardian of Catholic truth and a standard barrier of Catholic news reporting! To which most Catholics on this forum will respond…SAY WHAT???
 
KJW5551 said:
Still I maintain: slander. Calumny. Sickeningly irresponsible journalism.
Click to expand...
It’s the modus operandi of a mob-press hostile to Christ.
It’s the same mob that brought trumped up charges against Christ because his words and actions were inconvenient to the status quo.
It’s the same lockstep mob that took over the public narrative in totalitarian states in the last century.

They have no interest in truth. They exist to make money, and they make money by producing content that appeals to bias and gains them eyeballs who will buy their Viagra and their Starbucks. The truth is secondary to the ends.

This is how a young man’s nervous smile becomes a dangerous “smirk” aimed at a poor innocent Native American. A tolerant and peaceful young white pro-life man can’t exist for them.
 
KJW5551 said:
ulian, less than 4% of men are gay. That’s just a fact. See Gallup if you don’t believe me.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say otherwise. But you are extrapolating general population statistics onto a defined class.
And you continue to act as if the reporter made a claim – actually, it was a priest quoted in the article. And finally, claiming that someone is gay is in no way accusing them of anything wrong – having the inclination does not automatically indicate they are engaging in immoral behavior any more than saying someone is heterosexual means he is engaging in sexual activities with women.
 
Last edited:
adgloriam said:
40.png
angel12:
There’s a difference between making a claim yourself (…) and reporting what someone else says
Click to expand...
YES!!! Hearsay is a form of gossip and “blanket slander” AKA IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL reporting.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the NYT reporter went on over to Church Militant…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top