Bill Donohue comments on an op-ed piece in today’s New York Times:
The decision to publish the op-ed by Daniel A. Olivas was malicious. Here’s
why.
Olivas says he once knew a Latino priest in southern California who was a molester (the priest,
who is dead, was suspended from ministry in the 1990s). Okay, I got it: Olivas
is angry. Every time I read about another homosexual priest who molested
someone (less than 5 percent of abusive priests were pedophiles), I get angry,
too. But what was the purpose of publishing this article? And why the obscene
drawing of a priest whose head resembles a creature from Hell? [To see it click
here.]
There is almost no sexual abuse being committed by priests in the U.S. today.
When reports surface, in almost every instance we are hearing about old cases.
But now, given the latest round of documents gathered by the authorities
involving the Archdiocese of Los Angeles under Cardinal Roger Mahony, we are
being treated to more stories.
The Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn is
ablaze with stories of rabbis who rape young people. Even more pernicious is
the way those who cooperate with the authorities are being treated. Indeed, the
punitive actions taken against innocent persons is shocking—there is no
analogue in the Catholic community.
So what has the New York Times said about all of this? In the past year, the Times
ran 11 news stories and one editorial on sexual abuse by Orthodox Jewish
rabbis; there were no op-ed articles. In the past two weeks, the Times has run
7 news stories, one editorial and three op-eds on the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles. Most of the cases in the Jewish community involve current or recent
instances of abuse; none of the cases in Los
Angeles do. Moreover, there has never been a depiction
of a rabbi with his head resembling a creature from Hell.
Contact editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal: andyr@nytimes.com