Using the sexual abuse scandal as a backdrop, a dissident former bishop from Australia, Geoffrey Robinson, has penned a book on the Catholic Church. As a Statement from the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference clearly articulates, Robinson's book is riddled with serious theological and doctrinal concerns. The Conference also concluded that Robinson's book ultimately questions a number of Catholic fundamentals, including:

• the nature of Tradition;
• the inspiration of the Holy Scripture;
• the infallibility of the Councils and the Pope;
• the authority of the Creeds;
• the teaching authority of the Church;
• the nature of the ministerial priesthood; and
• central elements of the Church’s teaching of faith and morals.

In other words, Bishop Robinson's book stands in stark opposition to the most fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith. So when the lowly Robinson wrote to Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony to inform him that his book tour would include a stop in his diocese, it was the duty of the Cardinal to deny Robinson permission to speak. Canon 763 of the Code of Canon Law and paragraph 85 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church make it the obligation of bishops to protect the the sacred deposit of the faith.

Yet it a brute display of dishonesty - or flat-out ignorance - two articles in the Los Angeles Times have given the utterly false and misleading impression that Cardinal Mahony denied Robinson permission to speak in an effort to silence the former bishop because of his views on the sexual abuse scandal. The Times's reporting is incredibly erroneous - and dishonest. The culprits are "Times Staff Writer" Duke Helfand and opinion writer Karin Klein.

Helfand's article states:

In his book, "Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church: Reclaiming the Spirit of Jesus," Robinson argues that the church's celibacy requirement has contributed to the sex abuse crisis. He openly criticizes the papacy for failing to provide leadership. And he wonders whether the Catholic Church has been more concerned with managing the scandal than confronting it.

Those positions have put Robinson squarely at odds with church leaders on three continents.

WRONG. Helfand is either being dishonest or dim in his reporting. As noted above, it is because of Robinson's doctrinal positions, not his positions on the handling of the scandal, that have put Robinson "squarely at odds" with church leaders. In fact, as their release clearly states, the Australian Conference PRAISED Bishop Robinson for his work during the abuse scandal. Helfand saw this and reported this. So why does he mislead his readers?

Helfand's agenda in the article is clear. He and the Times clearly want their readers to believe that the abuse scandal is the real reason that Cardinal Mahony denied Robinson permission to speak. And by all indications, Helfand's scurrilous goal was achieved. Days later, the Times published a number of indignant letters to the editor (6/14/08). One letter cried how "Mahony is trying to stop Robinson from speaking on the mishandling of the clergy sexual abuse scandal by the hierarchy." See how Helfand's dishonesty was interpreted? For Helfand and the Times, this is "mission accomplished."

In addition, Cardinal Mahony himself has readily acknowledged that he personally mishandled certain episodes related to the scandal. He has also attempted a number of significant steps to confront the scandal and promote healing.

Helfand's dishonest article contains several more problems:

... Helfand makes no mention of the fact that Cardinal Mahony's missive to Robinson was very much a response to a letter that Robinson himself had written to the Cardinal informing him of his plan to visit!

... Helfand also makes no mention of the fact that Robinson's letter to Mahony bears all the hallmarks of a crafty publicity stunt. If the Cardinal did not respond to Robinson's letter, Cardinal Mahony would be giving the false impression that he approved or welcomed the former bishop's warped theology. The former bishop could then use this as leverage in legitimizing his book. Yet when Cardinal Mahony and other bishops upheld their duties and responded precisely as the Church calls them to do, it gave Robinson just the kind of publicity that every author dreams of. And Helfand and the other blockheads at the Times fell for Robinson's apparent stunt hook, line, and sinker.

... Helfand refers to Robinson's book as "new." Well, the liberal National Catholic Reporter reviewed the book in September 2007 (that's nine months ago, folks). In addition, Amazon.com lists a paperback of the book as being available since January 1st. "New," Duke?

... Helfand propagates Robinson's claim that resigned as bishop because "he could not continue to serve as a bishop of a church that left him with such 'profound reservations'." Helfand did not even bother to research this. A July 2004 announcement of Bishop Robinson's retirement clearly states that his exit was "due to ill health." Which is it, Geoff? Duke?

... Helfand and the Times put up their article on June 7. Yet this entire episode had fully transpired almost a full month earlier. Several sites (like this one and this one) had already discussed the issue. Why are Helfand and the Times putting old news so prominently on the front page?

The sub-title to a weak June 12 opinion article by a naive Karin Klein states, "Former Bishop Geoffrey Robinson's work with victims puts him at odds with the church." Wha--? This is flat-out false. Again, it it not Robinson's views on the scandal or his "work with victims" that the Church objects to. It's his dissident doctrinal views.

+_+_+_+_+_+

Finally ... This entire episode is hardly worthy of the front-page, above-the-fold article that the Times devoted to it (in the case of Helfand's piece). At most, this could have been a "California in Brief" item buried in the B section. But the Times fabricated the story and placed it on their front page.

The Times is clearly dedicated to going out of its way to portray the Catholic Church in the most unflattering way possible whenever it can. We've cited the Times several times before for its anti-Catholic tilt. (See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.)

Shame on Helfand, Klein, and the Los Angeles Times for their awful, bigoted journalism.

+_+_+_+_+_+

Previous:

Clueless on Catholicism (III): Errors, Poor Information Mar L.A. Times Op-Ed On Condoms

Clueless on Catholicism (Again): LA Times Touts Women 'Ordination'

Clueless on Catholicism (and More) at the Los Angeles Times