NYT columnist responds to Archbishop Dolan
Since I earlier posted on Vox-Nova Archbishop Dolan’s full, expanded Op-Ed to the NYT, I thought it would be only fair to give this response that NYT columnist Laurie Goodstein submitted on the archbishop’s blog.
A Response to Archbishop Dolan
I am the national religion correspondent at The New York Times, and sent this letter to Archbishop Dolan yesterday. I would like to share it with the readers of his blog. Dear Archbishop Dolan, I was very disturbed to read your blog post about The New York Times, and about my work and that of my colleagues as “anti-Catholic.” You write as though the Catholic Church is some sort of special target, when in fact any institution that is accused of wrongdoing receives critical coverage and commentary. As you know, the Catholic Church is the largest religious institution in the world, and a quarter of Americans are adherents. The Catholic Church is a hierarchical church with a clear chain of accountability. It is only natural that it receives such scrutiny. As you acknowledged in your blog, there are recent developments in the Church that are “well-worth discussing and hardly exempt from legitimate questioning.” So when a newspaper undertakes this kind of coverage, it should not be seen as anti-Catholic. If so, we could equally be accused of being anti-Every religious group that we have called to task, and there are many. You cite Paul Vitello’s front page story about sexual abuse in the Orthodox Jewish community as evidence that the Times is anti-Catholic. Paul and I find it a hard argument to understand. The Times has written about the sexual abuse of minors by clergy of many faiths: Jews, Southern Baptists, mainline Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Orthodox Christians, evangelicals. But the abuse story has been bigger for the Catholic Church simply because of the quantitative facts: there are more priests accused, more alleged victims, more countries involved, more settlements, more years since the problem first became public, more legal and financial consequences and simply more people affected. In mentioning my piece about a priest who had an affair with an adult woman, you imply that there was no reason to run a story now that is 20 years old. You neglected to acknowledge that this piece was written now because the priest’s son is dying of brain cancer, he believes the church and the priest have failed him, and because the priest was still serving in a parish where neither his parishioners nor his bishop had knowledge of his philandering until I began reporting. One of the women he was involved with was allegedly a minor, and at one point the priest suggested that a pregnancy he was responsible for be terminated by an abortion. I wrote the story because church officials have said privately to me over the years that priests who violate their vows with adult women are far more common than priests who sexually abuse minors. Also, I have also been contacted over the years by adult women in similar situations. I wrote about this woman because she was willing to go public with her experience and had the legal documentation and photographs to prove that this was more than a case of he said/she said. You claim that the Times ran this story instead of covering Afghanistan, health care and the Sudan, but as you know the Times is regularly full of stories about all these issues. And finally, you cite as “anti-Catholic” the coverage of Pope Benedict XVI’s new structure for welcoming traditionalist Anglicans into the Catholic Church. The Times’ story did state clearly, as you pointed out, that the arrangement was a response to requests from some Anglicans. Certainly, the Vatican is “welcoming” these Anglicans, but many other Anglicans feel as if the church were making a bid for their allegiances. Our story used language reflecting these various points of view. Our coverage did not differ much from most of the media coverage, except that we were far more tempered than some. Archbishop Dolan, you and I have known one another since we first met in Rome in 1998 when you were rector at the North American College. We met again years later when I was doing a story about you and several others whom I dubbed “Healer Bishops” who were trying to help the church recover from the scandal over sexual abuse by priests. I am pained that your blog selectively overlooked all the articles in the Times that you and other bishops in the church have praised over the years because you found them fair, and there are many (including some about your appointment to the Archdiocese of New York). This is why I cannot accept your characterization of the Times as “anti-Catholic.” This weekend, I am going to the conference of the American Academy of Religion, the largest society of religion scholars, to receive their top journalism award for a three-part series I did last year on the Catholic Church. The subject was international priests serving in the church, and the series included stories about a Kenyan priest beloved by his Kentucky parishioners, an American vicar who selects foreign priests to serve in his diocese, and why so many young Indians choose vocations in the Catholic Church. To do these pieces, I spent many weeks in American parishes and a week living in a seminary in India. If the Times were “anti-Catholic,” why would it devote the reporting time and three consecutive front page stories to a fair and affectionate look at the contemporary Catholic Church? Sincerely, Laurie Goodstein National Religion Correspondent The New York Times
Posted By: Laurie Goodstein
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
I think that just about puts Dolan back in the box!
She is one classy lady.
Why didn’t she apologize?
It seems she beleives she has no duty to preserve the church from scandal. In this she is wrong. She and her newspaper have offended the Lord’s Church in New York. She needs to apologize for the part she played in the offense.
Laurie Goodstein asks a question:
“I am going to the conference of the American Academy of Religion, the largest society of religion scholars, to receive their top journalism award for a three-part series I did last year on the Catholic Church. The subject was international priests serving in the church, and the series included stories about a Kenyan priest beloved by his Kentucky parishioners, an American vicar who selects foreign priests to serve in his diocese, and why so many young Indians choose vocations in the Catholic Church….If the Times were ‘anti-Catholic,’ why would it devote the reporting time and three consecutive front page stories to a fair and affectionate look at the contemporary Catholic Church?”
Answer: To call attention to the domestic vocation “crisis”, thereby implicitly adding heft to the NYTimes bias toward ordination of women, openly active homosexual clergy and allowing men to marry. That’s why. This is hardly “fair and affectionate”.
Has the Times EVER written a series on an American parish priest behaving admirably and quietly doing the Lord’s work? No.
And isn’t it telling that her series about American parishes being staffed by foreign priests won what she says was the “top” prize for writing about religion? All her good buddies dig that sort of story.
As for the coverage of 40 cases of child sexual abuse in the last year in little old Brooklyn (as I recall)that went before Rabbinic Courts rather than to the police, she completely ignored Archbishop Dolan’s point about the attitude of the paper towards such matters: pounding outrage about cases dredged out of the Catholic past with demands for accountibility and resignations vs. an impassive tone of disinterest when recounting CURRENT behavior within the Jewish community.
I was somewhat sympathetic with Dolan’s editorial, but I think Goodstein makes her points well. The sad nature of anti-Catholicism is that they are probably both right somewhat… I would find it hard to believe that NYT didn’t have an americanist agenda, but at the same time, conservative mouthpieces aside, they are probably above covering flat-out lies.
The fact is that the Church does not fit the ideology of the Times. That is going to be reflected in the coverage. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. This isn’t rocket science.
Adam -
That is a fair point. But don’t you think when the evidence is subjective and on issues of editoral judgement (how newsworthy a story is compared to other events of the day; if it is placed above or below the fold and on what page, etc) that it would be best that rather than the Archbishop, a chief pastor of souls, to make the case and (I think) drag himself down, that maybe it would have been better for a notable Catholic professional journalist to do so?
I would like to see the authoritative sources for Ms. Goodstein’s claim that sex abuse is more prevalent in the Catholic Church than in the other religious communities she mentions. More than likely the misdeeds of the other groups just don’t get the same attention from the Times and other media. The rampant abuse of students and patients by public school teachers and psychiatrists (the clergy of the liberal secularists), for example, exceeds anything that has even been alleged against Catholic priests. How much has the Times written about those ongoing scandals?
I would like to see the authoritative sources for Ms. Goodstein’s claim that sex abuse is more prevalent in the Catholic Church than in the other religious communities she mentions.
She doesn’t say sex abuse is more prevalent in the Catholic Church. She says the Catholic Church is the biggest church, and therefore the numbers are larger. Even if sex abuse were less prevalent in the Catholic Church than in other denominations, there still could be more cases of Catholic sex abuse, simply because there are more Catholics.
Why didn’t she apologize…..Seriously?
Let me attempt and answer. News media outlets rarely apologize. They are just reporting. As for desire to protect the Church from scandal. Why is it her duty and not these men who 1) violate their vows as clerics and religious or 2) the men who hide the scandal rather than publicly demanding apologies for defaming the Church.
Here is a news bite for us…the Media doesn’t not like the Religions….period. In a secular age, people of belief appear irrational. I hate to say it, but its not just Roman Catholics that are the brunt.
Catholics, if they check the words of Jesus, Paul, and others in the New Testament, will find things like:
Then, from the Spiritual Works of Mercy (which we don’t hear about much any more) we have
• To bear wrongs patiently
• To forgive offences willingly
But then some Catholics, if their feelings are hurt by media coverage they don’t like, get angry and cry anti-Catholicism.
Jesus didn’t say, “It’s going to be easy for those of you who follow me. And if anyone hurts your feelings, or criticizes you in ways you think are unfair, accuse them of prejudice and demand an apology!”
Rarely do we see coverage for all the other religious insitutions she stated.
It’s ad nauseum when it comes to reporting on the Catholic Church. She can say what she wants, but readers know. Adding her tone is irresponsibly biased.
I salute the ArchBishop Dolan for speaking on behalf of the bias and the often large dose of media frenzy when it comes to the Church and ONLY to the Church.
Yes the spirit of anti Catholicism lives on. In fact – it has been said, the last acceptable prejudice is against the Catholic Church.
Yes the spirit of anti Catholicism lives on. In fact – it has been said, the last acceptable prejudice is against the Catholic Church.
Well, I suppose it’s unfortunate for the Catholics, but isn’t it truly wonderful that there is only one acceptable prejudice left? Back in the 1950s and 1960s when I was growing up, there were many acceptable prejudices. And now they’re all gone. That’s progress!
I am disappointed once again with the lack of insight in the most visible leadership in the Catholic Church. I love my faith. The defensiveness is nauseating and it only serves to contaminate our faith with the appearance of antagonism against those who speak about the failures of the system within which the people of the faith operate. This defensiveness clearly exhibits a weak faith and does nothing to exhibit the foundation of God’s Love that our faith is built upon.
Those who defend the faith such as Archbishop Dolan are afraid and their reaction to their fear is to defend and attack rather than create dialogue and understanding with those who are criticizing the faith.
If God hadn’t brought me home I never would have returned based on what I hear and read from the extroverts who have mutated the message of our Catholic Faith from Love to fear.
Hypocritical buncombe. Yes, real abuse and scandal is terrible and deserves objective reporting when it happens.
As someone mentioned, it is the vehement tone, spin, sensationalism, constant dredging up of the distant past, et al. which makes clear the motives behind the reporting. As Tony W notes, the rate and number of clergy involved in abuse, though appalling in itself, is quite low compared to the general population and other professions or groups.
There was a cover-up and by stating the media is sensationalistic is a defensive reaction to the widespread abuse and immorality of authorities whose responsibility is to be protective. Our faith is given much and much is expected. If those in authority cannot take the criticism then get out and find someone like John XXIII.
Preserving the Church from scandal? But who have done more to drown us in scandal than the bishops? I just discovered that they let pass a monstrous heresy in the text of the Roman Canon as newly translated. They actually posted the text on their website, apparently without having read it! As it now reads, the Roman Canon says that Mary was the mother of Joseph, a new Jocasta! See http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/11/virgin-mary-accused-of-incest-by-befuddled-american-bishops.html
And as things stand, the entire people of God are supposed to recite this blasphemous text next year!
dale dolens, “constant dredging up of the distant past” is the language of denial. Even the past of the Inquisition (c. 1200-1820) need to be dredged up.