Last Word

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.

They speculate that all of this is because I ‘might not have liked the intense spotlight cast on the Church when the Times extensively reported on the…abuse…by Catholic clergy.’

While the Times is entitled to their opinions, such is not the case. As my brother bishops and I have constantly stated, we welcome, need, encourage, and appreciate such coverage, as long as it is fair and accurate. The problem — as so many have pointed out – is precisely that the reporting of the Times on this issue is not.

However, even to bring this issue up – which the Times obsessively does (recall how, when last year I dared question their objectivity in reporting on the Church, they dismissed it as arising from a defensiveness about an upcoming investigative report on my own response on the tragedy of abuse) – only clouds the case in point: in its glowing reviews and glaring photographs in the October 15 edition, the Times insulted the image of a consecrated woman, a nun, and a revered Catholic figure, Cardinal John O’Connor. That they feel nothing wrong with this only proves my point.

No more comment from me on this spat. As I observed in my original blog, my allies tell me it’s a waste of my time, as it’s been going on for decades.