Contrary to far right propaganda, the New York Times is a very conservative, Republican paper with a strong pro-Roman Catholic bias. They have been downplaying the long running story of rampant child molestation in that church's clergy for years. If the Times and other papers were more honest and less biased, the far greater coverage of the story would have prevented a lot of rapes and gotten a lot of priests thrown in prison where they belong. Yet, on those rare occasions when that paper actually does cover the clerical rape of children, Roman Catholic supremacists throw the most vile of tantrums.
If you aren't familiar with them, the "Catholic League" is a tiny racist, sexist, heterosexist, and Roman Catholic supremacist hate group run by the reprehensible Bill Donohue. In a 3/26/10 press release, they actually said the following.
Let's say Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, now the pope, did in fact learn of the transfer. So what? Wasn't that what he expected to happen? After all, we know from a March 16 Times story that when Ratzinger's subordinates recommended therapy for Hullermann, he approved it. That was the drill of the day: after being treated, the patient (I prefer the term offender) returns to work. It's still the drill of the day in many secular quarters today, particularly in the public schools. A more hard-line approach, obviously, makes more sense, but the therapeutic industry is very powerful.
In other words, there is no real news in today's news story. So why print it? To keep the flame alive. Look for the Times to run another story saying they have proof Ratzinger knew of the transfer. Did they think that after he approved the therapy that Hullermann would be sent to the Gulag?
Yesterday's Times story on the half-century old case concerning Father Lawrence Murphy will be the subject of an op-ed page ad in Tuesday's New York Times. Meanwhile, I am taking advantage of every TV opportunity to set the record straight. The pope is a great man, and the Catholic League is proud to stand by him.
If you read this blog regularly, you know that I'm seldom at a loss of words for anything. However, in this case, I cannot find words strong enough to describe my revulsion at this statement. Sickening doesn't even begin to cover it.
One thing is for sure. No decent, moral human being would stand by Ratzi at this point.