Still trust the NY Times?

The Italian newspaper Il Foglio has published an article criticizing the New York Times for relying on a "very rough" computer generated (Yahoo) translation in an attempt to implicate the Holy Father in the notorious Milwaukee abuse case. According to the Italian paper, the NY Times article relied on "a gross translation mistake" and, they charge, the Times "seems to be in need of some consultants." While the "very rough" translation - used by the American paper - may have appeared to support their allegations, "that same conclusion is not possible if a correct review of the sources is done, in other words, if (the story) is based in the official text written by the CDF in Italian", according to Il Foglio. Recently, the Judicial Vicar who presided over the canonical criminal case of the accused priest said that he found "that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts" and indicated that he was never contacted by reporters to verify details of the case.

Commentary: If nothing else, wouldn't one expect the legal department of a major newspaper such as the New York Times to insist that only proper translations be used as sources - especially in light of the serious nature of the allegations made? Isn't the Times' apparent negligence in this case especially ironic considering the piece essentially accuses the Holy Father of negligence?

[4/7]

More Scandals Update...

* According to a CNA article, the Vatican never ruled out defrocking Fr. Murphy, the Milwaukee priest alleged to have abused as many as 200 deaf boys: "An expert translation of that document ['a memo recounting a key Vatican meeting' regarding the priest] provides evidence that appears to exonerate Vatican officials accused of wrongdoing in the case." According to the article, a "very rough" translation of the article may have "skewed media attempts to implicate Pope Benedict"

* A Wall Street Journal article has taken to the defense of the Pope against negative coverage in the New York Times. In part, the WSJ article states, "The man who is now pope reopened cases that had been closed; did more than anyone to process cases and hold abusers accountable; and became the first pope to meet with victims. Isn't the more reasonable interpretation of all these events that Cardinal Ratzinger's experience with cases like Murphy's helped lead him to promote reforms that gave the church more effective tools for handling priestly abuse?" The article also notes that documents posted by the Times were provided by plaintiffs' lawyers - and one of the lawyers "isn't just any old lawyer. When it comes to suing the church, he is America's leading plaintiffs attorney. Back in 2002, he told the Associated Press that he'd won more than $60 million in settlements from the church, and he once boasted to a Twin Cities weekly that he's 'suing the s--t out of them everywhere.' Nor did the Times report another salient fact about Mr. Anderson: He's now trying to sue the Vatican in U.S. federal court. None of this makes Mr. Anderson wrong or unworthy of quoting. It does make him a much bigger player than the story disclosed. In fact, it's hard to think of anyone with a greater financial interest in promoting the public narrative of a church that takes zero action against abuser priests, with Pope Benedict XVI personally culpable."

[4/6]