Denver Archbishop Chaput May Reconsider New York Times Boycott

Why does Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput refuse to speak to The New York Times? Laurie Goodstein, the newspaper's national religion correspondent, got her chance to ask him directly during his appearance at the Religion Newswriters Association conference Friday (Sept. 24) morning.

To Goodstein's surprise, Chaput's beef with the Gray Lady goes all the way back to John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. He claims that Goodstein's colleague David D. Kirkpatrick and their editors twisted his words in a story about bishops using their influence to sways votes against the pro-choice Catholic.

Goodstein said she didn't even know that Chaput had an official policy against talking to the Times -- the only media outlet he officially boycotts -- until she tried to reach him for a comment on a "good news story" recently: the Vatican's choice of Archbishop Jose H. Gomez to lead the Los Angeles archdiocese and possibly become the first Hispanic cardinal in the United States.

Clarifying his position, Chaput said that he didn't necessarily have a problem with specific Times reporters, but considered the newspaper's coverage of Catholics to be "unbalanced," particularly its recent investigative series of Pope Benedict's response to the clergy sex abuse scandal.

Jumping into the fray, USA Today religion reporter Cathy Lynn Grossman asked Chaput how he can request fairness and respect from the media while refusing to speak to a major outlet, based on one story six years ago.

In general, Chaput said during his remarks, reporters have trouble covering faith fairly. The best religion reporters, he said, "aren't normal people. They are amphibians who live in two worlds and can honor both." He advised the audience, which included dozens of religion reporters from newspapers and media outlets across the country, to "know yourselves and your prejudices," and to be open about acknowledging mistakes.

Of his New York Times boycott, he left the door open for Goodstein, saying, "Maybe you and I can have a nice conversation after this talk, and you can convince me otherwise."

(Session moderator David Gibson, a Politics Daily reporter and author of several books about Catholicism, later recused himself from formally organizing a "beer summit" for Goodstein and Chaput.)

Chaput's spokesperson, Jeanette De Melo, said Chaput has spoken to some Times reporters "behind the scenes" since 2004, though not on the record.

"He's very selective in general about who he talks to," she said.

Chaput, after chatting privately with Goodstein following the conference session and shaking her hand, said his anti-Times policy may be reconsidered.

"We'll see what happens," he said. "Things can change."

 

Follow Nicole Neroulias on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BeliefBeat

Comments

[GerryS]

11:30 PM on 09/27/2010

let the priests marry-------------

that would end the abuse of young children----

maybe.

[1differentdrummer]

06:48 AM on 09/27/2010

What is Chaput to us?

[LittleMittens]

10:24 PM on 09/26/2010

Why doesn't he get interviewed by faux news then? They're a bunch of religious freaks who don't do investigative reporting and could care less about church scandals...

[SteveDenver]

07:27 AM on 09/26/2010

Chaput is a jerk and can always be counted on to do the least charitable and most judgmental actions. It is stunning how Denver's poorest parishes have lost schools and churches, but the big suburban moneymakers are flush, opulent and nicely landscaped.

[GEM-592]

03:18 AM on 09/26/2010

Yeah, and I'm boycotting the Catholic church. Kudos.

[JShankel]

01:06 AM on 09/26/2010

Good.  Maybe this will put an end to taxpayer-subsidized superstition.

[WiltonDiary]

12:52 AM on 09/26/2010

Jesus “is the one who said, ‘Whatever you did to any of my brothers, even the lowliest, you did to me.’ That means that the priests abusing the vulnerable young were doing that to Jesus, raping Jesus.

Any clerical functionary who shows more sympathy for the predator priests than for their victims instantly disqualified himself as a follower of Jesus.

The cardinals said they must care for their own, going to jail if necessary to protect a priest. We say the same thing, but the ‘our own’ we care for are the victimized, the poor, the violated. They are Jesus.”

[corwin]

07:46 PM on 09/25/2010

He'd better hurry.They're going out of business

[WiltonDiary]

12:40 AM on 09/26/2010

Who's going out of business? You obviously don't read or you would know the NYT is solvent, and not experiencing financial problems.

Why do you hate America and freedom of the press?

Republican thinking is becoming more and more Communist in their approach to Decmocracy.

[Gregor53]

06:59 PM on 09/25/2010

I believe the Web may have done more damage to the Times than the Catholic community in America. 

[WiltonDiary]

12:40 AM on 09/26/2010

The Times is doing just fine. It is the WSJ that is loosing money hand over fist.

[Gregor53]

10:50 AM on 09/26/2010

That may be true today, but tomorrow is another day with a technology or device we have yet to even imagine.  It was only a few years back that the Music companies said the same thing.  Look at music today.  In addition, just saw an article asking if e-books would kill paper books.  The answer was yes, although I personally like paper for some books.

[OldBear]

05:15 PM on 09/25/2010

Each individual has the right of refusal to be interrogated by the media. I have no problem with the Bishops position, what I do have is a problem with using that stance for Catholic religious propaganda along with the responses of the faithful about how I should view the Catholic Religion. First, I grew up in an east coast urban area that was dominated by the Catholic Church and practitioners. I was insulted by priests, nuns and practitioners from early childhood. I was thrown out of my classmates home when parents were informed that I was not Catholic. I was told I was going to hell and forever damned because I was not catholic. I was refused permission from the parents of the girl I wanted to marry because I wasn’t Catholic and a Catholic priest informed this young lady that to marry me was a moral sin. For me vilification of the Catholic Religion is as easy as recounting my experiences growing up where they dominated over other religions. So please take youre faithful vilification complaints to another forum, one where the truth of the numerous disapproving priest, nuns and practitioners didn’t victimize non-Catholic children for decades, all over seen by the Catholic Cardinal who served on interfaith committees and gave speeches supporting publically interfaith tolerance. Ya, tolerance for Catholics by everyone else, not vice versa. Tolerance of the Catholic Churches agenda to force everyone to follow their believe edics-never.Tyranny in any form-never.

[WiltonDiary]

12:42 AM on 09/26/2010

Oh for gods sake you need professional help. To carry this baggae for all these years is not healthy. There is more to that story than you are sharing.

[dora rice]

05:05 PM on 09/25/2010

When will those Bishops attend to their flock and keep their priests in line, if you know what I mean, instead of dabbling in politics and worldly affairs they have no clue about since they don't have family , children, wife....They can proclaim their believes about God and the church and leave worldly matters to people who have more experience. Besides don't they have enough problems with all their lawsuites? Wouldn't that be priority one?

[Nicole Neroulias]

11:57 AM on 09/25/2010

Christianity Today's Sarah Pulliam Bailey, also attending the Religion Newswriters Association conference in Denver, has blogged about this further at GetReligion:
http://www.getreligion.org/2010/09/bam-chaput-boycotts-the-nyt/

You can also read the full text of Chaput's speech to RNA -- though not the Q&A portion of the session -- on the Denver Archdiocese website:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/09/1717

[New Yorker]

11:19 AM on 09/25/2010

The Selling of Newspapers rarely involves a search for the truth. We Catholics were as shocked and offended by the "Pedophile Priest Scandal" as anyone, but we still recognize the truth that most priests were not involved in any way. When one considers that a primary function of The Church is to Save Sinners (actually why Jesus Came down from heaven and became a man), even the cover-up aspect of the whole despicable episode becomes easier to understand. We who gain much from The Church, will never abandon our faith because of an attack by the demons of this world on those priests who committed these horrible crimes. No person is free of sin, not one. The grace of God is all we have to turn back the tide of crime, immorality, filth, greed, perversion, hatred and other sins. We arise each morning, face the onslaught of "this World", and pray for the God given grace to avoid being involved in it. The Bishop understands the challenges, and simply refuses to participate in the villification frenzy by the media. As Democrats you might think of it as Obama refusing to speak with FOX News. Same thing.

[KYZipster]

11:40 AM on 09/25/2010

The church may have a primary function to save sinners but they made it their primary function to save their own from scandal and punishment under secular law, it's not a few bad apples that are to blame, it was an institutionalized crime. The 'vilification' has been brought on by the church's flawed decisions, their 'sins', scapegoating the media won't make that bad karma go away. Best to face it head on with some courage.

You don't have to abandon your faith but you might want to step back and question the dogma, the sexism that prevents women from becoming priests, the man-made rules that try to enforce an unnatural life of celibacy on people who are not be ready for it, grown men who have never had an adult sexual relationship.

[grailknight]

11:37 PM on 09/26/2010

This is true. Clergy take an oath to defend the institution of the church above all else. That's why Pius XII never condemmed the Nazi regime.

[ohboy]

04:24 PM on 09/25/2010

So, only--what--49 percent of priests and the Pope were "involved in any way"?

Well, then! Who cares, right? Right ...

[ArthurTwoShedsJackson]

10:58 AM on 09/25/2010

After reading this article on Chaput, all I have to say is:

"C,WAA."

http://boingboing.net/2010/04/16/every-comic-is-funni.html

[rixter1965]

09:55 AM on 09/25/2010

I think by "amphibian," the archbishop actually means: be objective, investigate, write expose's, etc. as much as you want., but only write favorable things about the Catholic Church.