Clark Hoyt responds to the good Archbishop with a tone of WASPy condescension; 'tut tut now, my good man, what's all the fuss about?' tone which attempts to cover a multidude of errors. I will point them out.
First he attempts to play the victim for Paul Vitello and Maureen Dowd. They never meant to insult the Archbishop, they are merely doing their jobs. Paul Vitello's mention of the Archbishop's blog was friendly and so was his treatment of Orthodox Jewish Rabbis caught abusing minors. He merely contrasted the gentle treatment given that community with the lambasting the Catholic Church received over similar incidents.
Laurie Goldstein's piece about a 25 year old story of a Fransiscan who fathered a child was front page, above the fold news. Since when did the misbehavior of another clergyman merit such coverage? Or anying postive about the Catholic clergy get such a spotlight? The Archbishop says, "However, one still has to wonder why a quarter-century old story of a sin by a priest is now suddenly more pressing and newsworthy than the war in Afghanistan, health care, and starvation–genocide in Sudan. No other cleric from religions other than Catholic ever seems to merit such attention. "
Oh, and Mr Hoyt, Archbishops merit more respect than having their Op-Ed pieces demoted to a mere letter to the editor. I have seen my letters evicerated to completely distort their original intent, since they were pro-life and well written, I took it as a compliment, that my point was too well taken and therefore had to be obscured. No doubt the wise Archbishop anticipated as much and declined. Good for him.
Mr Hoyt makes a point that since the Catholic Church represents the beliefs of one quarter of the US population and controls the lives of many with its hospitals and schools, it deserves more scrutiny than, say, public schools. Come again? Is that why there is no coverage equal to the Catholic Church sex scandal on the shattering report of Hofstra University Professor Carol Shakeshaft's on the wide prevalence of unreported sexual abuse of minors in American public schools? You ignored the unbiased report by a non-Catholic university professor which proved that a child is 100 times more likely to be sexually abused in a public school than by a Catholic priest. Who is spiking big stories while printing trivia which gives the Church a black eye, Mr Hoyt?
If you want to allow Maureen Dowd to let loose a bitterly sarcastic diatribe against the Church, bringing up long disproved rumors about Pope Benedict and the Nazis, then why not allow an equally vociferous writer, like Dr Bill Donohue, to defend his Church? Certainly the Times welcomes diaglogue from both sides, right?
I'll await your invitation of Dr Donohue, recipient of the Pius XI award from the Society of Catholic Social Scientists for " his "contributions toward the building of a true Catholic social science." Dr Donohue would be happy to provide the Times with a counterbalance for the excess of negativity in it's pages. I dare say he could increase your readership which is in steep decline.
It's because the Times is used to being the leader of the anti-Catholic liberal press, and is still reeling from the cold hard fact that blogs are more widely read than your greying pages. This is evidenced by the fact that though you say the Op-Ed pages are not to be used for a response to an article by the Archbishop, you see fit to write an editorial in response to a blog post. The New Media is here to stay and will continue to give the antiquated outlets of anti-Catholicism a run for it's money, Mr Hoyt.
Read the entire editorial here.
First he attempts to play the victim for Paul Vitello and Maureen Dowd. They never meant to insult the Archbishop, they are merely doing their jobs. Paul Vitello's mention of the Archbishop's blog was friendly and so was his treatment of Orthodox Jewish Rabbis caught abusing minors. He merely contrasted the gentle treatment given that community with the lambasting the Catholic Church received over similar incidents.
Laurie Goldstein's piece about a 25 year old story of a Fransiscan who fathered a child was front page, above the fold news. Since when did the misbehavior of another clergyman merit such coverage? Or anying postive about the Catholic clergy get such a spotlight? The Archbishop says, "However, one still has to wonder why a quarter-century old story of a sin by a priest is now suddenly more pressing and newsworthy than the war in Afghanistan, health care, and starvation–genocide in Sudan. No other cleric from religions other than Catholic ever seems to merit such attention. "
Oh, and Mr Hoyt, Archbishops merit more respect than having their Op-Ed pieces demoted to a mere letter to the editor. I have seen my letters evicerated to completely distort their original intent, since they were pro-life and well written, I took it as a compliment, that my point was too well taken and therefore had to be obscured. No doubt the wise Archbishop anticipated as much and declined. Good for him.
Mr Hoyt makes a point that since the Catholic Church represents the beliefs of one quarter of the US population and controls the lives of many with its hospitals and schools, it deserves more scrutiny than, say, public schools. Come again? Is that why there is no coverage equal to the Catholic Church sex scandal on the shattering report of Hofstra University Professor Carol Shakeshaft's on the wide prevalence of unreported sexual abuse of minors in American public schools? You ignored the unbiased report by a non-Catholic university professor which proved that a child is 100 times more likely to be sexually abused in a public school than by a Catholic priest. Who is spiking big stories while printing trivia which gives the Church a black eye, Mr Hoyt?
If you want to allow Maureen Dowd to let loose a bitterly sarcastic diatribe against the Church, bringing up long disproved rumors about Pope Benedict and the Nazis, then why not allow an equally vociferous writer, like Dr Bill Donohue, to defend his Church? Certainly the Times welcomes diaglogue from both sides, right?
I'll await your invitation of Dr Donohue, recipient of the Pius XI award from the Society of Catholic Social Scientists for " his "contributions toward the building of a true Catholic social science." Dr Donohue would be happy to provide the Times with a counterbalance for the excess of negativity in it's pages. I dare say he could increase your readership which is in steep decline.
It's because the Times is used to being the leader of the anti-Catholic liberal press, and is still reeling from the cold hard fact that blogs are more widely read than your greying pages. This is evidenced by the fact that though you say the Op-Ed pages are not to be used for a response to an article by the Archbishop, you see fit to write an editorial in response to a blog post. The New Media is here to stay and will continue to give the antiquated outlets of anti-Catholicism a run for it's money, Mr Hoyt.
Read the entire editorial here.
No comments:
Post a Comment