Comments on: How Do You Spell Tendentious?

By: The Belgian Scandal and the Church’s Future » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 20:47:47 +0000

[...] a recent posting I parsed the [...]

By: Steynian 415st « Free Canuckistan!

Steynian 415st « Free Canuckistan! — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:28:25 +0000

[...] examined, with the analytical skill of a biblical scholar (a good biblical scholar), the bias of the New York Times‘ latest coverage of Benedict and his role in the sex abuse scandal. The title How Do You Spell Tendentious? gives you the idea …. [...]

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:51:09 +0000

“Some of you, as conservatives have a distaste for all things NYT and are not objective judges of its partiality.”

Right, and Playboy has some really good writing in it.

By: Ken

Ken — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:28:52 +0000

Do we want our Pope to be perfect? Yes we do.

Then you are doomed to disappointment, Brettongarcia.

Part of growing up is learning that your parents aren’t people with imperfecttions. There are a lot of people – Catholic and non-Catholic alike – who need to grow up.

By: Brettongarcia

Brettongarcia — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:48:19 +0000

Do we want our Pope to be perfect? Yes we do.

By: John M

John M — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 23:59:41 +0000

The article did seem more comment piece or essay than straight news reporting. But before you shoot the messenger, I’ll note that a very touching and positive portrayal of a soon to retire Bronx priest recently graced their pages. It was as good as anything a Catholic diocesan newspaper would produce. The St. Vincent hospital closing saga was also covered in detail with praise for its presence and long service to its neighborhood. Some of you, as conservatives have a distaste for all things NYT and are not objective judges of its partiality.

By: Michael Currie

Michael Currie — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 13:18:39 +0000

If I lived in a neighborhood where everyone beat their wife and children I would have a problem if they all decided to spend their time condemning me for the same behavior. Well I do live in such a neighborhood it is called the world.
In the world there is slavery, a thriving sex trade involving involuntary servitude, massive oppression of citizens including but not limited to forced abortions, sexual mutilation of young woman and murder. On the internet the money is in sex, all types and in all places. In the popular press sex and sensuality sells, to anyone. In the last 40 years we are short approx. 50,000,000 people due to abortion. One in four Americans have an std. In every venue one can think of child and teenage abuse, sexual and otherwise, is present in significant numbers. There have been study after study that indict public school teachers, ministers, Rabbis, coaches, therapists, foster care providers, neighbors and family members, etc.. The percentages exceed the Churches. If the Churches number of victims was one this would be one to many and we should do our best to see that there is not even one. This will not happen given the insidious nature of evil but we must try. I understand the outrage of Catholics particularly those that do not understand the nature of man and the voraciousness of evil. It is the selective outrage of the glasshouse people that I find most curious. Do they hold the church to a higher standard, is it the appearance of hypocracy that enrages them so, are they truly ignorant of the state of their own house? If tomorrow the Church were gone( an impossibility) would the problem go away?

By: Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:53:54 +0000

In 2002, the New York Times published an obituary of Harry Hay, considered by virtually everyone as the founder of the modern gay rights movement: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/25/obituaries/25HAY.html?pagewanted=print

The Times mentions that his first homosexual experience occurred when he was 14, though the Times does not tell you that Hay’s suitor was an adult male, which is documented in some of the works cited by the Times in the obituary. Read the speech that Hay gave at NYU in 1983: http://www.nambla.org/nyu1983.htm, in which Hay says this:

“I’m telling you this story, and I’m saying it tonight, in memory of a man—all I can remember is that his name was Matt. And I send to all of you my love and deep affection for what you offer to the boys, in honor of this boy when he was fourteen, and when he needed to know best of all what only another gay man could show him and tell him.

I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need.

So, again, as I said, my offering is not as a member of NAMBLA, but in memory of that fourteen-year-old boy who was handled by Matt so long ago. And in memorial to Matt, I offer you my love.”

The NY TIMES covered up Harry Hay’s history of being a victim of, and a defender of, child molestation. How deeply sick that it has the consummate gall to go after a man, Joseph Ratzinger, who has tried his best to rid the church of the Harry Hays, whether they be victims or perpetrators. The NY TIMES attacks Ratzinger and praises Hay. The NY TIMES does not give a damn about children. It just hates the Church.

By: Bob G

Bob G — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 23:20:46 +0000

The meaning of the partial and selected facts the Times reports is determined by the spin. The Times thinks the Church should operate like secular institutions it is familiar with and it has little real feel for the inner life of the Church.

All that said, though, the Church’s defenders seem to overlook the heinous nature of what repeatedly occurred, the response to which was so bureaucratic. Something was wrong inside a Church in which things like this could have occurred repeatedly for many years. The
Times wants to blame the current pope, but there were plenty of others to blame

The Church was already under attack from many quarters for its stand on moral issues. And it seemed that just at the critical moment–this.

I don’t think the Church can survive in its current form–ruled by prelates who still think they inhabit a Renaissance court. The situation is now so bad that only something drastic can restore the Church’s credibility. Maybe those Marian predictions Cardinal Ratzinger read about in the 1990s are coming true.

By: Joseph Bottum

Joseph Bottum — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:11:36 +0000

Patrick Molloy–Sharp comment. I hadn’t thought of it, but it’s obvious, isn’t it?