This is from Media Report:
The Usual Suspects: NY Times, Dissident Priest Support Anti-Catholic SNAP With Falsehoods, Attacks on Church
Anti-Catholicism in Action: The New York Times, Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, and SNAP
The New York Times is again shilling for the Catholic-hating SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) with more false attacks against the Catholic Church.
Yesterday (Tue., 3/13/12), the Times plastered a sympatheic, front-page portrait of the anti-Catholic advocacy group in an apparent attempt to intimidate the Church from defending itself through the legal process. We have already exposed the dishonest nature of the article (which was written by religion editor Laurie Goodstein). [There's a surprise.]
Then today (Wed., 3/14/12), the Times continued its attack with a misleading and error-laced editorial.
First, the editorial claims that the Catholic Church is “threatening to expose private files” of victims in Missouri. This is patently and demonstrably untrue. If there is one issue that SNAP and the Church agree on, it is that victims’ files must be kept private.
One does not need to look further than the beginning of the January deposition from SNAP’s national director David Clohessy to verify this. A lawyer for an accused priest made it very clear to Clohessy:
“Let me state at the beginning of this deposition that I do not want the names of any victims that have contacted you other than those that have contacted you and filed suit against [the accused priest in this particular case] or the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph. Do you understand what I’m saying? I don’t want the names – I don’t want you to reveal to me the names of any victims other than those that have put their names forward in lawsuits. Do you understand that?”
So Clohessy is simply lying that his January deposition was about “discouraging victims, witnesses, whistle-blowers, police, prosecutors and journalists from seeking our help,” as he is quoted in today’s article. And of course the New York Times is going right along with this deception.
However, as corrupt as the Times’ editorial is, it doesn’t beat the nasty and dishonest commentary today from the dissident Rev. Thomas P. Doyle in the equally dissident National Catholic Reporter. [aka Fishwrap]
Doyle’s piece is rife with falsehoods (The Church wants to “discredit and intimidate victims”; “Nothing has changed since 1985″) and red herrings (“The purpose of the ‘church’ is not the care and feeding of the hierarchy.” Who on earth ever said that?).
In addition to being a longtime friend of SNAP, it should be known that Doyle has a very lengthy record of dissent and animosity against the Catholic Church. In the past Doyle:
- has falsely claimed the Catholic Church was established by Constantine;
- has dismissed Catholic thought as “childish, unrealistic beliefs” and ”magical thinking”;
- has misled Catholics on numerous important issues, including the history of the Church, the role of the laity, the training of seminarians, and the Church’s requirement of celibacy;
- has been removed as a military chaplain because he contradicted his archbishop regarding the Mass;
- has once sought an endorsement from the ”Holy Orthodox Catholic Church,” unrelated to Rome, as a way to keep his military job;
- has demeaned priestly vestments as “dresses”;
- has actively participated in an error-laden, anti-Catholic film;
- has falsely tagged the Church as a “monarchy”;
- has falsely claimed that a 1962 Vatican document was “an explicit written policy to cover up child sexual abuse by the clergy” (read the truth here); and
- has apparently denied the historicity and doctrine of the Real Presence of the Eucharist by referring to it as a “symbol”.
The New York Times, SNAP, and Rev. Thomas P. Doyle: This week’s three-pronged attack on the Catholic Church.
[By the way, in case you missed it ... Last week, (Fri., 3/9/12), the Times accepted and published angry, full-page, anti-Catholic ad from an atheist group. Yet this week the Times rejected a very similar ad that substituted 'Islam' for 'Catholicism.' Double standard? You bet.]