Is the New York Times protecting dissident Catholic priests?

Catholic Culture ^ | May 17, 2012 | Phil Lawler

[NYer]

The perceptive religion reporter Terry Mattingly noticed something that had escaped me, in a New York Times story about religious attitudes toward same-sex marriage. The Times reported:

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin, but there are Catholic priests who secretly bless gay unions. [emphasis added]

Regarding the phrase in bold—which is treated almost as an afterthought, although the claim is a bombshell--Mattingly comments:

If, in fact, the Times has factual material about Catholic priests blessing same-sex relationships and unions then this is clearly the most important news angle in this piece. This is a major news story, buried deep in a related news report.

However, note that this claim (which I do not doubt, by the way) appears with absolutely no context, no attribution, no clue as to the source of this information. The Times does not even claim to be printing this information based on anonymous sources who requested protection from the Vatican. This is most strange.

Like Mattingly, I am quite willing to believe that the Times report is accurate. It is, regrettably, easy to believe that some Catholic priests are giving their blessing to homosexual unions. But if that is the case, these priests are clearly acting in defiance of the Church: the institution they claim to serve. That defiance would constitute a major news story, not merely an observation to be made in passing.

Mattingly argues that the Times should tell readers something about the information upon which the newspaper bases its report. He’s right. But I would add a different observation about this remarkable story: The Times appears to be protecting dissenting priests from ecclesiastical discipline.

Any Times reporter who actually witnessed a Catholic priest blessing a homosexual union, or heard a credible first-hand report of such an event, should have written a news story about it, and that story should have appeared on the front page. That didn’t happen. Why not? I can think of only 3 possible explanations:

1. The Times reported something as fact when it had no solid evidence. Terry Mattingly and I agree that’s unlikely.
2. The Times had solid evidence of priests blessing gay unions, but withheld that evidence because the priests demanded anonymity. That’s possible. But as Mattingly points out, the Times ordinarily informs readers when a report is based on information from someone who requests anonymity.
3. The Times knows of priests who have blessed same-sex unions, and those priests have not requested anonymity, but the Times has decided not to identify them anyway. This seems to me the most likely explanation.

[NYer]

How many of them are Jesuits ..

[hosepipe]

[ Is the New York Times protecting dissident Catholic priests? ]

Of course they are... they are on the same team..
And some denominational parasites like Rev. Jesse JAckson and Rev. Al Sharpton.. and a thousand others..

Church in some places is like putting kittens in a muffin tin and calling them muffins... the oven does them NO GOOD..

[forgotten man]

“How many of them are Jesuits ..”

Are Jesuits Catholic? /s

[CdMGuy]

I thought Jesuits stopped being Catholic a long time ago.

[Oratam]

That was my first thought.

A friend of mine attended a Jesuit college and he told me the "guidance" a "Jebbie" gave him in the confessional. It was most definitely contrary to church teaching and Christian doctrine.

[Rashputin]

"The Times reported something as fact when it had no solid evidence. Terry Mattingly and I agree that’s unlikely."

I don't think it's at all unlikely for the NYT to report something as fact when it clearly isn't. Especially when they say they're relying on unnamed sources or sources that want to remain anonymous.