On the Catholic Church old sex abuse beat: Laurie Goodstein from the New York Times
While the New York Times' travails are well known, it appears that the venerable old newspaper still has the resources to devote a reporter to cover a single story line if that story line happens to dovetail with the paper's political leanings.
As our nearby Scoreboard illustrates, the Times' National Religion Correspondent, Laurie Goodstein, seems to really only cover one story in the vast world of religion today: old sex abuse claims in the Catholic Church.
Now Goodstein is providing free p.r. for another lawsuit against the Church by Jeff Anderson and promoting a flimsy campaign among left-wing crazies to sack St. Paul – Minneapolis Archbishop John C. Nienstedt.
And, as it just so happens, the Times' editorial board later wrote an editorial calling for Nienstedt's resignation.
Calls for resignation: An army of one?
There he goes again:
Church-suing lawyer Jeff Anderson
Goodstein then goes on to recount a disparate litany of other archdiocesan alleged "scandals" – such as the wacky and discredited claim that Nienstedt somehow molested a boy at a public confirmation ceremony – and concludes that there was now a big public outcry for Nienstedt's resignation.
Goodstein claims that "calls for resignation" are now "mounting" against Archbishop Nienstedt, yet Goodstein cites exactly one person who has actually done so.
Ever heard of "Tom Horner"? We haven't either. But, according to Goodstein, Horner is a "prominent Catholic public relations consultant and former Independent Party candidate for governor," and he happens to think the archbishop should resign. Powerful stuff.
Goodstein's flaky sources
Not exactly Deep Throat:
The wild-eyed Jennifer Haselberger
As we reported months ago, Haselberger was the source behind an explosive story which received widespread media attention that a Minnesota priest possessed "images of pornography," some of which, in her view, "appear[ed] to show children."
However, after police spent months investigating the claim, not a single frame of child pornography was ever found. Zilch. Nada.
In the end, Haselberger's machination of child pornography was completely false, and the media firestorm over the case completely destroyed the reputation of an innocent priest. But, of course, Goodstein makes no mention of Haselberger's past propensity for hysteria and overstatement when it comes to her former employer.
Haselberger's new leftist bedfellows
Goodstein also makes no mention of the troubling fact that Haselberger is currently scheduled as a headline speaker at this week's annual conference for SNAP, the notorious anti-Catholic hate group. While Haselberger has claimed she is "pro-life," she is now embracing a group who last year celebrated at its conference one of the country's most radical abortion advocates and outspoken Church bashers, Eleanor Smeal. Go figure.
Indeed, Haselberger has not always been an exactly strong defender of Catholic teaching, despite her position as a canon lawyer. As the Catholic League recently noted, Haselberger has admitted that she is seemingly O.K. with a loopy dissident group called "Rent-a-Priest" using her work to claim that the group does not necessarily violate Church teaching by promoting married priests administering the Sacraments.
The not-so-hidden agenda
Goodstein also defames Nienstedt by repeating the crazy charge that he somehow molested a boy in broad daylight during a public confirmation ceremony back in 2009. Goodstein lends credence to the charge by merely saying police dropped charges against Nienstedt because of "insufficient evidence."
In truth, the claim against Nienstedt was far beyond ridiculous. The charge was so bogus that even the youth at the center of the episode said nothing had happened and told police as much. The investigation into Nienstedt was nothing short of a left-wing witch hunt.
Last year, Minnesota passed a so-called "window statute" permitting decades-old, stale claims of abuse, principally against the Catholic Church, to now be suddenly resurrected for a period of three years. This has naturally thrown contingency lawyers such as Anderson into a tizzy filing new lawsuits in the hunt for big bucks.
And ever at the ready to assist Anderson is Goodstein, especially when the target of Anderson's lawsuits just-so-happens to be a bishop such as Nienstedt best known for his politically incorrect positions such as opposition to homosexual "marriage."
Has Goodstein ever written a single story about religion?
The Twin Cities media has been out to get Nienstedt since he arrived there. The very first thing they did was cause a big deal when he said he believed in Church teaching on homosexuality. They tried to pillory him for that for several months. They kept referring to him as "the controversial new archbishop".
When he came out against gay marriage, they tried to crucify him for that. They claimed that everyone was all upset that he was spending money opposing the bill, but in fact no one but a couple of outliers was.
Their reporting has been consistenly slanted – they very rarely highlight that almost every case is from 30 years ago, rather they try to make is seem like it is from yesterday.
Laurie Goodstein has always been a crank reporter, and usually Catholics laugh at what she prints, because it is so obviously slanted. If the Pope rescued a baby from a burning building, she would report that he did so, but "some observers" thought he might have started the fire.
What we are seeing with the New York Times and Goodstein is a classic example of what I would call ‘advocacy journalism’ : you do not report the facts as they presently are ; rather, you ‘report’ what you would like to see happen or think should or must happen, as if that were a fact, and then hope that (especially if you repeat the stuff often enough) people will come to embrace or at least accept your desired spin.
And as other ‘reporters’ and media-outlets repeat your original spin, then you can quote them as being further ‘evidence’ that your desired spin is the actual state of affairs, thus pressuring and manipulating readers to conform to this ‘reality’. Thus what we wind up with is a gigantic echo-chamber. Or – to use my own image – you wind up with a room full of tuning forks, where your one fork’s mal-tuned note sets them all of vibrating to that original mal-tuned or false note you had originally struck.
In regard to Ms. Haselburger I would simply point out that she did not merely resign in a huff, but almost immediately went to a friendly local Twin Cities media outlet (and are we to imagine that Jeff Anderson was not involved?) and put herself into the market there.
And if I recall correctly, when the Archbishop set in motion an outside investigation of himself, and Ms. Haselburger was (rightly) invited into the offices of the investigating attorneys for an interview, she soon thereafter went to the media with her version of what was going on in the investigation (raising the question as to just how she got access to her claimed ‘information’) – which version included claims that some persons had complained in their interviews that the Archbishop had somehow (depending, I suppose, on the definition) touched them inappropriately when they were seminarians and suchlike.
I will say here personally that I have had some rather substantial reservations about Ms. Haselburger’s integrity – along several axes – since this subject first came up last autumn.
Haselberger is a nut
I can't believe people at TMR aren't complimenting Jenny Hasselberger. She was the one who warned about father Wehmeyer before he molested in 2012. They don't comment on the affidavit she filed, higlighting the archdiocese's failures. Does The media report really believe even the most rabid ant-Catholic would knowingly perjure themselves?
I invite all Catholics to visit my website http://www.illicitcelibacy.com
That's it. Do just like the Archdiocese. Smear Hasselberger, the media, and the real victim;'s advocate, Anderson. And hopefully you can make the truth go away.
I'm answering P from his last post in previous thread.
Billions are nothing to the church. When if the catholic membership, one and one quarter billion people, gave $1 a month for a year. That's roughly $16 billion in a year. Oh yea the church can't afford to pay it's victims. So are we to pretend, along with father P, that there are no victims.
Now, I know, $1 a month per person maynot be possible for all. But I'm not even the counting what the church already has in the vaults after 2000 years of "collections" and "gifts".
What do you mean "stale cases of abuse"? You'd have some other excuse if they were abuses "fresh" from the church's child rapers' kitchen?
As long as we victims live, we have to suffer the outcome of the "stale" actions enabled by your nonsense and your nonsensical church.
You should be ashamed of yourselves. But trash never is.
What do you mean "stale cases of abuse"?
Beyond the statue of limitaions
The imposingly self-named ‘True Catholic’ claims (the 1st, 157PM) that “Hasselberger and the media and the real victim’s advocate, Anderson” are being ‘smeared’. Apparently, connecting the factual dots in the record of their own actions and statements is ‘smearing’ them.
If they look bad after the dots are connected, I would say it is due to the facts of their actions and statements. And certainly all three of the named persons or entities have been examined at length here over the course of time precisely along those lines of examining actions and statements.
And just what – precisely – is ‘True Catholic’s idea of “the truth” that such ‘smearing’ might make go away? Or are we seeing here yet another attempt to presume and use as ‘truth’ what has yet to be demonstrated to actually be ‘truth’?
As for the JR bit from the 1st at 257PM: Readers are welcome to consider the value of JR’s fiscal ruminations about what “billions” of dollars might mean. He does so now by merely figuring that if every Catholic in the world gave a dollar every month for a year then “that’s $16 billion in a year”. Which is nothing but a self-serving phantasm, since many Catholics in the world (especially the non-Western world) could not afford to give such sums.
And even if that bit won’t fly, it’s OK because JR then covers that problem with the age-old bit about the Church no doubt having a vast treasure “in the vaults” anyway. Sitting there, of course, to serve as a pot of gold for anybody who’d care to have a whack at the piñata. Especially with Jeff Anderson’s strategies to pull it all off.
And once again we see a variation on the theme that was also evident in his comment about the Insurers paying half of the almost 3 billion already paid out: the torties assured the story-tellers that a few billion wouldn’t really harm the Church and the Church could afford it and the Insurers are going to pay half of it anyway, so let’s get those stories worked-up!
And – as ever and always – the sly manipulation designed to presume what has yet to be demonstrated: the number of genuine victims.
And in that regard, I have never suggested that we “pretend” anything. Once again JR constructs something that was never said because it’s more convenient for him to have a pillow-fight with a fabricated bit than to engage the actual material and the actual problem: how distinguish a genuine victim from someone otherwise-classifiable? Still waiting for an answer to that question.
So at the end of the exercise here, JR has “answered” nothing. As usual.
Gee, I wonder why I would think the oldest christian religion with one and one quarter billion members might have stashed a pile of dough over 2000 years?
You should try reading the entire article by the NY Times Laurie Goodstien here as there is MUCH the media report has left out. Like the Archbishops NEW allegations and investigation He ordered of himself to be carried out by a bishop who works for him…that should get to the real truth, don't you think? Regarding Jennifer Hasselberger, this distinguished, well educated Canon scholar has worked for more than one Church Diocese, working in very high positions within the Chancery office and now that she has has blown the whistle, David wants you to believe she is some crazed nut. Wrong again. Regarding Tom Horner, of course the 7 or 8 people who read The Media Report from Massachusettes would not know of him, he ran for Governor in the state of Minnesota.
Here is the link to the actual link to the entire NY Times article referenced above.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/calls-for-resignation-mount-for-minnesota-archbishop-in-scandals.html?_r=0
Canada has no statutes of limitation on child rape and Canada's considered a rather civilized nation.
Not true, at least not in civil cases.
I'd like to thank the "committee" posting here for showing that you care nothing for truth and your fellow catholic families injured by your negligence.
It's only the protection of money from those who deserve it, that worries you.
Because you well know that that's the real catholic church: the getting of and hoarding of money.
Everything else the sacraments, the mass all of it's just there to fleece the flock. All of it from heaven to hell: one big fraud.
What you accuse victims of doing (being fraudsters)? Is exactly what you are doing. The only criminals here are you. Criminally negligent of accepting resposibility for your decadent system.
‘Another Mark’ advises us (the 2nd, 827AM) that “there is much” (scream-y caps omitted) that TMR has omitted. Interesting – and what might that “much” be?
First there are “new” (scream-y caps omitted) “allegations” – which, from what we have seen of the Stampede is hardly surprising: once the Ball Is Rolling, then anybody who feels like it can ‘come forward’ with whatever they would like, with no serious risk of sustained examination.
Second – according to ‘Another Mark’ – the Archbishop ordered an investigation of himself “to be carried out by a bishop who works for him”. But there is a reason this bit has been “left out”: not to put too fine a point on it, it isn’t actually true (which, admittedly, is not a point likely to capture or detain the attention of the average Abusenik).
The subordinate bishop was clearly ordered to select and engage the services of a legal firm – as is evidenced by the fact that it is a legal firm thus engaged which has been conducting the interviews. Ms. Hasselberger (and whomever else) was not invited to the offices of the subordinate bishop but rather was called into the offices of a legal firm. Her affidavit was connected to that, and was not composed in response to questions put to her by the subordinate bishop in an interview with her.
And – in a neat example of the Playbook – we can ask ourselves: what would the Abuseniks say if the Archbishop himself had engaged the legal firm? Nor – per impossibile – could the Archdiocese in any way have engaged the services of the Anderson firm since that would have constituted a rather obvious conflict of interest for the Anderson firm.
Thus then, ‘Another Mark’ deploys another Playbook gambit by insinuating that the legal firm that has been engaged will not be committed to “get to the real truth”. Does ‘Another Mark’ already know what that “real truth” is? Has he thus informed the investigating legal firm that he has solid and reliable and perhaps conclusive evidence as to that that “real truth” is? Or – rather – are we seeing here yet another example of Abuseniks presuming what has not been proven and proceeding from that presumptive point?
Certainly, given the queasy and ominous wackness clearly evident in the recent history of this affair – since last autumn’s still-unexplained bits about the porn-stash on a long-sold hard-drive and the official abandonment of the whole thing without any substantive explanations whatsoever – have we any grounds for imagining that “the real truth” of that whole episode has been allowed to come to light.
Ms. Hasselberger’s affidavit (if properly such, it was made under oath) recalls for us that formally-allegated Abusenik stories (some of which we have had a chance to examine a bit here) were also made under oath, as elements in the legal Complaint filed by torties in this or that lawsuit. So while her material is certainly of interest, we should recall that when dealing with Abuseniks and the Stampede we cannot easily presume veracity as a matter of course (or of ‘sensitivity’ or any such).
And thus we have to examine the actual material for coherence and rationality and other elements supporting such credibility as we might then assign to it.
Ditto, that the Goodstein article is not quite accurate in its claim that MPR has “reported extensively” on this case. We have examined the quality of that ‘reporting’ on this site, and MPR’s performance has revealed some rather significant and substantial gaps, all of which gaps – by amazing coincidence – work to the advantage of the Stampede and to the detriment of the Archdiocese.
As for Ms. Hasselberger’s credentials and record as a “Canon scholar”(thanks for the respectful capitalization, but it’s the misspelling that is the problem here; we are dealing with canon law, not with artillery), it remains to be seen just how successful she was in her (interestingly) many positions – she appears to have moved around quite a bit, which employment history raises a flag and also raises some questions that need answering.
Whether she has “blown the whistle” or whether we are seeing here an individual who has had a patchy employment history and finally decided the grass would be greener for her by grabbing for the status of ‘whistle-blower’ while the ball was still in her court … is surely a question that hasn’t been answered yet.
Nor have her ‘revelations’ revealed much substantive and demonstrable “truth” – as is evidenced by the amount of failed-initiatives by the authorities (acting on her ‘information’) that we have seen since last autumn.
I don’t know how many people in Massachusetts read TMR; does ‘Another Mark’ actually have this information or is this yet another example of Abusenik snark trying to masquerade as ‘knowledge’?
Then (the 2nd, 923PM) JR takes to treading the boards once again, or in this case – the (key-)board.
And we get nothing but more of the usual assertions, un-corroborated and un-explained, but conforming nicely to the Playbook plop-tossing gambit (just keep tossing the stuff up and hope that some folks will eventually go along with it simply because you keep putting it up).
Some “you” (the TMR readers perhaps, or “active catholics” in general perhaps) have ‘shown’ “that you care nothing for truth and [for] you fellow catholic families injured by your negligence”. That’s a spin, but it’s not a credibly demonstrated assertion.
Ditto the bit about “protection of money” and – but of course – keeping the cash from “those who deserve it” (among whom, but of course, are JR and all those 12 or so thousand who have cashed their checks). But – as always – we have utterly and absolutely no way of knowing who genuinely “deserve[d] it” and those who got the cash although they were otherwise-classifiable. Again, we see here the presumption of what has yet to be demonstrated or proven.
Then more assertions as to JR’s theological assessments of the Church. For whatever they may be worth.
But then that nicely-placed projection about who is a “fraud” in all this.
Which nicely leads into JR’s signature I’m Not/You Are bit: it’s not “victims” but the Church and Catholics generally (at least those who have some questions) who are “being fraudsters”. Readers may consider this as they will.
Then an assertion as to the criminality of all of those aforementioned Catholics, again un-supported.
But the “decadent” bit is interesting: have the Stampede and the Abuseniks reached the point where their piñata game is itself becoming “decadent”? Or had they reached the point quite some time ago?
In that regard, there is a new film out entitled “Calvary”. In a nutshell, the plot revolves around a parish priest in an Irish village who is told in the confessional that the ‘penitent’ was abused by a priest for years in his childhood and the ‘penitent’ has thus decided to kill … not the abusive priest from the long-ago but a ‘good’ priest, namely this priest on the other side of the confessional screen; the priest is informed he has seven days to live.
I was curious to see what one of the premier Stampede-supporting media sources would have to say, and sure enough The Boston Globe (in Massachusetts) has weighed in:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/movies/2014/08/02/two-sons-ireland-contemplate-meaning-calvary/R9tqyZmJ33Z81Qy18u7CYN/story.html
In a paragraph headed by the classic ‘advocacy journalism’ proviso that “others might object that …” the article gingerly tries to work in its signature Stampede/Victimist angle: “the film seems to be reversing the roles of victim and perpetrator … the good guy is a priest … and the bad guy is someone violated by a priest who has been traumatized by the experience”.
This is a richly gravid bit.
First, we don’t know if the ‘penitent’ in the film actually was abused, or whether we are simply dealing with a psychopath who is planning a murder and has simply come up with a fabricated justification for what he is planning to do. Which latter possibility certainly strikes – albeit distantly – some familiar chords from the Stampede.
Second – and even more importantly – the article gives away the rather substantial connection between the modality of film and the modality of the Stampede: the film presents a thoroughly-scripted take on an imagined event.
And the problem that the article sees is that this thoroughly-scripted take on an imagined event will not be taken well by certain interests. Because – I would say – the film’s scripting runs counter to the thoroughly-scripted take that the Stampede has worked so very hard to establish as if it were demonstrable reality. Thus, “some might object” not because the film is a scripted imaginary, but rather because the film is not their scripted imaginary. And – it can safely be imagined – if the film had conformed to the Stampede’s demanded-scripting that the “good guy” be the (genuine or otherwise?) ‘victim’ and the “bad guy” be the monstrous and slavering and abusive predator-priest, then the paper and its allied interest-groups would be perfectly willing to go happily gaga over it.
That’s how the Game is played.
Is P still talking?
Yes. he always writes far more cogently than do you
Hatred is neither complex or interesting.
Somethings require being hated, Nazis for one. Child rapists for another. Lying Con Artists like your hierarchy. All very worthy of being hated.
If hatred is neither complex nor interesting why are murders so big on t.v.?
Or in Hamlet for that matter? If Hamlet liked his stepdad/uncle and there was no murder where would all of drama be? Macbeth; Romeo and Juliet etc.
And Oedipus put the drama/ hatred right in the family long before Shakephere by killing papa; and shtupping mom..
Ever read the old testament? Chock full of murder there and the core of the new testament is the injust murder of christ. People have found that drama interesting over the millenea.
So wrong about hatred being uninteresting. And you're wrong about P too. If snarky equates to cogency to you. Why would I believe anything you say about anything?
On the 4th at 1020PM we are allowed a ringside seat into some aspects of the mentation that fuels the Stampede.
“Somethings require being hated” (sic) is the way JR justifies what he wants to justify here. So far so good. Except that ‘child rape’ is – for the umpteenth time – one of the least-made allegations in the only record of formal allegations we have, i.e. the Jay Reports.
And then we are given an example that’s irrelevant to the subject: a) “murders” are not necessarily the same thing as “hate” and b) there are any number of reasons why people are interested in watching policier type TV shows, not the least of them being an interest in finding out who the ‘bad guy’ (or woman) really is and how the police go about finding that out (the old Columbo show comes to mind).
Then an uncharacteristic sashay into literature, dragging in Shakespeare and the Greeks and the Bible, which is nothing more than a riff on the already-flawed presumption that ‘murder’ and ‘hate’ are somehow synonymous.
And the whole bit topped off by the mere assertions that ‘Tom’ is thus wrong.
Which bit also demonstrates a pitch-perfect example of projection, since the effort to make “snark” ‘equate to’ “cogency” is something that precisely characterizes so much of the Abusenik material we have seen on this site.
But the object of the exercise for JR here was to somehow lead – by however twisty a mental path – to the juvenile conclusion “why would I believe anything you say about anything?”. Which – again – neatly projects a thought that might well have occurred to readers here in regard to his own and other Abuseniks’ material.
All of which falls under the rubric of JR’s signature distraction of I’m Not/You Are.
And frankly the phrase “equates to cogency” seems to come from some other mental precinct altogether.
So JR might well consider why a reader might ask “why should I believe anything you say about anything?”.
Because I say so.
Unlike people who hide here. My word is my bond and I back it with my name.
Shall we talk about your distractions? You started it all with yor saying in so many many words: "You are not telling the truth, I am."
Since that's the first dog you sent out to hunt; you shouldn't be surprised when it comes home to bite you. Karma's a bitch!
Sashay!!!!
Better butch it up Princess P.
The ball boys may throw you off the team.
We are now informed (the 5th, at 1150AM) that we should believe JR simply because he doth “say so”. Readers are welcome to consider the value of that assurance.
JR then tries to beef up this thin bit by then creating something I did not say – so far so typical – but this time trying to mask it by claiming that I said “in so many many words” (which actually is precisely not accurate) that “You[JR] are not telling the truth; I [Publion] am”. A neat and very real distraction itself.
And delivered with the charmingly juvenile posturing exemplified in the epithet tacked on at the end. (And if JR is an agent of Karma, and Karma is what he says it is here, then … ?)
All along here, I have simply pointed out dots that don’t connect, assertions made without any corroborative material whatsoever, and I have presented material that would clearly appear to contradict his assertions and claims, and explained alternative explanations and theories that cover the ground more effectively.
But there is a larger point here. We see clearly again the brilliance of the Anderson Strategies: synergistically creating the dynamics that present the opportunity for all sorts of mentalities to rise up to the surface. The cafeteria mentality gets a chance to run the school.
Thus the concluding bit – about dogs and “karma” – fails (even though JR as well as other Abuseniks seem to enjoy imagining themselves as agents of “karma” – the horned Wig of Avenging and Karmic Truthy-ness).
Followed up on the 5th at 1152AM by the usual queasy gender-bendy type stuff, this time revolving around the apparently (to JR’s mind, anyway) un-macho use of “sashay”. Perhaps it’s been too long since JR has seen any Westerns from back in the day. But in any case, I thought it set just the right tone for the context in which I put it up.
"Queasy gender-bendy type stuff". Who knows what your gender is ( if any)? I doubt you do.
I'm happy to be compared to women. Women don't scare me and neither do bullies who support rapists.
Where's your god now? Trot out your christianity. So far we've seen little of it from your "type".
As if on cue and in a pitch-perfect presentation of juvenilia, we get on the 5th at 417PM simply a string of epithets about “gender”, which is then propelled off the deep end by the insinuation that I have no “gender” at all.
I don’t know who has been “compared to women” here; if anything, it is I who has been referred to as “Princess” and so on. Other than that, this entire bit is another phantasm created by JR for his own convenience.
If JR can demonstrate where I “support rapists” or am a “bully” then he can put that up – but I advise nobody to postpone breakfast until that is forthcoming.
Then, from beyond the left-field flagpole, the bits about “your god” and so on and so forth. And the implication that if one doesn’t buy the Abuseniks’ material, then one is somehow not Christian.
But again, there is a larger point to be seen here: the Anderson Strategies created the lure that brought these types up to the surface; they realized that in the dynamics and milieu of the Stampede they would for once be able to pose not as queasy unripes but rather as – in a double benny – both victims and heroic battlers (or whistle-blowers or agents of Karmic retribution or fill-in-the-blank). What was not to like?
But we see quickly what happens when such types are presented with the substantive problems in their material.
And it certainly raises the question of what might have happened if their material had been examined more carefully and closely from the beginning.
Useful idiot for Jeff Anderson, Laurie Goodstein, strikes again. She's a shill, not a journalist.