Mark, this is the second time you have drawn an analogy between the situations at the NYT and the RCC. It is unfair to the NYT. No one at the NYT is accused of molesting children. When an NYT employee was found to have compromised the paper's ethics - in a matter much milder than child molestation - he was pushed out the door. The NYT has a long, looong way to go before they reach the level of corruption and hyprocrisy that is now considered routine in the RCC.
Registered Independent Joel | 05.29.03 - 2:08 pm | #

Joel:

I wasn't drawing the comparison, the article was, and specifically the monsignor--*who I criticized*. My whole point is that that church's troubles are far worse than the Times.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 05.29.03 - 2:11 pm | #

How do you know, Mark, that the "parishioners" in St. Sulzberger's Parish are not angry with Archbishop Raines? I sure am, but I continue to subscribe to the Times (even here in Dallas) because it is a peerless source of information. I've always been critical of it (as you know; I bash it regularly for bias in The Corner), and read it with great skepticism. But not reading it is unthinkable, at least for people in my line of work. It would be surprising to me if they lost many subscriptions over this. For one thing, people get into the habit of their morning paper, and it takes a lot to break that. In NYC, at least, there are no comparable replacements (the Post and the Daily News are fine, but their mission is different from the Times's, as is the Wall Street Journal's). So you make do, and write letters of complaint.

Anyway, nobody with any sense is depending on the New York Times to proclaim the Gospel, and Times reporters aren't raping subscribers' children, so one can imagine the outrage isn't quite as high.
Rod Dreher | 05.30.03 - 8:50 am | #