Writer Larry Doyle: Anti-Catholic

Rightfully offended Catholics were outraged by the piece (see this article and this statement from Dr. Bill Donohue at the Catholic League).

Doyle and Huffington Post then continued to pile on their attack on the Church by publishing a follow-up article a few days later in which Doyle continued to stand by what he originally said.

Allow us up to cue up the late Peter Viereck once again: “Catholic-baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals.”

By the way, this is not the first time that we have sited Huffington Post for its flagrant and unapologetic distaste for the Catholic Church.

Below is just a small sample of over 2,100 comments that were posted:

“Maybe, if he finds some robust young altar boys to molest, he can muster the strength to continue running the world’s largest and oldest criminal organization.”

“All that hate takes a lot out of a guy."

“The holy catholic church needs a large number of well placed heart attacks, beginning at the very top and working its way through the curia.”
A reply: “PAINFUL heart attacks. Well said.”

“I’d like to think that the guilt of the mistreatment of children under his watch is killing him but the man obviously has no morals or srupples” (sic)

“Must be the lack of little boys, They are hard to come by these days. This clown should be burned at the stake for covering up catholic priest abuses. SHAME, SHAME, and SHAME on all catholics."

“The Pope’s doctor said, have one little boy and call me in the morning.”

“He might be too tired from participating in too many pedophile activities? About time the old abuser retires, never to be seen.”

“the nazi had one to many alter boys this year” (sic)

“…get rid of this 2000 year corporation that rapes kids…”

“That man looks scarier and more evil than any serial killer I have ever seen. God help us all.”

“Tired and weak. He is a reflection of the Catholicism in general.”

“Who cares???? …. He’s head pedophile in chief of the world’s greatest organized organization of child abusers!!!!!”

“The weight of the gold cross around his neck must be taking its toll”
A reply: “maybe if he jammed it somewhere, it would help him stand up straighter”

“So many boys, so little time.”

“Hopefully he’ll have enough energy to continue to defend child rape. God bless.”

A significant percentage of the comments are downright venomous.

And here’s the kicker: These comments were screened and approved for publication. At the start of the comments section, HuffPo clearly states,

“Our moderators screen these comments before they are published.”

In other words, someone with Huffington Post actually read these comments and approved them for publication.

G-o-o-d g-r-i-e-f. Would HuffPo have allowed such comments directed at another religion or a leader of another religion? One seriously doubts it.

It is time to cue the late Peter Viereck once again: “Catholic-baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals”

However, in the midst of the over-the-top, breathless news coverage of recent events (see this huge headline at Huffington Post), the media has once again missed a number of important elements in its reporting.

1. Many in the public are unaware that two computer technicians, a diocesan lawyer, a monsignor, a vice-chancellor, a psychiatric doctor, and a deacon all allegedly saw the disturbing images from Fr. Ratigan's computer, but none of them officially alerted law enforcement.

According to an independent report of the entire Ratigan episode, known as the Graves Report, Bishop Finn stated that he "never saw the images" from the priest's laptop. Indeed, as the Graves Report concluded:

"As soon as the photographs were discovered on Fr. Ratigan's laptop, police should have been formally notified. Although various individuals undoubtedly believed that someone else would make the call, the fact remains that a phone call could have been made by anyone and everyone with knowledge of the pictures."

2. As soon as a dubious photograph was found on Fr. Ratigan's computer, a Church official did speak with a police captain.

Multiple media reports have given the false impression that the diocese did "nothing" after a computer technician found a dubious photograph of an underage girl on Ratigan’s computer in December 2010.

Unfortunately, the police captain, upon given a description of the photograph over the phone, opined to Msgr. Murphy that the picture likely did not fit the definition of child pornography and would not be prosecutable.

https://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile/52721715-68/ratigan-diocese-computer-finn.html.csp

The mistake – obviously – is that the diocese still should have immediately removed Ratigan from ministry and filed a police report anyways.

3. Fr. Ratigan worked at a parish with a school. The school's principal and teachers appear to have violated Missouri's mandated reporting law, yet prosecutors have declined to prosecute them. Instead, Kansas City prosecutors have targeted the higher profile target of Bishop Finn.

The principal of the school, Julie Hess, wrote in a May 2010 letter of concern to the diocese (handled by Monsignor Robert Murphy) that the priest was "at school every day for long periods of time."

Principal Hess' letter also outlined page after page of "inappropriate conduct with children" by Ratigan and suspicious photography of vulnerable children by the priest.

Missouri's law is clear: If teachers and school principals have "reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been or may be subjected to abuse or neglect or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse or neglect, that person shall immediately report or cause a report to be made to [the state's Children's Division]." The state adds, "Reasonable cause to suspect means a standard of reasonable suspicion, rather than conclusive proof." Failing to report is a Class A misdemeanor in Missouri.

It certainly appears that if Principal Hess and teachers at St. Patrick had immediately fulfilled their legal duty to report "reasonable suspicion" of abuse to the state, Fr. Ratigan's sick actions could have been stopped in their tracks much earlier.

Yet prosecutors have not criminally charged any single school official or teacher for their apparent failure to report to the state. Why? Could it be that prosecuting a Catholic bishop yields a bigger "splash" and a higher profile for the region's law enforcement? It is not an unreasonable question.

4. Criminal charges of "failing to report" are rarely executed, and it is even more rare that they are prosecuted. And despite the vehement denials from law enforcement in Kansas City that it has not singled out the Catholic Church, it sure seems like it has.

Missouri law enforcement hardly had to lift a finger in this case. It was the diocese who handed over a flash drive to police – albeit too slowly – with criminal images from Fr. Ratigan's computer.

Without the initiative and actions of Bishop Finn, Father Ratigan could still be in ministry today, and prosecutors would not have charged the criminal priest.

[ADDENDUM: We want to direct readers to an excellent article and summary of the case at Catholic News Agency: "Bishop Finn indictment is legally defective" by Michael Quinlan,
a lawyer in St. Louis for 25 years.]

As faulty as Laurie Goodstein's article was last week, the offering from Dirk Johnson (Sun., 7/31/11) doesn't fare much better. Johnson's one-sided piece omits a number of important facts in reporting the issue.

Johnson's article is essentially a positive profile of a dissident, Chicago-based group named Call to Action (CTA). In the name of "reform," for the last several years CTA has been attempting to push the cause for female "priests" in the Catholic Church. It has forcefully supported a schismatic priest, Fr. Roy Bourgeois, from the Maryknoll Order, who has openly opposed Church teaching and supported female "priests."

Johnson's article leaves out a number of important facts:

1. In reporting the dissident Fr. Bourgeois' conflicts with Church authorities, Johnson makes no mention of the fact that the priest was reportedly excommunicated from the Catholic Church on November 24, 2008. (Goodstein made a similar mistake last week.)

2. Johnson makes no attempt to explain that Holy Orders, by which men are ordained to the priesthood, is a sacrament in the Catholic Church. This is an important distinction. Most Protestant denominations and other "churches" don't recognize this. The Catholic Church affirms that sacraments were instituted by Jesus Himself, and the Church simply "has no authority whatsoever" to change the nature of something that Jesus established. (See Pope John Paul II's 1994 "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.")

As with Goodstein a week earlier, Johnson attempts to portray Call to Action and the movement for "womenpriests" as being much larger and influential than it is. As we relayed last week, the "womenpriest" movement is a contingent that is small, geriatric, and schismatic.

—-

As slanted as Johnson's profile is, an ugly piece on the same issue by Michele Somerville at Huffington Post may be even worse. While committing many of the same mistakes as the NYT's Goodstein and Johnson, Somerville actually characterizes the Pope and those who surround him as a "gang of mean, power-drunk perverts who aren't all that interested in God." Wow …

Somerville then goes on to falsely claim that the impossibility of female ordination in the Catholic Church is "arbitrary and flimsy, it's a variation on 'because we said so.'"

In claiming that the all-male priesthood "is a man-made 'law'," Somerville illustrates perfectly that one can write for HuffPostReligion without actually knowing much about religion.

Interestingly, Ms. Somerville identifies herself as a poet.

Amen to that.

Rev. Joseph Fessio is the editor-in-chief of Ignatius Press, which is publishing the interview book Light of the World, from which the Pope's notable remarks are gleaned. Fr. Fessio is quoted in the New York Times, "It would be wrong to say, 'Pope Approves Condoms.' He's saying it's immoral, but in an individual case the use of a condom could be an awakening to someone that he's got to be more conscious of his actions."

Dr. Janet E. Smith at Catholic World Report has an excellent explanation of the Pope's remarks. She also provides the actual interview exchange from the upcoming book.

Dr. Smith's piece is a must-read for those who wish to examine this story. Although the following snippet from Dr. Smith does not do justice to her entire piece, here is part of what she wrote:

We must note that the example that Pope Benedict gives for the use of a condom is a male prostitute; thus, it is reasonable to assume that he is referring to a male prostitute engaged in homosexual acts. The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices. He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature. The Holy Father does not in any way think the use of condoms is a part of the solution to reducing the risk of AIDS. As he explicitly states, the true solution involves "humanizing sexuality." …

Would it be proper to conclude that the Holy Father would support the distribution of condoms to male prostitutes? Nothing he says here indicates that he would. Public programs of distribution of condoms run the risk of conveying approval for homosexual sexual acts. The task of the Church is to call individuals to conversion and to moral behavior; it is to help them understand the meaning and purpose of sexuality and to help them come to know Christ, who will provide the healing and graces that enable us to live in accord with the meaning and purpose of sexuality.

Is Pope Benedict indicating that heterosexuals who have HIV could reduce the wrongness of their acts by using condoms? No. In his second answer he says that the Church does not find condoms to be a “real or moral solution.” That means the Church does not find condoms either to be moral or an effective way of fighting the transmission of HIV. As the Holy Father indicates in his fuller answer, the most effective portion of programs designed to reduce the transmission of HIV are calls to abstinence and fidelity.

In other words, there's a lot more to this than meets the eye. Careful analysis is needed in examining what the Holy Father said, and careful analysis is something that is too often lacking when the major media reports on issues related to the Catholic Church.

As Phil Lawler, from CatholicCulture.org reports: "Did the Pope really say that condom use is sometimes justified? No; that's not what he said."