Philly Inquirer Smacks New York Times

It’s not often we will give things associated with The Philadelphia Inquirer credit for doing anything right, but that’s only because they so rarely do.

However, when they do we give credit and Jimmy Kempski’s Philly.com smackdown of a smug, self-righteous, politically correct and otherwise pompous New York Times story by Juliet Macur certainly deserves credit.

Read it here.

Philly Inquirer Smacks New York Times

New York Times Reporters New Blondes

New York Times Reporters New Blondes — Due to the tendency The New York Times has developed in making extraordinarily boneheaded mistakes its reporting, author Andrew Klavan has suggested replacing demeaning blonde jokes with enlightening New York Times reporter jokes:

Here are our contributions:

A young ventriloquist is touring the clubs and stops to entertain at a
bar in a small town. He’s going through his usual run of silly New York
Times reporter jokes when a big woman in the fourth row stands on her
chair and says,

“OK jerk, I’ve heard just about enough of your
denigrating New York Times reporter jokes. What makes you think you can
stereotype New York Times reporters that way? What does a person’s job
description have to do with their worth as a human being? It’s guys like
you who keep New York Times reporters like me from being respected at
work and in my community, of reaching my full potential as a person…
because you and your kind continue to perpetuate discrimination against
not only New York Times reporters but all reporters at large… all in
the name of humor.”

Flustered, the ventriloquist begins to
apologize, when the New York Times reporter pipes up, “You stay out of
this mister, I’m talking to that little f%@#*er on your knee!

And

A New York Times reporter enters a bar and is soon joined by another.
They each order a beer clink the mugs and shout SIX FREAKING WEEKS!

A
third soon arrives. More beer is ordered. The toast is repeated: SIX
FREAKING WEEKS!! Finally a fourth and fifth arrive they get a table. The
order pitchers. They toast continually shouting SIX FREAKING WEEKS!!

Finally the bartender comes over and says “You people seem to be celebrating something. Do you mind if I ask what it is?”

The
lead New York Times reporter says “Not at all buddy. You know how
people are always saying that New York Times reporters are dumb as
bricks? Well, me and my friends got one of those jigsaw puzzles that
said four to six years and we finished it in SIX FREAKING WEEKS!!!”

New York Times Reporters New Blondes

Consequences For Breaking Promises

Myron S points out that immediately after our congressmen and senators took an oath this year to support and defend the Constitution many of them sought to undermine it by infringing on the people’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

He wonders why that shouldn’t be enough to immediately disqualify them from office.

It’s certainly worth wondering about.

Meanwhile, New York Times columnist Louis Micahael Seidman wrote an article titled “Let’s Give Up On The Constitution.”

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago. he said.

What an offensive and horrible thing to write. Seidman should be arrested for  that. He should be subjected to summary justice and hanged from a tree for  that.

Golly gee, what could ever protect him from such a fate?

Thoughtless and stupid people have taken over the major old media outlets. The bright side is that those outlets will soon be dead — and all without having to violate the Constitution.

Rick Hits Big Time: NY Times In Total Slime Mode

Rick Hits Big Time — Rick Hits Big TimeReader Tom C reports that today’s New York Times, that dying dinosaur soon to be owned by the Mexicans (Todas las noticias de que está en condiciones de imprimir. Viva Carlos Slim, Si) is carrying four pieces today, Feb. 18, savaging Rick Santorum — including two on the op-ed page.

Wow, it’s almost like he was Ronald Reagan or something.

Go Rick.

A Pennsylvanian for president.

New York Times Lies About Pope

New York Times Lies About Pope — I guess it’s a sign of the Times. The self-esteemed Grey Lady, that paper that likes to bill itself as America’s paper of record appears to have been caught in blatant falsehoods regarding Pope Benedict XVI’s involvement in the priest pedophilia coverup.

Father Raymond J. de Souza, a chaplain at Queen’s University in Ontario, spells it out.

The New York Times on March 25 accused Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, of intervening to prevent a priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, from facing penalties for cases of sexual abuse of minors.

The story is false. It is unsupported by its own documentation. Indeed, it gives every indication of being part of a coordinated campaign against Pope Benedict, rather than responsible journalism.

Before addressing the false substance of the story, the following circumstances are worthy of note:

 • The New York Times story had two sources. First, lawyers who currently have a civil suit pending against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. One of the lawyers, Jeffrey Anderson, also has cases in the United States Supreme Court pending against the Holy See. He has a direct financial interest in the matter being reported.

 • The second source was Archbishop Rembert Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee. He is the most discredited and disgraced bishop in the United States, widely known for mishandling sexual-abuse cases during his tenure, and guilty of using $450,000 of archdiocesan funds to pay hush money to a former homosexual lover who was blackmailing him. Archbishop Weakland had responsibility for the Father Murphy case between 1977 and 1998, when Father Murphy died. He has long been embittered that his maladministration of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee earned him the disfavor of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, long before it was revealed that he had used parishioners’ money to pay off his clandestine lover.  He is prima facie not a reliable source.

• Laurie Goodstein, the author of the New York Times story, has a recent history with Archbishop Weakland.  Last year, upon the release of the disgraced archbishop’s autobiography, she wrote an unusually sympathetic story that buried all the most serious allegations against him (New York Times, May 14, 2009).

 • A demonstration took place in Rome on Friday, coinciding with the publication of the New York Times story. One might ask how American activists would happen to be in Rome distributing the very documents referred to that day in the New York Times. The appearance here is one of a coordinated campaign, rather than disinterested reporting.

It’s possible that bad sources could still provide the truth. But compromised sources scream out for greater scrutiny. Instead of greater scrutiny of the original story, however, news editors the world over simply parroted the New York Times piece. Which leads us the more fundamental problem: The story is not true, according to its own documentation.

The New York Times made available on its own website the supporting documentation for the story. In those documents, Cardinal Ratzinger himself does not take any of the decisions that allegedly frustrated the trial. Letters are addressed to him; responses come from his deputy. Even leaving that aside, though, the gravamen of the charge — that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office impeded some investigation — is proven utterly false.

The documents show that the canonical trial or penal process against Father Murphy was never stopped by anyone. In fact, it was only abandoned days before Father Murphy died. Cardinal Ratzinger never took a decision in the case, according to the documents. His deputy, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, suggested, given that Father Murphy was in failing health and a canonical trial is a complicated matter, that more expeditious means be used to remove him from all ministry.

To repeat: The charge that Cardinal Ratzinger did anything wrong is unsupported by the documentation on which the story was based. He does not appear in the record as taking any decision. His office, in the person of his deputy, Archbishop Bertone, agreed that there should be full canonical trial. When it became apparent that Father Murphy was in failing health, Archbishop Bertone suggested more expeditious means of removing him from any ministry.

Furthermore, under canon law at the time, the principal responsibility for sexual-abuse cases lay with the local bishop. Archbishop Weakland had from 1977 onwards the responsibility of administering penalties to Father Murphy. He did nothing until 1996. It was at that point that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office became involved, and it subsequently did nothing to impede the local process.

The New York Times flatly got the story wrong, according to its own evidence. Readers may want to speculate on why.

Here is the relevant timeline, drawn from the documents the New York Times posted on its own website.

15 May 1974

Abuse by Father Lawrence Murphy is alleged by a former student at St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. In fact, accusations against Father Murphy go back more than a decade.

12 September 1974

Father Murphy is granted an official “temporary sick leave” from St. John’s School for the Deaf. He leaves Milwaukee and moves to northern Wisconsin, in the Diocese of Superior, where he lives in a family home with his mother. He has no official assignment from this point until his death in 1998. He does not return to live in Milwaukee. No canonical penalties are pursued against him.

9 July 1980

Officials in the Diocese of Superior write to officials in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee about what ministry Father Murphy might undertake in Superior. Archbishop Rembert Weakland, archbishop of Milwaukee since 1977, has been consulted and says it would be unwise to have Father Murphy return to ministry with the deaf community. There is no indication that Archbishop Weakland foresees any other measures to be taken in the case.

17 July 1996

More than 20 years after the original abuse allegations, Archbishop Weakland writes to Cardinal Ratzinger, claiming that he has only just discovered that Father Murphy’s sexual abuse involved the sacrament of confession — a still more serious canonical crime. The allegations about the abuse of the sacrament of confession were in the original 1974 allegations. Weakland has been archbishop of Milwaukee by this point for 19 years.

It should be noted that for sexual-abuse charges, Archbishop Weakland could have proceeded against Father Murphy at any time. The matter of solicitation in the sacrament of confession requir
ed notifying Rome, but that too could have been done as early as the 1970s.

10 September 1996

Father Murphy is notified that a canonical trial will proceed against him. Until 2001, the local bishop had authority to proceed in such trials. The Archdiocese of Milwaukee is now beginning the trial. It is noteworthy that at this point, no reply has been received from Rome indicating that Archbishop Weakland knew he had that authority to proceed.

24 March 1997

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, advises a canonical trial against Father Murphy.

14 May 1997

Archbishop Weakland writes to Archbishop Bertone to say that the penal process against Father Murphy has been launched, and notes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has advised him to proceed even though the statute of limitations has expired. In fact, there is no statute of limitations for solicitation in the sacrament of confession.

Throughout the rest of 1997 the preparatory phases of penal process or canonical trial is underway. On 5 January 1998 the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee says that an expedited trial should be concluded within a few months.

12 January 1998

Father Murphy, now less than eight months away from his death, appeals to Cardinal Ratzinger that, given his frail health, he be allowed to live out his days in peace.

6 April 1998

Archbishop Bertone, noting the frail health of Father Murphy and that there have been no new charges in almost 25 years, recommends using pastoral measures to ensure Father Murphy has no ministry, but without the full burden of a penal process. It is only a suggestion, as the local bishop retains control.

13 May 1998

The Bishop of Superior, where the process has been transferred to and where Father Murphy has lived since 1974, rejects the suggestion for pastoral measures. Formal pre-trial proceedings begin on 15 May 1998, continuing the process already begun with the notification that had been issued in September 1996.

30 May 1998

Archbishop Weakland, who is in Rome, meets with officials at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, including Archbishop Bertone but not including Cardinal Ratzinger, to discuss the case. The penal process is ongoing. No decision taken to stop it, but given the difficulties of a trial after 25 years, other options are explored that would more quickly remove Father Murphy from ministry.

19 August 1998

Archbishop Weakland writes that he has halted the canonical trial and penal process against Father Murphy and has immediately begun the process to remove him from ministry — a quicker option.

21 August 1998

Father Murphy dies. His family defies the orders of Archbishop Weakland for a discreet funeral

New York Times Lies About Pope