like mandates without a shepherd
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jul 09, 2010
The New York Times is unhappy with Pope Benedict.
(No, really; I'm serious. What: you're not surprised?)
Having spent the past several weeks pushing biased and misleading stories to suggest that Pope Benedict has blocked action against sexual abuse, the Times now concludes that the "facts" have been assembled, or perhaps (dare we hope?) the prosecution is ready to rest its case, so now the paper can deliver its verdict in an editorial saying that Pope Benedict should take action against sexual abuse. The money quote:
In this spirit, Benedict has the obligation to shepherd not just guidelines but credible mandates that all priest-abusers and bishops who abetted their crimes face disclosure and punishment.
How do you shepherd mandates, by the way? Is there a different technique for shepherding guidelines? Editorial writers at the Times should not assume that we poor readers share their depth of expertise on such pastoral matters.
Next question: Are there really people out there who think that Pope Benedict has not already issued mandates requiring disclosure and punishment for abusive priests and enabling bishops? Yes, no doubt there are: the poor people who get their information from the New York Times.
Posted by: lauriem5377 -
Jul. 10, 2010 11:01 PM ET USA
I think if the 1.1 billion Catholics in the world stopped reading the NYT. it would probably go away pretty quickly.
Posted by: Dalaigh -
Jul. 09, 2010 7:13 PM ET USA
Is it a sin to let NYT drown in its own bile?
Posted by: -
Jul. 09, 2010 6:46 PM ET USA
I misread the title. I though it said, "like manatees without a shepherd." I thought it was about earth worshipers. Well, the Times publishes nothing but nonsense: we are just quibbling about the details of the nonsense.
Posted by: sparch -
Jul. 09, 2010 2:24 PM ET USA
Head of bone and brain of knuckles. Assembling facts doesn't mean they are in the right order or even part of the same story. The grey old lady has become senile.