Yes, faithful readers, I saw the New York TImes story that ran under this headline: “Catholic Officials on Edge After Reports of Priests Using Grindr.” Why didn’t I write — pronto — about this story?
I guess because it seemed like an echo of an echo of an echo, fitting neatly into the template established by numerous articles in progressive Catholic media. It was an investigation of the methods and motives of a conservative Catholic blog — The Pillar, of course. TheTimes was not (#DUH) all that interested in the phenomenon that concerned The Pilliar, as in evidence that some Catholic priests have been using Grindr, that smartphone ap that a Vanity Fair feature once called “The World’s Biggest, Scariest Gay Bar.”
In a way, this Times story was yet another example of an old truth: Conservatives are wrong — simplistic, at the very least — when they claim that elite mainstream news publications are “anti-religion.”
In this Times piece, it’s clear that there are good Catholics and bad Catholics and that the Gray Lady gets to tell readers who is who. This is not the same as saying that there are Catholics who want to defend church doctrines and those who want key doctrines to evolve and we (the editors) will offer coverage in which readers read accurate, fair-minded discussions about why people on each side believe what they believe.
So yes, for Times editors this is clearly a story about bad Catholic journalists. But it’s clear that the Times is not an anti-Catholic newspaper; it totally approves of the Catholic left. It’s using the same basic doctrinal lens as progressive Catholic newspapers. Click here for a famous Times op-ed explaining the basics on this: “Is the Pope Catholic?”
There are, however, two things I would like to note in this Times feature. First, read the following carefully:
The reports by the blog, The Pillar, have unnerved the leadership of the American Catholic Church and have introduced a potentially powerful new weapon into the culture war between supporters of Pope Francis and his conservative critics: cellphone data, which many users assume to be unavailable to the general public.
