[BlueDragon]

I think it's self explanatory and tells us all we need to know about the publication's objectivity.

You'll find some agreement concerning the slant of the photos, from someone who actually knows about the goings one there, from http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2011-10-27/news/reader-mail-ave-maria-university-is-like-rehab-for-smug-catholics/, but otherwise, she claims the article is basically factual;

Photo lies: Your story about U.S. Senate candidate Marielena Stuart's complaints about Catholic university Ave Maria ("Stepford U," Michael E. Miller, October 20) used a broad brush. I know many of the facts were accurate, at least the ones I lived, but is it fair to present only the negative like this? It was myopically focused on the problems. And what's with the cover photo used to depict students? The article wasn't even about them! It seemed like an unnecessary low blow.

Kate Ernsting

Ms. Ernsting was featured in the article;

In May 2004, the DOE ordered Ave Maria to pay back $259,000 in financial aid and fines, but Ernsting's cooperation and hustle kept prosecutors happy and staved off criminal charges. Yet she was fired, so several weeks later she filed a whistleblower lawsuit. In a deposition, Monaghan claimed, "What [Ernsting] reported was slanted and erroneous and maybe even malicious."

"The whole thing was kind of a nightmare for me," says Ernsting, who nearly went bankrupt because Monaghan's lawyers delayed the trial for five years. "These were people that I loved. I still have very warm feelings for Tom Monaghan... but I knew brushing it under the rug wasn't right either." Monaghan declined to comment for this article.

Here's something coming from none other than "Ave Maria's new president and CEO" "Jim Towey...a former assistant to Mother Teresa";

"This is a very unique arrangement here. It's almost like what you would see in medieval times when a baron would go and build himself a church and monastery."

I found the article to be chock-a-block FULL of stuff like that, that fairly leap off the page.

Just waving one's hands at the photo the Miami publication used, dismissing all the rest, is to bury one's head in the sand, concerning all the rest.

The Broward/Palm Beach New Times version didn't use the weird photos.

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2011-10-20/news/ave-maria-a-catholic-university-experiment-in-the-everglades-gone-wrong/

Here's some more, from the in-case-you-missed-it department;

Monaghan had built himself a church; now he wanted to name his own pastor. The bishop refused to let him. The building had been largely unused for a year. "The only times they would open it was for tours or concerts," Stuart says. "And that was so people could donate money." The church now has a priest but to this day retains its ignominious title as the world's only "quasi oratory" — uncertified church.

[Notwithstanding]

Kate Ernsting, who was mentioned in that article as winning a lawsuite against the university, posted this in the comments section of this article:

“This was kind of a broad brush used to paint everything Ave Maria. I know many of the facts were accurate, at least the ones I lived, but is it fair to only present the negative like this? It was pretty myopically focused on the problems. And what’s with the photo was used to depict students—the article wasn’t even about them! It seemed like an unnecessary low blow. I will admit that I was interviewed for this article. There’s a time and a place speaking truth to power, or trying to correct a wrong, I hope that purpose was served here. I’m not sure I think it was. This is a project I still support, these are people who good people, human beings in the process of seeking redemption—just like me. It seems myopic to air all this without pointing out one exculpatory fact. What about the fact that the Bishop just granted AMU recognition to allow themselves to be identified as a Catholic institution? Would this article have been written if Tom Monaghan were Steve Jobs and a Buddhist? Or would he have won his legal battles more easily if he were Eisner (Disney cases I, II and III)? I think this is over the top—hopefully everyone has the common sense to see that. — Kate Ernsting”

[Notwithstanding]

Facts:

The prior bishop approved all that the university had planned. The church building is the university chapel and it nmakes sense that the university would assign one of the priests on staff to be the chaplain. The new bishop realized that the people in town who were not part of the university also needed a parish, so he stepped in and reversed the former bishop’s approval.

The church was ready to be used in October 2007, and it opened as the parish church in March 2008, after the new bishop worked out the details with the university. Stuart hates the parish because Mass is normally in English, and becuase women are allowed to wear pants and don’t wear chapel veils, and because evening Mass for students often includes praise and worship music with guitars.