The NY Times profiles the Pope,...

By Diogenes (articles ) | Apr 08, 2007

... on Easter Sunday, yet, and as Amy Welborn points out, you shudder when you see the cover story of the Sunday magazine.

Actually, Amy says the article isn't too bad. (Which is, really the best you could hope for, right?) I haven't read it, and probably won't. But I have read her excellent comments on the article, which branch off into broader comments on why secular journalists don't "get it" when they write about the Pope.

Read the Times piece or not, as you wish. But don't miss Amy's.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

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!

Show 5 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Apr. 10, 2007 12:35 PM ET USA

    Sorry, Remigius, but the Times didn't invite Hans Kung to dinner. Benedict XVI did.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 09, 2007 6:11 PM ET USA

    Back to reality, people. The piece is bad. It's premises include the contradictory claims that the Pope has rightly earned a "Strange new Respect" award from liberals because he met with Hans Kung and has disciplined few, yet at the same time he is destroying Catholicism's prospects in the modern world through is dogmatism and intransigence. For the NYT, the only good priest is a bad priest. For the NYT, authentic Catholicism is the enemy, no matter how charming or intelligent it's Pope may be.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 09, 2007 2:45 PM ET USA

    I am second to nobody here in my lack of respect for the NYTimes but Amy is right. This piece was plainly not written by a faithful (and conservative) Catholic, but I share her surprise in the fact that it's not at all bad. I recommend it---and, of course, her trenchant comment on it.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 09, 2007 9:58 AM ET USA

    A very insightful priest once stated, "there is nothing quite so unrdeeming as the NY Times." My sentiments exactly, so why labor through the muck in order to read a very rare "not so bad" article.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 08, 2007 4:11 PM ET USA

    I have not looked at the NY Daily Tass in 12 years and will choose not to look at it now. They are so predictably anti American, anti Catholic, ant morality etc. Why bother!