There is a press release from the Diocese of Brooklyn about the New York Times’s (aka Hell’s Bible) concerted attacks on Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church.
My emphases and comments.
Bishop DiMarzio Calls Upon the Priests and Parishioners
to Besiege The New York Times
In his homily to the priests and people of the Diocese of Brooklyn, Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, called upon the priests and people of the Diocese of Brooklyn to stand up with him and “besiege The New York Times. Send a message loud and clear that the Pope, our Church, and bishops and our priests will no longer be the personal punching bag of The New York Times.”
Bishop DiMarzio’s spirited defense of the Holy Father was based on the decision of The New York Times editors to, “Omit significant facts,” and ignore the reality that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Cardinal Ratzinger headed up, did not have competency over Canonical Trials in 1996. Moreover, Bishop DiMarzio continued “…the priest in question, Father Murphy was in the midst of a Canonical Trial. He died before a verdict was rendered.”
Reflecting on the timing of the stories, DiMarzio stated “Two weeks of articles about a story from many decades ago, in the midst of the Most Holy Season of the Church year is both callous and smacks of calumny!” He continued “This evening, I am asking you to join me making your displeasure known to the editors by letters or emails.” [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]
Are you going to saddle up?
Arm, arm ye brave! Time to ride to the sound of the guns!
I never read the New York Times anyway, nor most of the newspapers. Too much garbage in there for me to swallow.
Here’s an email: email@example.com
Saddled up; will write how I read their online content daily, but when their debt-ridden institution starts–next year–charging for online stuff, I will flush them pronto.
I am a writer and a teacher. I read your paper daily online. I am appalled by the attacks you have been making on the reputation of Pope Benedict XVI. Your reporting has been incomplete, biased, and shameful.
I will never pay for online reading of your paper unless this stops, fair coverage is practiced, and the bias against the Catholic Church stops.
Moreover, Maureen Dowd is a parody of a thinker. Perhaps she is a paraody of a high school girl given a forum in which to vent her meanness and ignorance.
This is what I just sent off…
A note sent to the editor:
I very much regret the necessity of this note. Effective immediately, I will not be purchasing the New York Times any longer and will remove the institutional subscription for my place of business. The recent lampoons of Benedict XVI are strangely reminiscent of the writing of former New York Times reporter, Jayson Blair in their lack of facts. The obvious omission of fact or what might easily be read as outright deception is startling for a newspaper of such regard. There exists precious little these days in the way of civil discourse. What is even more troubling is that a person has no where to go to recover their good reputation. Many of the critical facts presented in the New York Times related to the Murphy case (L. Goodstein, 24 March 2010) have been shown categorically untrue. Key sources have gone on record contradicting the article, yet there is no mention in the pages of the Times.
The clergy sexual abuse scandal is abhorrent. What these and other articles seem to concede, whether intended or not, is that Catholicism, and namely the priesthood, matter greatly in the world. Why bother, otherwise? After all, sexual abuse of minors is of epidemic proportions in (public) education and no one seems to bat an eye.
I must admit that I admire the bishops for not simply rolling over this time around. They should stand, and, ironically, go to the cross for what is true. What is certain of Catholicism throughout the centuries is that it thrives on persecution.
Again, I regret this decision, but facts matter. Opinion can be found anywhere and at a much cheaper rate. (No offense-Father Z.)
It’s also payback from the Times because the bishops told “Catholic” legislators not to vote for healthcare destruction legislation. Make no mistake, this is a concerted conspiracy by the media to blacken the Church’s eye so Catholics will disregard Church teaching on important moral issues. The Times is evil and no longer a credible news source (well it hasn’t been for decades). It is an auxiliary of the Democratic Party.
By the way, why dooesn’t the Times write about the problems with Islam? I thought they were so brave, intrepid, and tough. Oh, I forgot, they value their heads.
The second newspaper boycott in as many days.
Please make me a list of “good” media.
Sent my email. Now, the problem is that the damage is spreading like lava from a volcano. I heard three news reports on talk radio stations this morning that were bringing up this issue as if it were fact. Then I heard Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) on a radio show stating how this was a terrible matter and the Church needs to do something. His solution? Ending priestly celibacy, of course. I hope that the bishops not only attack the New York Times, but start doing something about politicians in their dioceses who are Catholic in name, but how work strenuously against the teaching of the Church.
Thank you for the link.
Also sent the story to Drudge (didn’t see that he was covering it), my husband sent it to Bill O’Reilly. We’ve got to get the true story into the media, other than Catholic.
Join with me in your e mail to the NYT. Request they change their ink. Stop using the ink that comes from the nether end of the bull.
I said, among other things, that they don’t go after the Moslems, as TJerome states. They’d have their heads handed to them.
I’m getting too angry-I’d better settle down and watch the Mass on EWTN.
Bravo to Bishop DiMarzio for suggesting this-yep, I ‘saddled up’!
I intend to only read for ads, to protest at their sponsors’ doors, too.
Over a decade ago, allegations surfaced regarding Chinese espionage of US nuclear data. In the political firestorm that followed the New York Times, among other newspapers, was complicit in a well-orchestrated media campaign to vilify the person of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, thereby tarring the president at that time. Bill Clinton, with the same brush.. Day after day readers of your newspaper were treated to an incessant stream of lurid stories dutifully transmitted from political sources speaking with the voice of scientific truth. As a result your paper published page after page of assertions that simply on the basis of elementary nuclear physics and engineering were clearly false, indeed impossible. A humble scientist was, with the aid of your paper, held incommunicado in solitary confinement for over a year before being absolved of all but the most minor of charges, and released with the apologies of the judge for the shoddiness of the case against him and lack of professionalism of the prosecutors who willfully and consistently presented falsified evidence for purposes of influencing his procedural decisions.
Now again is with great disappointment that I again see the New York Times engaging in journalism of such a crass, shoddy, and disingenuous manner. Your paper has, in a manner both sectarian and partisan, attacked the Roman Catholic Church as an institution, and the Person of Pope Benedict XVI. You present allegations, and the manner in which you have presented them, alternately imply, and openly assert, that paedophilia and underage homosexuality as endemic to, and inherent to the Church, while ignoring the occurrence of the same behavior at high frequency among other discrete groups in society (i.e. Public High School Teachers, Police, non-celibate Protestant clergy, etc.). As for your assertion regarding the person of the Pope, they are as brazen and unqualified as they are unsubstantiated. Your clear sectarian bias agaisnt the faith of 1.3 billion people worldwide, and your antipathy towards the teachings and practices of said faith belie your pretensions of journalistic excellence.
Indeed, in terms of journalistic technique, your sourcing has been appalling. You adopt and present as verified fact, without qualification, the assertions of persons such as Abp. Rembert Weakland, Attorney Jeff Anderson, and other parties with direct pecuniary interests in advancing a particular line of propaganda regarding both the Church and the Pope. Outsourced and not referred to are other sources such as your City’s very own Archbishop.
I will never subscribe to your paper, and I actively dissuade and discourage others from doing so given the consistently poor quality of your reportage, your slavish devotion to whatever meme is deemed popular, and your lack of critical thinking and specialist knowedge regarding the assertions of sources, both governmental and non-governmental.
Subj: Poor Reporting – Fr. Murphy Story
It’s no wonder the NY Times is hemoraging money. Your news reporting ignores the facts and is consistantly laced with anti-catholic bigotry. The modern consumer has full use of the internet these days and can easily determine the true facts of the story, who do you think you are fooling?
The New York times has already passed the crossroads of becoming once again a well respected news organization. It appears you have taken the glittered road of tabloid journalism. I look forward to the day when you are forced to sell or close your doors for good.
Your credibility is worse than zero.
Former NY Time Reader
Done. My letter is as follows.
Dear Sir or Madam:
I find it disturbing that a newspaper of such prestige would sink as low as to completely disregard the merit of facts in reporting as in the case Maureen Dowd’s article regarding the Holy Father and the sex scandals in the Church over a quarter-century ago. Her complete disregard and bigoted article betrays her hatred for the Church and everything which it stands for. Ms. Dowd is welcomed to her own personal opinion of the Church, but when it comes to articles credited as informative, there is no place for personal bias. Journalistic impartiality should be held in all cases, not only those which are in accordance with personal values and opinions. The complete disregard for the facts of the matter, namely in the case of Rev. Murphy of Wisconsin, where neither the head of the Investigation was contacted nor any attempt to discover more than just what bias and opinion upheld is a complete disgrace to your prestigious newspaper. Had any attempt been made to discover the actual facts, Ms. Dowd may have been surprised to find the case had been brought to the police department in that jurisdiction but was left untouched by them. Ms. Dowd (and other journalists) will do well to note that research shows a decrease in sexual abuse cases in recent times as well as the fact that the Catholic Church has the lowest rate of sexual offenses of any organization and/or religion. The reporting of your journal, as well as that of other mainstream media sources, would indicate that the only sexual predators can only be found within the Catholic Church, despite the fact that sexual predators can be found in any organization, country, family, nationality: it is not exclusive to one group. You may be assured that until such action is taken to prevent such blatant disregard for facts in any journal article, I will not be picking up a copy of the Times and will advocate to my family and friends to do likewise.
I had to dig around a while, but I found my saddle.
Emailed as suggested. It’s about time we gave back a little of what comes at our Holy Father and the Catholic Church, we’ve got to stop taking this stuff lying down.
You go, Bishop DiMarzio and Archbishop Dolan!
My email has been sent.
I not only emailed the editor, but some of their sponsors saying I was going to boycott their products if they continued to support such anti-catholic bigotry.
I wrote a few letters, including this one, which tacks from another direction to show the NYTimes bias:
Lately, the New York Times has failed the standards of journalism. The Public Editor is advertised by The Times as someone who “works outside of the reporting and editing structure of the newspaper and receives and answers questions or comments from readers and the public.” I want to pose some questions regarding two articles that recently appeared in print and online. I will use your columns as guidelines to place my inquiry in context.
In a column dated April 13, 2008, you examine the issue of opinion in news reporting, concluding, “The Times, like most newspapers, long ago ventured far from the safe shores of keeping opinions only on the opinion pages… [something] that I believe is critical to the long-term credibility of any news organization.” You also acknowledge what you call a “predominantly liberal” character on the op-ed page and editorial board at the paper. In another column, published November 7, 2009, you respond to questions of an anti-Catholic bent at the Times. In this case you determine, “I think it is hard to pick a handful of examples, as Dolan did, and make a case that The Times has been ‘anti-Catholic’… Could the newspaper sometimes choose a better word in a story or pay more attention to transgressions in other parts of society? Yes. Has it been guilty of anti-Catholicism? I don’t buy it.”
With these two columns taken – opinion in reporting and a denial of bias against the Catholic Church – let’s look at two obituaries published in The Times. On January 7, the newspaper ran an obituary for Mary Daly, a noted Catholic theologian and author. On February 16, the newspaper ran an obituary for Ralph McInerny, also a noted Catholic theologian and author. Both Daly and McInerny were outspoken, prolific, and influential in society and Church in the 20th century. However, they received two very different treatments.
Both obituaries are fine as far as they go until their concluding paragraphs, respectively. Daly, a self-avowed “radical lesbian feminist,” received a commendation by religious-studies scholar Demaris Wehr: “Her powerful mind, her creative genius and her uncanny ability to put her finger on deep emotional, psychological and spiritual problems are ignored at our peril.” McInerny was represented by some of his own words: “Barack Hussein Obama, enabler in chief of abortion, has agreed to speak at the 2009 commencement and to receive an honorary doctorate of law… That abortion and its advocacy violate a primary precept of natural law reinforced by the Catholic Church’s explicit doctrine is a mere bagatelle. Wackos of all kinds will kick up a fuss, of course, but their protest will go unnoticed in South Bend. The pell-mell pursuit of warm and fuzzy Catholicism will continue.”
The quality of these two quotations is not equal. One is taken from a glowing review of Daly’s work, the other from McInerny’s person response to a fierce controversy. One closes the record of a life in admiration; the other indicates a bitter and frustrated man. While McInerny regarded himself as a Catholic philosopher, Daly had publicly rejected the Catholic Church years before her death. McInerny explored questions of Catholic life and thought while Daly rejected nearly every point of Catholic teaching and identity. Has opinion reached so far at The Times as to shape obituaries, making them an up or down judgment for the recently deceased?
It seems puzzling that two ranked Catholic figures, dying within weeks of one another, should receive such divergent treatments in The Times. The “liberal” is praised; the “conservative” is consigned to the dustbin. The woman who rejected the Catholic Church root and branch is lauded; the man who dedicated his career to exploring it is scorned. The “predominantly liberal” tone on the op-ed and editorial pages seems to have gained a newspaper-wide hold on The Times. And that is a disservice to the record and to readers, who look for fact and fairness.