Despite being taken to task over recent "sloppy reporting", the NY Times' attempt to implicate Pope Benedict in abuse scandals was ratcheted up a level with a recent op-ed column titled "Should There Be an Inquisition for the Pope?" The article was filled with offensive comments, such as ...
* "It doesn’t seem right that the Catholic Church is spending Holy Week practicing the unholy art of spin."
* "The church gave up its credibility for Lent. Holy Thursday and Good Friday are now becoming Cover-Up Thursday and Blame-Others Friday."
* "This week of special confessions and penance services is unfolding as the pope resists pressure from Catholics around the globe for his own confession and penance about the cascade of child s*xual abuse cases that were ignored, even by a German diocese and Vatican office he ran. If church fund-raising and contributions dry up, Benedict’s P.R. handlers may yet have to stage a photo-op where he steps out of the priest’s side of the confessional and enters the side where the rest of his fallible flock goes. Or maybe 30-second spots defending the pope with Benedict’s voice intoning at the end: 'I am infallible, and I approve this message.'"
The paper's "sloppy reporting" of late has been criticized in various quarters, including by the presiding judge in the case of Fr. Murphy, who said he was never contacted by the paper regarding their coverage of the matter. As Damian Thompson remarked, "It’s pretty clear now that The New York Times has scr*wed up its coverage of Pope Benedict XVI and the child abuse scandals. In fact, I doubt it could have done a worse job if it had brought back Jayson Blair to report the story." Mr. Thompson also said that while he "[doesn't] normally wish unemployment on fellow journalists - even snooty and snarling PC ones from the Big Apple - but if the paper folded tomorrow I reckon I could contain my grief. Couldn’t you?" Comment: I think we could also contain ours.
[3/31]
Posts
