If it were not so sad, it would only evoke the response of a yawn. I’m talking about the most recent Hollywood star who was “raised a Catholic” but now, as an “enlightened, liberated” adult, has shed his or her faith for some toney, exotic “New Age” movement.
No surprise in the response of The New York Times to my recent claim of disregard for Catholic sensitivity. They continue to assume an infallibility on what they term their ‘responsible reporting’ on the Church.
I know, I should drop it. “You just have to get used to it,” so many of you have counselled me. “It’s been that way forever, and it’s so ingrained they don’t even know they’re doing it. So, let it go.” I’m talking about the common, casual way The New York Times offends Catholic sensitivity, something they would never think of doing — rightly so — to the Jewish, Black, Islamic, or gay communities.
I came across this fine article written by William A. Donohue, Ph.D. of the Catholic League. Mr. Donohue responds to a CNN documentary on the Pope recently aired. Here’s an excerpt: “We learn from CNN host Gary Tuchman that “For decades, before he became pope, Joseph Ratzinger was a high-ranking Vatican official who, more than anyone else beside Pope John Paul, could have taken decisive action to stem the sexual abuse crisis.” Similarly, author David Gibson says the pope “always took the stalling tactic.” It is simply not true that Ratzinger was in charge of this issue “for decades.” In fact, he wasn’t given the authority to police the sexual abuse problem until 2001.
Here is a copy of my homily from Pro-Life Sunday, Sunday, October 3, 2010, at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. An audio clip of the homily is available online here. AMDG JMJ 27/OT/C/3/X/10 (Pro-Life) “For the vision, still has its time, presses on to fulfillment, and will not disappoint; if it delays, wait for it it will surely come, it will not be late.” The vision .