New York Times acknowledges: lawyer steered coverage of abuse story
CWN - April 28, 2010
In a profile of Jeffrey Anderson, the New York Times reveals that the lawyer who is attempting to bring suit against the Vatican was successful in steering the Times news coverage toward his case.
Referring to Anderson's involvement in the case of Father Lawrence Murphy, the Times story notes that the aggressive trial lawyer was a main source for a front-page report critical of Pope Benedict:
The New York Times was working on a different article last month when a reporter contacted Mr. Anderson. He provided documents about the Murphy case describing how efforts by Wisconsin church officials to subject Father Murphy to a canonical trial and remove him from the priesthood were halted after he wrote a letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, asking for a cessation of the trial.
The Times report also quoted Jeffrey Lena, an attorney representing the Vatican in American courts, who observed that Anderson had courted publicity to favor his lawsuits. "It shows how you can both create a media frenzy, and then capitalize on it," Lena said.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our final 2013 goal ($19,496 to go, assuming receipt of matching funds):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: k9annie -
Apr. 29, 2010 8:27 AM ET USA
In reading the article from the NYT, I find so much more of the same bashing of the Holy Father with no intent to balance the report. Wish I had not read it.
Posted by: JR -
Apr. 28, 2010 11:48 PM ET USA
This is a tremendous surprise to all of us, no doubt.