Does the New York Times Read The New York Times (Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse Related)

I mentioned this OP ED a couple of days in passing. However the Anchoress fill in the details for those that following this everyday.

Speaking of confused, the NY Times is having trouble distinguishing the Catholic Church from the City of New York, the NY Public Schools and the teacher’s unions:

The Catholic Church is working against the interests of child abuse victims in state legislatures around the country. In recent weeks, lobbying by the church has blocked measures in Wisconsin, Arizona and Connecticut intended to widen the legal window for victims to file lawsuits against hidden predators.

We urge the New York State Legislature to rise above intense lobbying by the New York State Catholic Conference and Orthodox Jewish officials and pass the overdue Child Victims Act. Like a similar measure enacted in 2003 by California, it would create a one-time, one-year suspension of the statute of limitations for bringing civil lawsuits over the sexual abuse of children.…An earlier version of the bill passed the Assembly in 2006, 2007 and 2008, but the Senate, then under Republican control, refused to consider it [. . .] The Catholic Church fears a wave of costly settlements and damage awards like those that followed California’s temporary lifting of the statute of limitations several years ago. Those concerns, and the difficulty of trying to judge decades-old accusations, are outweighed by the need to afford victims a measure of justice, the demands of public safety, and the injustice of rewarding any group for covering up sexual abuse of children.

Ummm. No. Let’s now run by some reality taken right from the pages of…the New York Times:

What began as an effort by legislators to expand judicial accountability for sexual abuse by Catholic clergy has grown to cover people in every walk of life. One bill would temporarily suspend the statute of limitations, and allow people who say they were abused as children to file lawsuits up to age 58 — that is, 40 years after they turned 18. [. . .]
Until last year, proposals to change the statute of limitations would not have affected public bodies and fallen largely on the church. After much debate, the bill, sponsored by Assemblywoman Margaret Markey, a Queens Democrat, was amended to include governments and their employees.
Suddenly, lobbyists and advocates for school boards, counties and small towns spoke out.
“Statutes of limitation exist for a reason,” said Bob Lowry, the deputy director of the New York State Council of School Superintendents. “How can anyone go back 40 years and ascertain what happened? Witnesses, responsible authorities, even the perpetrator himself or herself, may have passed away.”
The State Association of Counties weighed in, saying in a memo of opposition that “a fact-finder would have to make a determination based upon significantly aged and clouded” evidence.
And the New York State School Boards Association said the costs of old misdeeds would be borne by people who had nothing to do with them, and “provide no corresponding protection” to children.

As I wrote two weeks ago:

Should the Markey bill pass, forcing secular and civic institutions (and taxpayers) to beat out the lumps under their own rugs, these institutions may find themselves turning to the Catholic Church in America for advice, to see how they may adapt her successful policies drawn under this pope and the current bishops, to their own organizations. That would be both profoundly ironic, and further evidence that sometimes excruciating episodes and injustices end up working for a broader good.

Which is one message of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection.

The Markey Bill will likely fail to pass, once more, and its failure will be blamed on the resistance of the Catholic Church, who apparently represent the interests of civic institutions of New York, as well.

The fact that the New York Times could have run that major Op-Ed and no one seems to have called them out on some potential problems shows where we are at with the Times that for some reason is on some jihad against the Catholic Church. As I have noted (as well as others) the reporting we have seen comes nothing close to the reporting that Boston Globe did on this issue.

Now I am against getting rid of statute of limitations for various reasons.

Here is the rub. U suspect the minds at the New York Times would agree with those reasons. In fact one reason they can run this Op-Ed (that just talks about the Catholic Church) is they know this bill has no shot in passing.

Can you imagine the Times endorsing a bill that would make people from teachers to people that were in the juvenile prison system to people involved in City youth programs to have to respond and defend themselves from decades old allegations? They would never cross the teacher unions anyway. Can you imagine the Times actually supporting a bill that would cost so much to New York Government on a state , city , and county level?

Of course not. This is a mirage and a cynical one at that. THey know this bill has no chance of passing in its current form with the added amendment and if they thought it would they would be against it. As the Anchoress said :

The Markey Bill will likely fail to pass, once more, and its failure will be blamed on the resistance of the Catholic Church, who apparently represent the interests of civic institutions of New York, as well.