Archbishop Dolan right to slam NY Times for anti-Catholic articles

I like what McNabb said. I totally agree.

SingleDonald, I do not wish to challenge your classifications of pedophiles. I meant only to reply to the simple-minded suggestion that the sexually predatory priests are really homosexuals. This claim is one of endless attempts to blame some group other than "the real Catholics" for the pedophile priest scandal and to give credence to the pope's claim that the vow of celibacy of a gay male is unworthy and not to be trusted.

eiramach & katiemac, Pedophilia is defined as going after pre puberty children, for sexual gratification. The way I understand it, there are 3 types: 1)Heterosexual men who go after little girls 2)Homosexual men who go after little boys 3)Men who are otherwise straight, but who have a side interest in little boys. The monster who abused Steven Stayner was a type 3 pedophile. When Steven turned 14, the pervert lost interest in him as a "sex partner", as he was becoming a man. He then kidnapped a 6 or 7 year old boy, who Steven heroically rescued. When the two met the police, Steven said that the boy he was rescuing had been missing for 3 weeks, but that he (Steven) had been missing for 7 years! Father Bruce Ritter was not a pedophile, as he never went after pre puberty kids. ALL of his statuary rape victims (boys) were past puberty, but under the age of consent. He even had 26 year old Kevin Kite as a sex partner, the young man who turned him over to the D.A.'s office. For anybody to deny that Father Ritter was gay would be absurd. He abused his homosexuality, by going after underage boys, all of whom were past puberty.

Katgiemac, how many times do we need to explain it to you? Pedophilia is NOT homosexuality, and the statistics tell us that homosexuals are less likely than heterosexuals to rape. The vast majority of rapists have opposite-sex victims; pedophiles violate children. It's that simple--and tragic and morally culpable, especially when men of religion cover up the pedophila.

I did not see the NY Times article. Am I surprised? of course not. Archbishop Dolan is so right when he says would this be tolerated if it were a Rabbi, a Black Misister or an Immam, the Times would be shut down, burned, or muslim with a bomb strapped to his body walk in frontof the building and detonate the bomb. I have said before, a few years ago when the sculpture of the Virgin Mary with dung on her was displayed at the Brooklyn museum it was depicted as art. Again, if she was an icon of any other religon it would not be tolerated. There is not enough outrage within the catholic community to show this for what it is, christian and catholic and women bashing. I will forward this article on to my friend, If you have any ideas as to getting signatures to send to NY politican write an article on it. Send it to Bill O'Reilly. I know the people at Irish Central hate Fox News however they don't cave in to these kind of cowards. I am really outraged.

No, McNabb, I do not take cheap shots at Islam; I support the Muslim women working for equal status in their mosques and working to end Islamic mistreatment of women and girls. I do not take "cheap shots" at all. Try telling the parents of violated children that speaking out against rapist priests is a "cheap shot." Try telling the mother of a raped and pregnant 12-year-old that the child must die, as most pregnant children do if they are forced to try to carry a pregnancy to term. So much for the Catholic reading of the "law of nature" when "nature" has girls entering puberty at age 7, women fertile through their mid-50s, and millions across the globe infected with the AIDS virus who are denied condoms because of the power of the Catholic clergy, we let a dead-letter reading of "nature" keep us from saving lives and preventing suffering? One could go on and on. . . . and none of these critical moral issues is a "cheap shot." Where is the intellectual dishonesty in speaking truth to power? There is enough evidence in the pontiff's own words for every instance of hypocrisy I cited, and we all know it. American priests, bishops, and cardinals need the guts to tell the truth and to leave their flocks free to cast votes as conscience determines. Nothing deflects a "cheap shot" like the admission of truth. If you think that the NY Times is taking cheap shots at the Catholic Church and you think my comments are "hateful, insulting," then just how does one communicate plain unchallenged facts to someone with your mind set? The fact that some of these charges can be leveled at Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim clerics is completely irrelevant to Farrell's piece (a red herring), and I am responding to what is written here.

when is the public going to stop buying the times.DO NOT THE TIMES PERIOD....

Catholic bashing has been a favorite game for all liberal media. McNabb says it right, Eiriamach is loosie-goosie!

Right on again McNabb.

@eiriamach...As I said, not much hope of intellectual honesty from your camp. Thanks for illustrating what I was talking about. Of course you're welcome to your opinions but, not surprisingly, you skirted the main issue here: the hypocrisy of taking cheap shots at Catholicism on a regular basis without having the courage to take similar cheap shots at Judaism, Islam, on the same issues. Most of your laundry list of gripes could just as easily be addressed to Islam and even Judaism (which, of course, doesn't have the same kind of easily-targeted hierarchy that the Catholic Church has). The difference is that you can make those arguments against the Catholic Church without having to go into hiding afterwards. But I don't see folks like you taking the same cheap shots at Islam, for instance, on women's issues. Or homosexuality. In addition to NOT fearing violent retribution from Catholics, it's also true that the Catholic Church provides the perfect target for hate: the Pope. It's easy to make a target out of the Pope. It's been done for centuries verbally, in writing and even physically. Which reminds me, when the Pope was shot and almost killed by a Muslim, did anything happen (other than the Pope forgiving the would-be assassin)? Did a world-wide "crusade" break out? Of course not. It's laughable to hear anybody claim that the Church gets attacked because it "deserves" it rather than because it's the easiest, safest target. Food for thought: why is it that when Catholics express their opinions on issues that don't conform to liberal ideology it's deemed "offensive" but liberals are allowed to say the most hateful, insulting things about Catholics and it's dismissed as mere "criticism" or "humor" or "art?"

Oh the poor put upon church. Too busy funding the fight against same sex marriage to maintain finances for schools and parishes. Too busy sending out DVD's instead of tending to the poor. Too effin bad Dolan.

It's OK to lump all Priests as predators of children and say the most disgusting things about nuns. God forbid you say something about moslems and you are accused of bigotry. All of us that went to Catholic schools in the bad old days of corporal punishment have plenty of complaints about some aspects of the Catholic Church. And we can say it without getting fired(Juan Williams) or in a moslem country being beheaded. What the heck are we afraid of? Are we going to never be able to say "MOSLEM" without a backlash from the pathetic cowards that are playing into the fanatics hands. Cardinal O'Connor was a wonderful truly holy Man that was the best cardinal New York ever had.

The Times has been very aggressive in covering sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. Clearly, this is Dolan's "payback," and an attempt to throw up a smokescreen and diversion. The Catholic Church continues to do whatever it can to shield itself from culpability for the outrages perpetrated by priests and nuns on children, and for how the hierarchy covered them up for decades. Never let them off the hook.

I support Archbishop Dolan on this issue.

It's not just Catholics, but all Christians that are subjected to disdane in the current media. This country seems to be turning anit Christian.