The vocabulary that he uses is deliberately inflammatory and seeks to paint the Church in the most negative stereotypes possible. I also find it quite hypocritical. Where was Mr. Carroll in defending the persecution and marginalization of conservative and traditionally minded priests and seminarians by the liberals during the past forty years?
Disclaimer: James Carroll is a former priest.
Recall that Mr. (Fr., since he's "a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek", laicized or not?) Carroll is the author of Constantine's Sword, which is not only an historically innacurate diatribe against the Church, but ends with a prescription of "reform" which would transmute Her into something not recognizably Christian. So he's just being self-consistent. Which is to say consistently wrong. Naturally, that makes him the darling of the Globe, which is owned by and to Left of the New York Times. Having lived in the Boston Archdiocese for 25 years now, I can tell you that the paper's primary utility is for wrapping fish, lining the budgie's cage, and starting up the wood stove.
I also find it quite hypocritical.
Imagine that! The Globe was only too happy to foment hysteria concerning "pedophile" (actually pederast) priests, and now it denounces the preliminary steps of the Vatican needed to actually address the objective causes of the problem. Do you suppose their motivations just might not be entirely above-board? Like, perhaps, that "the scandal" was mostly a political vehicle by which to discredit the moral authority of the Church in advance of the approval of gay "marriage" in Our Benighted Commonwealth? Or unethical stem-cell research? Or right-to-die legislation? No, perish the thought! Advocates of the Culture of Death would never resort to demagoguery to achieve their nefarious goals, would they?