Exposing the agenda of the New York Times

Law professor John Coverdale wrote this letter to the New York Times. It has not been published.


"Like many other people, I have felt in recent weeks that some news outlets have unfairly targeted Pope Benedict XVI in connection with sexual abuse by priests.

In part this is a question of emphasis, with daily coverage of what may or may not have been minor mistakes in judgment decades ago and almost no attention to the major efforts Pope Benedict has made to remedy what is undeniably a horrible situation.

With some frequency, however, I have observed what strikes me as deliberate distortion of the facts in order to put Pope Benedict in a bad light. I would like to call your attention to what seems to me a clear example of this sort of partisan journalism: Laurie Goodstein and Michael Luo’s article “Pope Put Off Move to Punish Abusive Priest” published on the front page of the New York Times on April 10, 2010. The story is so wrong that it is hard to believe it is not animated by the anti-Catholic animus that the New York Times and other media outlets deny harboring.

Canonical procedure punishes priests who have violated Church law in serious ways by “suspending” them from exercising their ministry. This is sometimes referred to as “defrocking.” (According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary to “defrock” is to deprive of the right to exercise the functions of an office. )

A priest who has been suspended may request that he be released from his vows of celibacy and other obligations as a priest. If granted, this petition to be “laicized” would leave the former priest free to marry. Laicization (which is altogether different from defrocking and which may apply to a priest who has committed no crime but simply wishes to leave the priesthood) is not further punishment. It is something a priest who has already been punished by being suspended might well desire, as do some priests who have committed no crime and who have not been suspended..

The priest who is the subject of the article had already been punished by being suspended long before his case reached Rome. He asked to be laicized. Cardinal Ratzinger delayed his laicization not his “defrocking” as the article incorrectly says. He had been defrocked years earlier when he was suspended from the ministry. All of this is clear without reference to outside sources to anyone who knows something about Church procedure and reads the article with sufficient care. It is anything but clear, however, to a normal reader.

My complaint here is not that the article misuses the word “defrock” but rather that by so doing it strongly suggests to readers that Cardinal Ratzinger delayed the priest’s removal from the ministry. Delaying laicization had nothing to do with allowing him to continue exercising the ministry, from which he had already been suspended.

Not only does the article fail to make these distinctions, it positively misstate the facts. Its title is “Pope Put off Move to Punish Abusive Priest.” [italics added] It describes Cardinal Ratzinger’s decision as involving whether the abusive priest “should be forced from the priesthood” [italics added]. Even a moderately careful journalist would have to notice that all of this is incompatible with the fact (reported in the second paragraph of the article) that the priest himself had asked for what Cardinal Ratziner delayed.

Had the facts been reported accurately, the article would have said that the priest was promptly punished by being removed from the ministry for his crimes, but that when he asked to be reduced to the lay state, which would have given him the right to marry within the Church, Cardinal Ratzinger delayed granting the petition. That, of course, would hardly have merited front page treatment, much less a headline accusing the Pope of “Putt[ing] off Move to Punish Abusive Priest.”

The second half of the article reports that the priest later worked as a volunteer in the youth ministry of his former parish. This is obviously regrettable and should not have happened, but he was not acting as a priest (youth ministers are laymen, not priests).

A careful reader who was not misled by the inaccuracies in the first part of the article would, of course, realize that his volunteering as a youth minister had no factual or legal connection with Cardinal Ratzinger’s delaying the grant of laicization. The article does not say in so many words that it did, but an average reader might well conclude that there was some connection when he is told that “while the bishop was pressing Cardinal Ratzinger to defrock Mr. Kiesle, the priest began volunteering in the youth ministry of one of his former parishes.”

Any one of these errors might be due to carelessness, but their cumulative effect, coupled with the decision to make this front page news accompanied by a two column photo of Cardinal Raztinger’s signature, strongly suggests to me that something worse than carelessness is involved. I urge you to look into whether some major news outlets have indeed been engaged in a campaign to vilify the Pope and into whether their desire to do so has caused them to slip below minimum standards of professional journalism"

John Coverdale is Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law

Vamos a Cantar, Hoy !!!!

La Virgen María es nuestra protectora y nuestra defensora cuando hay que temer,
Vencerá a los demonios gritando "¡Viva Cristo Rey!",
Vencerá a los demonios gritando "¡Viva Cristo Rey!"
Soldados de Cristo: ¡Sigamos la bandera que la Cruz enseña el ejército de Dios!
Sigamos la bandera gritando, "¡Viva Cristo Rey!"
English translation
The Virgin Mary is our protector and defender when there is something to fear,
She will defeat the demons crying "Long live Christ the King!"
She will defeat the demons crying "Long live Christ the King!"
Soldiers of Christ let us follow the flag that the Cross shows the army of God!
Let us follow the flag crying, "Long live Christ the King!"

I had to share this!

Married Clergy may be part of the answer.

What's on my mind is the child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. Leon J. Podles mentioned on Al Kresta's radio show that the cover up may have been a result of a lack of empathy for the victims. This is a claim that I am inclined to believe, based simply on my human experience. Mr. Podles went on to subtlety suggest that the involvement of more woman may be needed. I do not think that he was making a case for female ordination. It is more likely that he was suggesting that there be more administrative (and public) and, specifically, feminine light shone on the process . The implication is that woman would be more empathetic than clerical (and, incidentally, celibate) men. While, I think this may be somewhat more true than false, there is one particular aspect that is of specific interest to me.

What human institution has been primarily responsible for civilizing men and teaching them empathy; not to mention teach them that a diet should consist of more that Ramen noodles? These and many other societal benefits have been reaped from, you guessed it, MARRIAGE and the FAMILY. I believe that married men are much more empathetic that unmarried men. Perhaps, the Vatican should just drop the requirement of a celibate discipline and make it optional, for priests. I think there would be several benefits.

1) More men would become priests. If you doubt this, look at the high rate of increase of deacons, as compared with the decline in priests. Many of those who become deacons would choose to become priests, I believe.

2) There would need to be logistic changes that would allow priests to me more integral members of their parish. After all, their own wife and children would attend that parish. These changes would allow priests to stay at the same parish for a much longer time; perhaps their whole career.

3) The priesthood, generally, would get a substantial injection of testosterone. With this, the sodomite priest will be outnumbered and, perchance, it may be more likely that there will be less covering up as regards the child abuse. Remember, most accounts indicate that about 75% (there is some variance) of the child abuse cases are with post-pubescent boys.

Just a thought

Thank God for Militant Atheists and Secularists!

The title of this post may seem strange to some. I really do mean it, though. The fact that militant atheists and secularists target the Catholic Church, specifically, and Christians, generally, is a great benefit to Christianity.

First, when atheists, specifically, and secularists, generally, attack the beliefs, traditions, and practices of the Christian faith, it does nothing but strengthen Christendom. After all the Christian worldview is solidly built on a reasonable, rational, historical, and internally consistent set of beliefs and values that are the under girding of the modern world. So, Christians have nothing to fear from secularism. A good read on this topic is the book by Thomas E. Woods Jr How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. In that last 2,000 years, whenever a legitimate ideological threat has appeared to the Catholic Church, God has raised up a movement or person to respond to it. For example, God raised up St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, to organize to cogent system of philosophy to respond the Avicennism, and its misrepresented Aristotelian philosophy, that threatened the philosophical foundations of Catholicism. But wait, I am giving entirely to much credit to the "new atheism". I say this, chiefly, for one reason.

There is nothing NEW about this atheism. The likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett. Samuel Harris, and Christopher Hitchens have offered no new arguments against faith, Christianity, or Catholicism. There is no earth-shattering scientific discovery that they have presented. As for their arguments from philosophy or metaphysics, they are decidedly weak. At least, Jean-Paul Sartre and the old atheists like him were brave enough to draw out that the logical conclusion of their atheism and scientific naturalism was a complete collapse of any ethical system. All we are left with is the idea that might makes right; Friedrich Nietzsche's Übermensch (Superman). Remember the Holocaust? Ideas have consequences...or, does one easily forget the clear, ideological connection between Nietzsche and Hitler.

Second, I would like to express thanks to God Almighty for the bias of the secular media attack on the Catholic Church, in light of the child abuse issue. The secular media has done a worthy service in bringing this issue to the attention of the public. Truth be told, though, I would prefer that they give a more complete picture. The following points are good illustration of the manner in which the recent flurry is lacking.
1) Catholic Priests are, statistically, much less likely to be involved in sexual abuse of children that others.
2) Most of the reported cases involved priests and homosexual activity. Maybe a more fundamental problem has been turning a blind eye to priests with these tendencies.
3) Why the double standard? Why has the media and Hollywood types been so ambiguous about the heinous act of Roman Polanski and, conversely, led the charge to crucify priests? If Roman Polanski were a priest, would he have been given the same benefit of the doubt from the likes of MSNBC?
4) Much of the media coverage has been almost criminally inaccurate. See
From my point of view, all sexual activity, consensual or otherwise, between an adult and a child, is moral abhorrent and should be dealt with, legally. Also, I want to state clearly that my first concern is for those who have suffered such unjust abuse. My prayers are with them, and us all. Ruega por nosotros, Santa Madre de Dios!!!

If one is interested in the source of these points, please see "Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis" by Phillip Jenkins.

The bottom line, from where I sit, is that the gates of Hell with never stand against the Catholic Church, despite enemies internal and external. She, The Church, has taught consistently the same doctrines for the last 2,000 years, and several thousand more, if one considers the Jewish heritage of the Church. Therefore, I thank God for the recent attacks from atheists and secularist. On one hand, God will help Christians to answer the challenges; intellectually, spiritually, and more important, lovingly. Secondly, child abuse should be exposed and dealt with. As Saint Peter states in the Scriptures, "For it is time for the judgment to begin with the household of God; if it begins with us, how will it end for those who fail to obey the gospel of God?".

"Amados hermanos, ¿estáis afrontando muchas dificultades y pruebas?... Pues alegraos,
porque la prueba de vuestra fe da como fruto la paciencia, y el ejercitaros en la paciencia os hará perfectos y cabales, aptos para enfrentaros a cualquier circunstancia adversa que se os presente."

Beati qui ad cenam Agni vocati sunt!

This line from the Roman Rite of the Catholic Liturgy always seemed to resonate with me; sometimes for days. Happy are those who are called to the Feast of the Lamb! The phrase is normally translated this way. However, this translation does not do justice to the phrase; likely due to our modern usage of the word happy.

When most people use the word happy now, they usually me something else, like giddy, satiated, justified, content, glad, or pleased. In my opinion, Blessed is a better translation. After all, Beati is word that Christ uses in the Beatitudes and it is normally translated as Blessed.

What does it mean to be Blessed. The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary has a number of definitions, but all point to something more profound that happiness.

This leads me to an on-going discussion that I have been having with a co-worker. He says that happiness is, indeed, the object of human existence. I tend to agree. However, we disagree on this issue of what constitutes happiness. His contention is that it is a state of mind and one simply decides that they are happy and presto, they are.

On the contrary, I believe that all lesser forms of happiness, like satiety, sexual pleasure, aesthetic pleasure, etc. all lead to a an ultimate happiness that is found only in the highest good, which is the True God. In this regard, I agree with G.K. Chesterton when he said, ""A man knocking on the door of a brothel is knocking for God." Likewise, a recent song took a page out of St. Augustine's book and stated that "there's a God-shaped hole in all of us".

Temporary bits of happiness are breadcrumbs on the path to God, who left us a most visible piece of bread to lead us home to happiness. It is this "Bread and Wine" that nourishes us and leads to true, eternal happiness. I just amazes me that some (including my co-worker) see that those who seek only temporal pleasures and "happiness" usually end up with neither. Yet, the truly Happy and Blessed are called to a Feast that comes with it our own Crosses and, usually, pain and suffering. “Whoever wishes to come after Me, let Him deny Himself, take up His cross and follow me”, said Christ. It is only the truly happy who, like Saint Lawrence, said "Let my body be turned; one side is broiled enough."

"Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses it will save it."
Indeed, are those HAPPY who are called to the Lamb's Feast!!!
Happy Easter to All!!!
Feliz Pascua de Resurrecion a Todos!!!