Can You Hear My Head Exploding?

What else should we expect from the NYTimes? (As a preliminary note, I am not linking to the article simply because it's far too inflaming.)

Maureen Dowd. What a piece of work. Today, she uses her soap box to proclaim to the world that the Church is now in the business of "spin." Please re-read that. The Catholic Church. Spin. New York Times Op-Ed page. Oh the irony. Yes, she unequivocally states that "Catholics around the globe," are calling for the Pope's "own confession and penance about the cascade of child sexual abuse cases that were ignored," Citation needed, Maureen. But, being an Op-Ed columnist citations, and fact checking aren't really needed, right?

But if you think Dowd making the global proclamation - for what apparently she feels are all Catholics - of a "Papal confession" (BTW, when did the Church dispose of the confessional for the Op-Ed page of the Times' Ms. Dowd?) is good, wait 'til you hear what else she has to say. This week, we aren't celebrating Holy Thursday or Good Friday. No. We apparently are celebrating "Cover-Up Thursday" and "Blame-Others Friday." Is your head exploding yet? If it's not now, it will shortly.

The poor (and that's just me being nice) reporting and fact-checking of the Times' is astounding. If you go back a few posts, you will find out just what happened in Wisconsin. But, asking a person who was actually involved in a case would just be far too much work for the Times'. Or, perhaps, if it's not too much work maybe it's just because if someone actually did talk to Fr. Brundage, it would completely undermine their whole "story"! My guess is that it's the latter. But why should the vitriol stop there?

"If church fund-raising and contributions dry up, Benedict’s P.R. handlers may yet have to stage a photo-op where he steps out of the priest’s side of the confessional and enters the side where the rest of his fallible flock goes."

Uhhhh, does anyone want to take a guess at the last time Ms. Dowd picked up the Catechism? My guess is it's been awhile. "The rest of his fallible flock"? Does she even know what Papal Infallibility means? "Church fund-raising"? Are there bake sales at the Vatican I don't know about? Maybe we should just give Ms. Dowd the benefit of the doubt, and assume that she does understand Papal Infallibility and just couldn't find a better word.

"Or maybe 30-second spots defending the pope with Benedict’s voice intoning at the end: 'I am infallible, and I approve this message.'"

Never mind.

Oh, take a look at this one!

"The Vatican is surprised to find itself in this sort of trouble."

Again, the top-notch reporting of Ms. Dowd never ceases to amaze. Did she talk to anyone at the Vatican about this? She probably could have gotten better insight from a pigeon that hangs out in St. Peter's square than her sources (read as "none").

At Palm Sunday Mass at St. Patrick’s, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York bemoaned that the “recent tidal wave of headlines about abuse of minors by some few priests, this time in Ireland, Germany, and a re-run of an old story from Wisconsin, has knocked us to our knees once again.”

A few priests? At this point, it feels like an international battalion."

Yes, an international battalion. Who needs facts when you have puffery!?

Then, Dowd moves on to "exposing" the Church's "P.R. spin plan". As number 4, Dowd explains that by demonizing gays, and "making the abuse issue about gays," the Church is trying to take the heat off itself, even though they are "defending pedophilia". Yeah, because the Times' never defends pedophilia. Also, don't forget that the Church is in fact, NOT defending pedophiliac priests. In fact, the Church is taking the necessary steps to prevent further abuse .

The next one is a gem too. "#5 Blame the victims". Dowd uses a quote from Catholic League President Bill Donohue that talks about the Fr. Murphy victims that didn't come forward for twenty years. But that's it. Just the quote. No explanation of how the Church was supposed to do stop abuse about which it had no idea. Apparently the reader is supposed to figure that out? Or perhaps Dowd wants her readers to believe that the Church somehow knew about it. Which actually surprises me that she didn't come out and say that because, as we already know, facts are unimportant.

Finally, Dowd gives away the Vatican lawyers' secret game plan in defending against civil suits. By claiming that the argument will be the Bishops were not employees, and the Pope is immune as a head of state. Wow. I was unaware that Dowd had a law degree, and a source in the Vatican's council.

The New York Times' is losing their credibility by not attempting to fact-check, and by making outlandish statements that have absolutely no grounding in reason. It is further disappointing that Ms. Dowd, with an education from Catholic University of America, has so little understanding of the Catholic Faith.

But, I guess when your paper and job are threatened to be obsolete, perhaps resorting to mud-slinging, lies and false reporting are the only way to stay afloat. Good luck with that.