The Pope and the press (Pope Benedict XVI falsely accused by New York Times)

National Post ^ | April 9, 2010 | Father Raymond J. de Souza

[NYer]

Pope Benedict XVI was falsely accused two weeks ago by The New York Times. That same false charge was repeated and amplified in the National Post. The facts are now in, and even the Times has corrected itself by rewriting the story. Two weeks later, however, and despite its flaws, the story is reverberating around the world. Indeed, without the Times' accusations, the sexual abuse story would not have dominated Holy Week as it did.

On March 25, the Times set off a worldwide firestorm with a front page story that made an incendiary accusation: "Top Vatican officials -- including the future Pope Benedict XVI--did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit."

Falsehood upon falsehood -- four errors in the first paragraph. First, the case to defrock Father Lawrence Murphy was approved by the "top Vatican officials," was never stopped by anyone in Rome and was ongoing when Murphy died. Second, Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict, is not shown in the documents to have taken any decisions in this case. Third, the real villain, aside from Murphy himself, was the compromised former Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, who had sat on the case for 20 years. Fourth, the files were not "newly unearthed"; a general chronology had been released by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee years ago, and the documents were released by the archdiocese itself.

The New York Times was guilty of egregiously shoddy reporting -- or worse -- on a story of global implications.

[NYer]

As others began to ask those obvious questions, and it became apparent that Goodstein had not asked any of them, she published an extraordinary follow-up story on April 1. This one appeared on page 6, not the front. Gone was the suggestive headline. This one had the banal title: "Events in the Case of an Accused Priest." All of the accusations against the future pope are dropped, the new information from her tardy interview with Brundage is included, Weakland's comments disappear and Jeffrey Anderson is gone altogether.

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[4rcane]

i wonder if NYT believes in karma

[Antoninus]

Third, the real villain, aside from Murphy himself, was the compromised former Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, who had sat on the case for 20 years.

Here you have the narrative. The media protects the real villains--the homosexuals and their enablers who infiltrated the Catholic Church--and tries to impute their crimes to those who were instrumental in flushing them out.

I wonder how long it will take the idiots here on Free Republic to figure this out? By attacking Pope Benedict, they're actually HARMING the cause of conservatives within the Catholic Church.

[TSgt]

Integrity check: Standing by for your tongue-lashing of NYer for posting this article due to their “sick obsession” with this issue.

There is no other word for your sick obsession with this issue other than "evil".

[Antoninus]

Perhaps you are a little obtuse? Cardhu has a history of spreading slander and vituperation about the Catholic Church with no pretense of fairness or intellectual honesty.

NYer, on the other hand, has a long and distinguished history on FR of offering fair and spirited criticism of the Church when it is warranted, and defense when the Church is unfairly attacked.

Obviously, you can't see the difference. Pity.

[Lou L]

There was never any story here—just a red herring to discredit the Catholic Church in the days leading up to Holy Week...our most sacred week of the Liturgical Year.

[TSgt]

Cardhu is a serial poster on this issue...fair and spirited criticism

So is NYer and not all of their articles are pro-RCC. But you give them a pass because...

So who is it that can't take it? ;-)

[Antoninus]

What part of this aren't you getting?

Cardhu regularly posts articles which are usually loaded with slander against the Catholic Church and then agrees with the slander in his comments. I have a big problem with that.

NYer posts articles which are occasionally loaded with slander against the Catholic Church and then criticizes the slander in her comments. I have no problem with that.

This is not difficult for those with an IQ above 75.

[TSgt]

You FRiend have been proven to be a hypocrite.

You will not permit anyone to post articles or discuss this topic unless you agree with them.

May I suggest that you get your own forum?

[BenKenobi]

Exactly! Thank you! The villian of this case is Weakland.

[Antoninus]

Since it is now clear that you are either invincibly ignorant or purposefully obtuse, I feel no further need to interact with you.

Go with God.

[d-back]

Are you still hanging around annoying Catholics and slandering the Church?

Don't you have something better to do today--say, ironing your White Hood?

[TSgt]

say, ironing your White Hood?

Very "Christian" of you. You must have missed the Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.