Kudos to Ralph Cipriano (r), who uncovered the wild tales of Philadelphia accuser
Dan Gallagher (aka 'Billy Doe') (l)

The claims of sex abuse made by Philadelphia accuser Dan Gallagher that led to the convictions of two Catholic priests and a school teacher are so wildly outlandish and inconsistent that even one of the most staunch critics of the Church, the National Catholic Reporter newspaper, is now acknowledging that the accuser's claims are "utterly different versions of reality."

Surprisingly, the Reporter has become the first national publication to reveal that the recent high-profile convictions in Philadelphia appear unjust and rooted in legal and ethical chicanery.

"Cunning deception by civil society"

The Reporter's shocking admission comes in a recent editorial that it published shortly after it ran a lengthy summary article about the Philadelphia trial narrative by veteran journalist Ralph Cipriano, who for the last year has doggedly investigated this disturbing story.

To recap: Philadelphia's Msgr. William J. Lynn, Fr. Charles Engelhardt, and former teacher Bernard Shero have all been criminally convicted in the past year for crimes related to claims of abuse by Gallagher. But as Cipriano has uncovered (and we suspected all along), there were serious legal, procedural, and ethical troubles with the charges against all of these men. (See our complete coverage.)

Indeed, this site's early analysis of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office 2011 grand jury report, which led to the criminal charges against the clergymen, found the report to be rife with falsehoods, misinformation, and hyperbole. And since the end of the trial, Cipriano himself has documented at least 20 clear factual errors in the report that have yet to be corrected by the D.A.'s Office.

Naturally, the mainstream media been indifferent to this glaring injustice and has merely parroted the talking points of the Philadelphia D.A.

However, even the Reporter cannot help but admit that there are "serious questions raised about the legal proceedings" that led to the false guilty plea by former priest Edward Avery and the high-profile convictions of Lynn, Engelhardt, and Shero. The paper suggests that "cunning deception by civil society" lurked behind the unjust prosecutions of Catholic clergy in Philadelphia.

As the Reporter has long been an ardent critic of the Church hierarchy, the Reporter's editorial was groundbreaking in that it resisited its usual witch hunt mentality.

Philadelphia: Just the tip of the iceberg

National Catholic Reporter's
Dennis Coday

This site was the first to uncover a long and troubling collaboration between members of the Philadelphia D.A.'s Office and leaders of the anti-Catholic advocacy group SNAP (Part I and Part II of our Special Report have photos and video evidence), indicating that the two conspired to maliciously target Catholic clergy in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia Assistant D.A. Mariana Sorensen – whom many have identified as the "architect" of the attack against the Church for the past decade – is a woman whose profound animus against the Catholic Church has been thoroughly chronicled. While aligning herself with SNAP, Sorensen has publicly championed legislative efforts specifically designed to financially cripple the Catholic Church. She has also deliberately cast Catholic clergy in the most mean-spirited and sinister light in order to advance her bigoted efforts.

And according to Cipriano, Sorensen most recently engaged in a sordid "whisper campaign" to try to prevent the Reporter from publishing his article, an ill-fated and pathetic episode which only underscores her lack of respect for the truth and her venom against the Church. Once again, however, Sorensen's malicious efforts have gone completely unchallenged by a complicit press.

Then there is Sorensen's close collaborator, SNAP lawyer Marci Hamilton, who co-wrote the 2005 grand jury report with Sorensen. Hamilton's prejudiced attacks against the Catholic Church, which she parades as "scholarship," have been roundly discredited as "disorganized," "riddled with errors," and "dreadful." So it was no surprise that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia issued a 73-page shredding of the pair's 2005 report and categorized it as "reckless rhetoric" and "irresponsible speculation," while rebutting its most inflammatory claims as "categorically false."

In addition, in recent years SNAP has feted members of the Philly D.A.'s Office at SNAP's annual conferences.

In its editorial, the Reporter copmpletely ignores these seedy alliances and the obvious agenda of the participants in Philadelphia. It claims the folks shedding light on these truths are "fantasists." But while the Reporter engages in playground name-calling, this site has dealt with the facts. So you be the judge.

Two cases built on sand

Since the dust has settled on the cases in Philadelphia, it is now clear that the Philly D.A.'s Office tossed aside all justice in its zeal to prosecute Catholic clergy. It is hard to imagine any clear-thinking Philly D.A. building cases on the two principle accusers here: Gallagher and Mark Bukowski.

Bukowski is the accuser of Fr. James J. Brennan, whom a jury voted to acquit 11-1 in a criminal trial last year. This site was the first to publicly broadcast Bukowski's lengthy criminal record, which included shocking crimes of fraud and filing false police reports that seriously undermined the guy's credibility.

We also relayed the extensive criminal background of triple-accuser Gallagher, a guy whom Cipriano has investigated extensively. Cipriano has most recently described Gallagher as a "a 24-year-old former daily marijuana smoker, magic mushroom eater, LSD tripper and heroin addict who was kicked out of two high schools, has been arrested a half-dozen times as an adult for drugs and retail theft, and has been in and out of 23 different drug rehabs."

If Gallagher were not making his claims against Catholic priests, no sensible prosecutor would build a prosecution based on his veracity.

"A shallow victory"?

In acknowledging the troubling aspects of the events in Philadelphia over the past two years, the Reporter says that the recent convictions now appear to be "a shallow victory."

In truth, the word "victory" should not be applied to this episode at all. The only "victory" would be an investigation by the Pennsylvania Attorney General into the foul actions of the Philly D.A.'s Office.

The Reporter also needs to look into the mirror. The paper should ask itself if it has helped to foster the hysterical climate that has led to this travesty of justice. Indeed, over the years the Reporter has always given glowing and uncritical exposure to the very same posse of individuals who made this disastrous chapter in Philadelphia an appalling reality.

And if the Reporter thinks that this Philadelphia episode is a lone anomaly when it comes to false accusations against Catholic priests, it is the one who is truly "fantasist."

Fr. Engelhardt and Bernard Shero are scheduled to be sentenced on June 12.

Engaging media bigotry head-on: Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki, Diocese of Springfield, and
Bishop Michael J. Sheridan, Diocese of Colorado Springs

Ever since Pope Benedict announced his resignation, the media has given a special voice to the usual cadre of anti-Catholic bigots and malcontents lashing out at the Church over the decades-old abuse issue.

However, in what may be the beginning of a positive development, two bishops are finally engaging in the public debate with these haters and calling them out for their inaccuracies. The time for bishops to speak out against the media jihad against the Catholic Church is long overdue.

Bishop Paprocki steps up

Seizing on Benedict's announcement earlier this month, so-called Episcopal priest Tom Ehrich unleashed an angry and bigoted screed in which he stated that the Catholic Church is "uninterested in sex abuse scandals beyond their litigation costs," "stuck in the 19th century," "providing safe cover for oppression and intolerance," "against oppressed peoples," and "homophobic." It was an unhinged screed of such magnitude that it easily could have found a home in the anti-Catholic New York Times or a 19th-century Know Nothing pamphlet.

However, whereas most Church leaders and spokespeople would have shrugged at such a column and done nothing, Springfield, Illinois, Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki publicly responded forcefully to Ehrich's ugly rant.

Bishop Paprocki penned a reply for The State Journal-Register newspaper in Springfield under the headline, "Tom Ehrich column promoted religious bigotry." The bishop took Ehrich to task:

"Columnists are indeed entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Ehrich got it wrong in several ways.

"I cannot imagine a secular newspaper publishing such hostile vitriol against any other religion except the Catholic church … [I]t is untrue and patently malicious to declare that Roman Catholicism is 'uninterested in sex abuse scandals beyond their litigation costs.' I know of many cases where dioceses have compensated victims long after their claims were legally barred by the statute of limitations."

Kudos to Bishop Paprocki for standing up to Ehrich's campaign of misinformation and hate.

Defending the faith: Bishop Michael Sheridan

The National Catholic Reporter is an angry, dissident rag that has little connection to the Catholic Church on faith. Its vitriol against the Catholic Church cannot be overstated, and it is obsessive in its coverage of sex abuse allegations from 30, 40, and 50 years ago as a pretext for bashing the Church hierarchy for whom it holds in such contempt for being faithful to Church teaching. In the past we have cited the Reporter for its blatant dissent, dishonesty, and mean-spiritedness.

Now, Colorado Springs Bishop Michael John Sheridan has joined Kansas City-St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn in calling out the Reporter for its flagrant opposition to the Church. In an article in LifeSiteNews.com, Sheridan cited the Reporter as "an embarrassment to the Catholic Church" and opined, "I don't understand why some of these publications use the word Catholic when in some of their editorial stances they stand absolutely opposed to Church dogma."

For far too long, bishops and diocesan spokespeople have been overly timid in responding to false and bigoted attacks against the Church. Bravo to Bishop Paprocki and Bishop Sheridan for finally speaking out in the public square and making the Church's case.

We hope that more Church leaders will follow the lead of these two brave bishops.

'Voices of the Disgraceful'?: National Catholic Reporter's Jamie L. Manson (l) and Phyllis Zagano (r)

The 10th anniversary conference of Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) in Boston this month proved to be anything but "faithful" to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

Youthful rebellion

TheMediaReport.com was there when Jamie L. Manson, a writer for the dissident newspaper National Catholic Reporter, unleashed a vitriolic attack on Catholics who have the audacity to be faithful to the Magisterium.

The title of Manson's talk was "Church and young Catholics: Is there a future?" but Manson reserved her harshest venom for those young Catholics who have celebrated Church orthodoxy. After deriding those who would attend "World Youth Day," Manson unleashed a barrage that can only described as bigoted, condescending, and nasty.

According to Manson, orthodox Catholics:

• "don't want to see women's equality in church or even in society" (!);
• "do not want to see gays and lesbians and transgendered people treated with dignity";
• "are in denial about the sex abuse crisis";
• "are afraid of cultural flux and uncertainty"; and
• "are afraid of the world."

Without providing a shred of proof to support her attack, Manson also went on to imply that young, orthodox Catholics are "not immersed in the world." She then accused the institutional Church, which she compared to a "burning building," of creating a Church of "exclusivity" and "orthodoxy tests."

It was truly mean stuff. But, then again, Manson is shilling a dissident, anti-Church agenda. Manson has served on the board of the "Women's Ordination Conference" and has been active with a gay, lesbian, and transgender advocacy group called "Dignity USA." (While studying at Yale Divinity School, she worked under the dissident theologian Sr. Margaret Farley (a fact that drew applause from the sea of white hair at the conference).)

But first there was Phyllis

The night before Manson's assault, VOTF presented the National Catholic Reporter's Phyllis Zagano with the group's "St. Catherine of Siena Award."

Fortunately, Zagano was not nearly as choleric as Manson. However, from the way Zagano spoke of St. Catherine, one would have thought that the 14th-century figure was an anti-hierarchical zealot who was forcefully muffled by an all-male clergy. Instead, Catherine was an admired advocate who fought for the unification of the Church in a time of schism and was a pioneer whom the Church declared a saint within a century of her death and later a Doctor of the Church.

As numerous biographies have noted (this, this, and this, for example), so deep was her thirst to serve Christ and the Church, Catherine once cut off her hair in her youth as an act of defiance to her family, who ardently opposed her wishes for a religious life and wanted her to get married. And within a few years after her brash move (which was suggested by a Dominican friar, by the way), Catherine convinced her family of her desires, and she was soon donning the habit of a Dominican tertiary. The rest is history.

However, when talking about the life of St. Catherine, Zagano implied that that Catherine believed that "the only way" for her to speak the Gospel in her era of a male-dominated Church was to cut off her hair, "abandon her femininity," and become like a man. "How like today!" Zagano exclaimed.

What gobbledegook.

The real agenda surfaces

Predictably, Zagano addressed a recurring theme from many at VOTF: women's ordination. Zagano has long argued that the Catholic Church can, and should, ordain women as deacons. She reiterated this point in her speech, and near the end of her speech, she added:

"Will any of the goals of Voice of the Faithful or the hopes of women for ordination be met? I would advise: don't quit. Don't quit, because if what you do is from the Lord, it cannot be stopped and it cannot be denied."

Although Zagano did not explicitly make any case at all for women in the priesthood, one could not help but wonder if the audience was inferring that she was. And if there were any doubt that the VOTF crowd of aging left-wingers want to see women in the priesthood, prominently displayed near the entrance of an exhibition room at the conference was the following can't-miss poster:

Yes, the same Roy Bourgeois: the staunch advocate for female "priests," whom VOTF nominated for its "Priest of Integrity Award" in 2009. Bourgeois is also a favorite fundraiser for the National Catholic Reporter.

Stay tuned for more about the 2012 VOTF Conference in the coming weeks.

Sinful journalism: Joshua J. McElwee

In fact, even a cursory look at the 1985 letter reveals that such a claim is blatantly untrue!

The author of the feckless piece is Joshua J. McElwee, a "staff writer" at the discordant publication.

A simple case muddled by an anti-Church agenda

The case is not very complicated. In 1985, the Archdiocese of Birmingham, England, sent a letter to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles on behalf of one of its priests who wanted to work in the United States.

The letter reportedly stated in part:

"[The cleric's] work as a priest has been highly regarded ever since his ordination fourteen years ago.

"He has shown considerable talent in recruiting groups of lay workers to assist in various capacities …

"Since his ordination he has regularly done summer vacation work in various American parishes and from time to time expressed a desire to join an American Diocese.

"The immediate reason for his being in the United States just now is that a few months ago he met a man with whom he had an unwholesome relationship about thirteen years ago.

"We have no reason to believe that there has been any recurrence of this problem, but [the priest] says that he would feel safer a long distance away and untraceable by this man."

One notices right away that the letter says absolutely nothing about any underage abuse or crime, and there is nothing in the letter that suggests the priest had had any problems with minors. It indicates a priest – likely gay – seeking to get as far away as possible from a source of disruption.

The Church takes immediate action

It turns out, however, that the priest had actually been suspected in England of abusing underage boys. Yet the Archdiocese of Los Angeles did not know this until some five years later, in 1993, when it received another letter from England.

This second letter stated that the priest had been accused of sexual abuse of children, and that he was being recalled home to the UK.

What did the Archdiocese of Los Angeles do? It immediately revoked his faculties and sent him packing back to England.

The archdiocese heard nothing of the guy until 2008, fifteen years after it expelled him, when it received an anonymous phone call saying that the former priest was managing a Southern California trailer park. At that point, even though the guy was a merely a former employee of the Church, it immediately notified the police.

Most notably, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has never received any allegation whatsoever of any sexual wrongdoing by the guy when he was employed in L.A.

Church-haters see an opportunity to bash the Church

But the Reporter's McElwee doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good hit piece on the Church. McElwee lines up the usual suspects of professional Church critics to argue that Los Angeles somehow should have known that the priest from England was a child molester.

McElwee turns to the perpetually angry Church-basher Patrick J. Wall, an employee of the notorious anti-Catholic Southern California contingency lawyer John C. Manly. Wall wildly describes the 1985 letter as a "bunker buster bomb" that could somehow indicate a crime by Cardinal Roger Mahony. Uh-huh. (Wall has passed himself off as a canon law expert even though he reportedly studied less than two months in the field. According to a source in a 2003 article in the Los Angeles Times, Wall was expelled from Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome after forging a letter in an attempt to get a leave from the priesthood. Wall is a former Benedictine.) [UPDATE, 5/13/12: We have since learned that Wall no longer works for John Manly. He now works for ... (drum roll) ... the nation's leading Church-suing attorney Jeff Anderson, from Minnesota!]

McElwee also quotes a member from the predictably hysterical group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) who somehow concludes that "kids were hurt in Los Angeles" because "the archdiocese knew that [the former priest] was a predator," even though there has not been a shred of evidence of any of this.

Indeed, the media has doled out enough fair criticism of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for its past mishandlings of abuse cases. But the Reporter is now scraping the bottom of the barrel and finessing facts in a desperate attempt to wring a story out of some new marginal information.

The Reporter is building a reputation for biased reporting on the abuse narrative, and McElwee's piece comes across as a baseless and sordid swipe at the Catholic Church.

Tom Roberts' November 9 post for the liberal National Catholic Reporter is so rife with errors, falsehoods, and misrepresentation of the Catholic faith, it is truly stupefying.

While attacking Archbishop Timothy Dolan's recent post about the rampant anti-Catholicism at the New York Times, Roberts airs a number of outrageously warped statements:

1. "It is once and done for divorced Catholics. No mistakes can be tolerated. It's either perfection or don't remarry, and if you do, stay away from the Eucharistic table."

That's right. Catholics can't remarry. And that can be a tough one, indeed. But this rule does not come from some arbitrary decision by the Church. It comes from Jesus himself. (See Matthew 5, Matthew 19; Mark 10, and Luke 16. Does Roberts even own a Bible?)

Matthew 19:7-9:

[The disciples] said to [Jesus], "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?"
He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

And the last time I checked, one of the Ten Commandments said, "You shall not commit adultery."

Does Tom Roberts, editor at large at NCR, actually oppose Jesus?! It sure seems like it.

2. "An entire continent can face devastation from the AIDS epidemic, but the church refuses to budge on its absolute opposition to the use of condoms."

The truth is that the Church's position against the use of condoms saves lives. And this truth is scientifically proven!

Edward C. Green is the director of Harvard's AIDS Prevention Research Project and a self-professed liberal. In a must-read, eye-opening March 2009 interview, Dr. Green admitted that the Pope was entirely correct that condoms aggravate the spread of AIDS in Africa:

INTERVIEWER: Is Pope Benedict being criticized unfairly for his comments about HIV and condoms?

DR. GREEN: This is hard for a liberal like me to admit, but yes, it's unfair because in fact, the best evidence we have supports his comments — at least his major comments, the ones I have seen.

INTERVIEWER: What does the evidence show about the effectiveness of condom-use strategies in reducing HIV infection rates among large-scale populations?

Dr. GREEN: It will be easiest if we confine our discussion to Africa, because that's where the pope is, and that is what he was talking about. There's no evidence at all that condoms have worked as a public health intervention intended to reduce HIV infections at the "level of population." This is a bit difficult to understand. It may well make sense for an individual to use condoms every time, or as often as possible, and he may well decrease his chances of catching HIV. But we are talking about programs, large efforts that either work or fail at the level of countries, or, as we say in public health, the level of population. Major articles published in Science, The Lancet, British Medical Journal, and even Studies in Family Planning have reported this finding since 2004. I first wrote about putting emphasis on fidelity instead of condoms in Africa in 1988.

In other words, the Church is right, and Roberts' position of flinging condoms at Africans endangers lives and kills people.

3. "On the matter of homosexuality, the church claims to know the mind and intent of God so intimately and perfectly that its officials confidently pronounce that a whole category of humans who have a homosexual orientation are intrinsically disordered and are forever condemned to a life of sexual abstinence in order to remain within the community."

First of all, the Church's stance on homosexual acts does not come from a belief that it "claims to know the mind and intent of God." The Church's teaching on homosexual acts comes straight from the Bible.

Any clear-thinking individual, whether they agree with it or not, can see that the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual acts are sinful. (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, Jude 7 etc.). And because "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16), God has clearly spoken on this issue.

Second, Roberts is flat-out wrong in saying that the Church asserts that all homosexual persons are "intrinsically disordered." Rather, the Catechism of the Church clearly states that homosexual acts and homosexual inclination are disordered (2357). The Church clearly discriminates between the person and the sin. The very next paragraph (2358) says,

This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Roberts may also want to look at the 1986 pastoral letter, "Letter to the Bishops of The Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons." (Check out the author, too.) ("It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.")

4. "[N]o organization on earth — not other denominations or faith groups, not the Boy Scouts or teachers or families — has the equivalent capacity and culture of the Catholic Church for hiding and protecting sexual abusers … it's why Cardinal Roger Mahony in Los Angeles has spent millions in legal machinations attempting to keep documents secret."

First, Roberts' assertions are flat-out lies. Did the Church make mistakes in its handling of abuse cases? Of course. But the Church's misdeeds in this regard are history. And there's every indication that decades ago the Catholic Church handled abuse cases in the very same way that every other large organization did. (Take the 1980's case of Terry Bartholome in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). LAUSD hired the guy even though they knew he had been arrested for publicly exposing himself. Then, while Bartholome was a teacher, people complained about abuse by him for years. Despite numerous people having knowledge of abuse, no one at LAUSD called police!) (And as recently as 2007 (!), LAUSD placed an administrator in a middle school even though it had concrete information that he was investigated for having sex with an underage student. And after he was placed, the administrator molested again.)

Second, Cardinal Mahony has not "spent millions in legal machinations attempting to keep documents secret." Although the L.A. archdiocese challenged a court order years ago regarding the release of documents, it lost its appeal and subsequently obeyed the court. As a result, any documents in question have been in the hands of a judge for years. And Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, hardly a friend of the Church, has stated that he has "not had one report from any source" (including the fact-challenged John Manly) saying the Church in Los Angeles has violated its mandatory reporting statute.

5. "No bishop has yet given a detailed report of his complicity in the scandal. No bishop has detailed, without being forced by public pressure or civil authorities, his personal culpability in the scandal."

Another flat-out lie by Roberts. In fact, many bishops have repeatedly and publicly apologized for their mishandling of the scandal. For example, in his 2004 "Report to the People of God" (over three years before the huge settlement$), Cardinal Mahony wrote:

"Once again I sincerely apologize to anyone who has suffered from sexual misconduct or abuse by a priest, deacon, lay minister, employee or volunteer of the Archdiocese. I acknowledge my own mistakes during my eighteen years as your Archbishop. Apologies are vitally necessary, but, of themselves, are insufficient. My goal as your Archbishop is to do all in my power to prevent sexual abuse by anyone serving our Archdiocese now and in the future."

In the same report (see page 21 of the pdf), the Cardinal outlines specifically how terribly he mishandled the case of Father Michael Baker.

The Church has paid out well over a billion dollars to victims. (What other organization has done this? Not LAUSD!) And the Church has instituted several programs to try and prevent these awful crimes from happening again. (And as someone who has attended Mass in Southern California weekly, I can attest to the fact that every week in my church bulletin, I was reminded of the scandal and the programs that the archdiocese has put in place to prevent abuse.)

6. "The reality is, of course, that it is increasingly difficult to establish an anti-Catholic case of any substance or depth in the culture when so much — industry, politics, finance, academia, the Supreme Court itself — is in the hands of high-profile Catholics … The cry 'anti-Catholic!' has become a cheap and easy accusation."

With the exception of citing the Supreme Court, Roberts does not give a single example of a "high-profile" Catholic. Though they certainly exist, who is Roberts thinking of as a "high-profile" Catholic? Nancy Pelosi, who thumbs her nose at fundamental Church teaching? Patrick Kennedy? Joe Biden? In other words, many of these so-called "Catholics" don't adhere to the faith at all.

And the fact that Catholics have seats on the Supreme Court has produced a number of anti-Catholic attacks. (See Tony Auth's 2007 cartoon, for example; MoveOn.org …)

If Roberts doesn't believe anti-Catholicism is alive and thriving in the United States, he's simply delusional. Roberts needs to get off the computer and get some fresh air. The mountains of evidence showing anti-Catholicism are overwhelming.

The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice by Philip Jenkins

The Catholic League

TheMediaReport.com

7. "[Archbishop Timothy Dolan's] recent blog posting accused The New York Times and the wider culture of indulging in rampant anti-Catholic activity."

First of all, there was nothing "cheap and easy" about Dolan's article. It was extremely well-written with several supporting examples.

Second, Roberts makes no mention of the fact that Archbishop Dolan edited his post and submitted it as an opinion piece to the Times. And even though Archbishop Dolan is the shepherd of the New York archdiocese, the Times declined to publish it.

Good … grief.

Anti-Catholic? Without a doubt.

-=-=-=-=-

There's even more to say about Roberts' error-ridden piece, but I'll end it here.

Suffice it to say, judging from his article, Tom Roberts does not believe in the Catholic Church. He believes in the church of … Tom Roberts.

Roberts writes, "Everyone wishes this horrible period would come to an end." If this "horrible period" is the publication of the dreadful National Catholic Reporter, I hope it ends, also.