Check this out

Whenever I argue with someone who dislikes the church it always happens. And I know it's going to happen.

Invariably, the person with whom I am arguing will bring up priests and sexual abuse.

In their defense, they have to.

It's all they've got.

Well, that and the Inquisition.

So I was pleased to read this email I got from the Catholic League today.

Another reason to homeschool!

And don't miss the bit about the suing sexual predators bill thingy...

NEW YORK TIMES EMBRACES DISCRIMINATION

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an editorial in today’s New York Times:

“It was reported yesterday that accusations of misconduct against New York City public school teachers are at an all time high. Thanks to Richard Condon, Special Commissioner of Investigation, we know that about a third of those accusations involved sexual abuse: there were 595 such accusations, of which 105 were substantiated by his office. The New York Times did not report on this story—it was published in the New York Post. Nor did the New York Times run a story on a recent report regarding priestly sexual abuse: a grand total of ten credible accusations were made last year across the United States.

“Anyone who is serious about seeking justice would begin by addressing the public schools. But not the New York Times. Its editorial today never mentions the public schools. Indeed, it begins by saying, ‘For decades, priests who preyed sexually on children did so with shocking ease and impunity.’ Why were priests singled out? What was the motive? The editorial also talks about ‘shuttling abusive priests among parishes.’ In the public schools, shuttling abusers is so common—to this day!—that it is called ‘passing the trash.’

“The Times today endorsed a bill that would allow victims to sue even if the abuse took place in the 1960s. But only if the abuse occurred in a private institution. Under the bill the Times likes, the current protections afforded public school teachers—alleged victims have only 90 days to file a claim—remain in place. Yet the Times has the audacity to say that ‘The bill does not explicitly target any institution,’ knowing full well that unless the bill explicitly negated the 90-day rule for the public schools, the net effect would be to discriminate against Catholic schools.

“There is another bill that would create an equal playing field. But the Times, of course, never even mentioned it. We can only guess why.”

Contact NYT senior editor of the editorial page, Robert Semple, at semple@nytimes.com