It could be Christmas approaching, or it could be the Catholic Church's success last month in its support of Proposition 8, the initiative to restore marriage in California. But it's curious to see what's been on the minds of the folks at the Los Angeles Times in the past few weeks:

1. "Pope's new edict on the priesthood" (Mon. Nov. 17, 2008, editorial): The Times finds it "troubling" that the Church employs psychologists to screen candidates for the priesthood. It also goes without saying that the Times does not like the Church's policy of disallowing men with "deep-seated" homosexual tendencies to be priests. In the end, the Times finds the Church's policies "cruel" and "unprofessional."

2. "What would Mary do?" (Sun. Nov. 30, 2008, editorial): Surprise! The Times likes the idea of women priests in the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the Times doesn't exhibit the slightest clue as to why the Catholic Church can't ordain women. "Holy Orders" is a sacrament, and sacraments were instituted by Jesus himself. The Church simply does not have the authority to change a sacrament. Has the Times heard of JPII's 1994 "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis"?

3. "Solace, for some, is set in stone" (Mon. Dec. 1, 2008, top of page A1, "Column One" story): No hit on the Catholic Church would be complete without revisiting the sex abuse scandals. The article details how monuments have been built at a number churches around the country with the hope that they "'might provide solace' to survivors and their family members." Indeed, the article recounts tales of abuse that are awfully angering and terribly sad. But as the Times continues to hammer the Church on this issue, it fails to consider: What other organization has built tributes to victims of sex abuse at the hands of its members? A leading expert in education has stated, "The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests." "100 times"! With this stat in mind: Will the Los Angeles Unified School District be building monuments for the enormous number of students who have been abused by its teachers? Why not? Does the media really care about child abuse, or just the vocation of the abuser?

There's a lot one can say about each of the articles above. But, basically, the Times continues to misrepresent the actual teaching of the Catholic Church while singling it out for views which are opposite of those of the Times. (We've addressed this in a number of previous posts: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

A great response to the Times' incessant bashing of the Church can be seen in a recent letter to the editor in the paper (Sat. Dec. 6, 2008). Check it out:

With regard to the editorial "What would Mary do?" -- and based on the anti-Catholic vitriol in The Times' reporting and editorial pages -- Mary would cancel her subscription.

Charles O'Connell
Stevenson Ranch

Right on, Charles.