Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, in a lengthy blog post (on his recently launched blog), citing four examples, says yes. Laurie Goodstein, religion reporter for the Times, in a detailed response on the archbishop's comments, says no, offering a rebuttal on his blog. Read the discussion here.
Is the New York Times Anti-Catholic?
The latest from america
Elizabeth Cullinan's literary output was not prodigious—but her memorable characters and close attention to the Irish-American culture in which she lived made her a prominent fiction writer in the '70s and '80s.
Pope Francis and his international Council of Cardinals continued their discussions about the role of women in the church, listening to women experts, including a professor who spoke about how culture impacts women’s roles and status.
For St. Barnabus, to participate in the Eucharist requires intention, awareness and prayerful preparation.
Being a member of the “I don’t know club” means you will be attacked by both sides. It does not mean you have nothing to say.
Is this an accurate portrayal of public opinion? Or are those who wish to defend (or overlook) Church dysfunction just more vocal?
"I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.
But if you're examining the paper's coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn't wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you're traveling in a strange and forbidding world."
{Emphasis added.}
I just hope that the archbishop is really reading all of the comments, and paying attention to the critical ones - it's so important for bishops to LISTEN to the unfiltered voice of the laity (and to the unfiltered voice of the clergy and religious). There's a lot that they need to hear.
Is most of the media anti-Catholic? On a whole, I'd say that yes, they are, though to differing to degrees. Moreover, the bias isn't always conscious.
Dolan even had incorrect information about the source of a comment, and in my opinion, distorted the gist of the Times article. Dolan mixes the purpose of news reports with editorials; in effect, conflating apples with oranges.
The NYT reports on the growing trend of Orthodox Jews to rely on criminal sex abuse prosecutions, as opposed to internal rabbinical courts, not found trustworthy (surprise, surprise). There were 26 arrests in the last year, compared to one or two previously, *because the Orthodox themselves are speaking out for the first time.* That is legitimate news.
They are being assisted by the DA’s office, who sends prosecutors into synagogues and schools to train personnel and talk about abuse. BTW, I am unaware of prosecutors given access to Catholic churches and schools for the same purpose.
The lede: “For decades, prosecutors in Brooklyn routinely pursued child molesters from every major ethnic and religious segment of the borough’s diverse population. Except one.”
Is that opening complimentary to prosecutors? I don’t think so, but Dolan complains there was no criticism of the DA. He ignores references to “some advocates for victims” who found the DA too accommodating to clergy, and to complaints that the DA works too closely with an Orthodox agency.
The article quotes from a range of rabbis/officials, from those still favoring secrecy to those who do not, with various shades in between. Good reporting, IMHO. One commenter, not a lawyer as Dolan claims, advocated recognition of “religious sensitivities.” Should the Times have ignored that input from a major official?
Dolan’s problem is blaming the messenger for the message, with more minimizing about the “tiny minority” of priest abusers.
I too am glad to see opinions aired on hierarchical blogs. As it happens, my contribution to Dolan's was not posted, and so maybe my effort can find patient expression here instead:
It is far too easy to fall back on charges of anti-Catholicism when the coverage hits home. As an advocate for clergy abuse survivors, I found the NYTimes very difficult to engage compared to other publications, as did others far more prominent than I.
The emotional outpouring of Catholics here supporting Dolan speaks more to fatigue with the scandal than the facts. In that light it is a barometer of misplaced discontent. But blaming the messenger is no excuse.
I had expected better from Dolan. But it is undeniably a good PR move from his stance: play on people's fatigue and maybe forestall more unpleasant coverage. Smart approach.
Feeling hopeful after reading your post, I checked again on the archdiocesan website and as always see nothing posted after Oct. 29. No matter really...