The New York Times Shows Its AntiCatholic Bias Again

(At least its bias against Pro-life orthodox Catholics)

The NY Times strikes again with an article that is, IMHO, clearly an attack on those Catholics who are opposed to abortion. It is also an attempt to make those who are catholic in Name Only look like the good guys for supporting OBamaCare (aka Teddy's plan for unlimitted death under the guise of health care).

The 1st lob is fired in the headline, Some Catholic Bishops Assail Health Plan. While it is true that there are just a few Bishops who have publicly spoken out, that isn't what they are getting at with this headline. They are trying to make it sound like the majority of Bishops blindly & wholeheartedly support ObamaCare. & that this bunch are the dissidents.

Then we get to the 1st paragraph with its half truths & misdirection. "The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has been lobbying for three decades for the federal government to provide universal health insurance, especially for the poor. Now, as President Obama tries to rally Roman Catholics and other religious voters around his proposals to do just that, a growing number of bishops are speaking out against it."

1st of all, The USCCB has called for universal access, not universal health insurance. The USCCB actual takes the following position: "In our Catholic tradition, health care is a basic human right. Access to health care should not depend on where a person works, how much a family earns, or where a person lives. Instead, every person, created in the image and likeness of God, has a right to life and to those things necessary to sustain life, including affordable, quality health care."

In a resolution dated 18 June 1993 (A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform: Protecting Human Life, Promoting Human Dignity, Pursuing the Common Good) mentions this as 1 of the criteria for reform: "Universal Access. Whether it provides ready universal access to comprehensive health care for every person living in the United States." & while it does mention 1 of the problems for many poor people is a lack of insurance, nowhere does the resolution mention universal health insurance. It does give some criteria as guidelines for the discusion, but nowhere does it say that it is the duty of the Federal government to be the cure all. In fact, its suggestions actual call for a start at the grass roots in keeping with the Catholic teaching on solidarity.

& what the document also makes absolutely clear is that anything that runs counter to Catholic moral teaching, like abortion & euthenasia are not acceptable in any way shape or form. & that the USCCB does & will continue to oppose any efforts to include abortion. It also mentions the concern "that Catholic and other institutions with strong moral foundations may face increasing economic and regulatory pressures to compromise their moral principles and to participate in practices inconsistent with their commitment to human life."

Without going any farther, I can safely say that anyone who claims that ObamaCare meets these standards set 16 years ago is a liar. & any attempts to rally support of faithful Catholics is an attempt to get Catholics to buy into the very things that document says we can't.

The 2nd paragraph of the article really lays the groundwork for the effort to draw a wedge & marginalize those Bishops & others speaking out with their concerns. "As recently as July, the bishops’ conference had largely embraced the president’s goals, although with the caveat that any health care overhaul avoid new federal financing of abortions. But in the last two weeks some leaders of the conference, like Cardinal Justin Rigali, have concluded that Democrats’ efforts to carve out abortion coverage are so inadequate that lawmakers should block the entire effort."

1st of all, I have no idea where they came up with this as recent as July claim. The July 29 Letter from Cardinal Rigali to House Energy and Commerce Committee does mention the USCCB's long standing call for reform. Nowhere does it specificly embrace Obama's goals. Instead it makes it clear the longstanding concerns about there being no coverage of abortion, conscience rights of health care providrs & all the other Pro-life concerns. It is anything but an embracing. In fact it even points out the very things that Obama has denied like "The legislation delegates to the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to make abortion a basic or essential benefit in all health plans, or in the “public plan” created by the legislation."

As for the July 17 Letter from Bishop William Murphy to Congress that the NYT claims "appeared eager to back the Democrats’ effort" is anything but. Rather it goes into greater detail about the same concerns raised by Cardinal Rigali. & there are other points where they misrepresent what is really on the USCCB's website as well. All to make it sound like those who are raising concerns are out of the mainstream rather than representing it as they really do.

While the article does mention that there are other concerns, like Bishop Nickless' comments about how it is to be provided, it just says so in passing without going into a clear explanaition of why.

But it does make it sound like abortion is just 1 issue out of many. & that it is OK to not give it primacy at the most important & overriding issue. The same thing that those who are Obama supporters tried to use to justify it.

"The bishops’ backlash reflects a struggle within the church over how heavily to weigh opposition to abortion against concerns about social justice.
“It is the great tension in Catholic thought right now,” said M. Cathleen Kaveny, a professor of law and theology at Notre Dame.
The same question, Professor Kaveny said, set off the debates over whether conscientious Catholics could vote for Mr. Obama despite his support for abortion rights, whether he should be invited to speak at Notre Dame, or whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, like Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., should present themselves for Communion."

You will notice that nothing is said about what the Church actually teaches & why people like Biden shouldn't receive Communion. But the real kicker is the use of the term "backlash". Just so you understand what they are getting at with that term, here is the dictionary definition of backlash that applies: "a strong or violent reaction, as to some social or political change: a backlash of angry feeling among Southern conservatives within the party." In other words they are using it in a perjorative way & laying some groundwork for another part of the article.

After spending some time on the debate of whether or not ObamaCare will fund abortion, with more emphasis on the claims by Obama & the Dems we get to this:

"Liberal Catholic groups argued that most bishops still strongly supported the broader goals of the health care proposals. “There are certainly some strident voices out there that want to see health care reform abandoned on the back of this issue,” said Victoria Kovari, acting director of the liberal Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, “but I don’t think that is where the bishops are.”

At least the used the word liberal. However, notice the use of the word "strident" to help make the arguement that those voices aren't raising real concerns but are trying to totally scrap health care reform. The quote is also another attempt to marginalize Bishops like Rigali as out of the mainstream.

But what is even more telling is who they got this quote from. While every other statement used was taken (sometimes out of context) from previous writings they get a direct quote from only 1 person. & that person is the head of 1 of the leading dissedent groups that labels itself as Catholic. With all due respect, Ms. Kovari isn't exactly an expert on what the Bishops really think. & her quote is actually 1 of those half truths. If you take what this article has tried to paint Bishops like Rigali & Nickless as ture, then yes, the Bishops are not where the NYT false pictures paints these Bishops is. But since Rigali & Nickless are right at the heart of authentic Catholic teaching, she is lying by trying to make it sound Rigali & Nickless want to stop health care reform.

What the article isn't is unbiased news coverage. It is slanted & innacurate in so many ways. It is another example of how far the Grey Lady has fallen from the days when you could trust what it printed. This article is clearly an attack on orthodox Catholicism. It has an agenda. To marginalize &, hopefully, silence those Bishops who are truly being the shepherds by falsely presenting their stands as out of the mainstream.

I have to add 1 last comment. If you define mainstream as that what the world promotes as OK, then the Catholic Church has never been mainstream & never will. It will always be out of touch with what the world wants to be OK because it is in touch with the mind of God. & it will always present the truth as absolute. In doing so, it will always show us that to truly be in touch we must have, as Scripture tells us, the mind of Christ.