09 December 2010

RFT Rakes Muck; In Other News, Water is Wet

The Riverfront Times (on its blog) has now put its nose into matters touching the natural moral law. Historically, its experience in this area consisted largely of running ads for strip clubs and publishing dicey "massage" ads in its classified section. Now, it has decided to branch out and preach to the Catholic Church.

About what? The truth that homosexual acts are gravely contrary to the moral law. Why? To try to bolster Mr. Bozek's legal case.

The RFT has made public a letter dating from 2007 from a Missouri Court of Appeals Judge who declined an invitation to attend the Red Mass-- a Mass for members of the legal profession to seek Divine guidance and blessings on the practice of their profession, held once a year at the historical start of the judicial term-- because he did not feel welcome in the Church. This, of course, is his right; he has the right to decline to attend any Church function for any reason he chooses. If he disagrees with the Church's adherence to the natural law when it comes to opposing homosexual acts and opposing equating sodomitical relationships with marriage, that is his right. He is wrong to do so, in my opinion, but he can do as he chooses.

It is a little more complicated than that, however. The text of his letter (which is linked at the RFT site) states that he declines to attend "[b]ecause of the Catholic Church's chronic abuse of gays and lesbians". Read that again: "chronic abuse of gays and lesbians". Again: "chronic". "abuse". Pardon me, but this is insulting. So, I chalk him up to be another militant advocate that is free to hold whatever opinion he likes, but who is not likely to be persuaded by rational argument.

All of this would simply be useless gossip--publishable in the RFT but not here-- except that the gist of the story is that the Archdiocese's lawyers moved to recuse this judge from the appeal of the issue of lawyer disqualification because of a possible conflict of interest. To his credit, this judge did in fact recuse himself. Everybody wins, right?

Well, that outcome can't be left standing by Mr. Bozek and his allies at the RFT. To them, it is a story about the evil Catholic Church hating on gays.

The RFT headline:

Attorneys for Archdiocese Demanded Recusal of Gay Judge, Records Show

Well, "demanded" is a bit strong, since the desire for recusal is in the form of a motion, or request, if you will. The Judge could have said no. And more importantly, the headline is designed to give the impression that the "demand" for recusal is merely because the Judge is "gay".

How is this for a more accurate headline?:

Judge Who Had Written to the Archbishop that the Teaching of the Catholic Church on Homosexuality Constituted "Chronic Abuse of Gays and Lesbians" Recused Himself from Appeal Involving the Archdiocese, Records Show

But, hey, I'm no professional journalist.

P.S. Speaking of professionals, SNAP couldn't wait to be the first two commenters on the RFT post.


Anonymous said...

Timman – in case anyone doubts the anti-Catholic bias of (former Catholic) Judge Mooney, they should review the opinion he authored several years ago that explicitly mocked transubstantiation, which opinion was later withdrawn and modified after Jim Hitchcock wrote about it in a February 7, 2003 column:

“Recently in St. Louis a judge mocked the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, when he used the term ‘hocus pocus’ to characterize a particular legal maneuver. ‘Hocus pocus’ is a term coined centuries ago by extreme Protestants to mock the Latin words of consecration at Mass.

“Possibly Judge Lawrence Mooney, like most people, does not know the origin of the term. But he went on to demonstrate that he knew what he was doing, when he admonished the defendants in a civil case that their procedures could not "transubstantiate" the meaning of a document. In a case which had nothing to do with religion, the judge used words sacred to Catholics in a flippant, disrespectful, even jeering fashion.”

This tidbit probably wasn't included in the motion for recusal, although it could have been Point No. 1.

Fenian said...

So a judge that is obviously biased against the Church is asked to recuse himself because of said bias? This is somehow a scandal or even newsworthy?

Also, I like how SNAP is making their real agenda obvious for all to see.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain to the rest of us what SNAP's "real agenda" is.

Anonymous said...

RFT, anti-Catholic stuff, run of the mill indeed. This case is beyond the scope of SNAP. I saw your "Show Me No Hate" friend comment. I am trying to figure out how active homosexuals etc can be faithful Catholics. They never answer that question.

This case is crazy. Filing suit in IL is crazy.

Show Me No Hate said...

Contrary to your belief, there are Catholics who are indeed gay Peggy. In fact, I know many Sisters, Deacons and Priests who are gay and lesbian. They are fine outstanding men and women who have taught me the most about ethics, morality, theology and matters of justice.

Are we not all sinners Peggy?

It's time you re-read your Bible. We're not the judge of mankind, that's for God and God alone.

Merry Christmas and a blessed New Year.