Why Is the MSM Ignoring this Priest Scandal? Could It Be ...?

Why Is the MSM Ignoring this Priest Scandal? Could It Be ...?

By Dave Pierre (Bio | Archive)
November 13, 2006 - 21:16 ET

The story: A priest works at a Miami high school as a history teacher and assistant chaplain. Nude photographs of him interacting physically with other men are discovered on the Internet. The priest resigns from his job. Graphic Internet photos are readily available for the media.

In light of the recent media frenzy over Rev. Ted Haggard (5,500 results at Google News), it sounds like everything would be ripe for a story that the media would just love to jump all over. But, curiously, the mainstream media has essentially ignored this story. Why?

The answer may lie in the priest's denomination. Here's the story. You see, Rev. Parry is not a Catholic priest. He's not even a pastor from one of those conservative Evangelical churches. Rev Parry is a priest of the increasingly liberal Episcopal Church in the USA.

When the Episcopal Church recently elected a woman bishop, the media celebrated the event. (Right now (11/11/06) at Google News, "katharine schori episcopal" yields over 1000 results.) The 2003 election of openly gay Gene Robinson as bishop was very widely covered. Many Episcopalians are supporting same-sex "marriage"; women priests are allowed; Episcopal priests can be married; abortion is accepted among many. (Bishop Gene Robinson spoke at Planned Parenthood's 2005 "Prayer Breakfast.")

An unfiltered search at Google News for "Adrian Parry" (the name of the priest) returns a miniscule five results from two media outlets in the entire world (that appear on Google). (Three results are the same source, the Miami Herald; one is the story itself and the other two are letters to the editor in reaction to the scandal. The fourth is an online site covering news in the Episcopal/Anglican world which reprinted the Miami Herald piece. A fifth: A local TV station in Miami covered the story. (A sixth result is a story from the UK involving a man who happens to have the same name.))

Is there honestly any doubt at all that this story would receive a lot more media attention if this had been a Catholic priest or a conservative Evangelical pastor?

File under: Double standard!

—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

...I have no problem pledging

November 14, 2006 - 18:04 ET by TruthMonger

...I have no problem pledging allegiance to the holy catholic church every sunday via the apostle's creed...but that's not the same as pledging allegience to the Pope or the ROMAN CATHOLIC church - which is entirely different from the original holy catholic church - so I'm simply pointing out that Jesus didn't found the Roman Catholic church - it is a denomination of the holy catholic church just like the Pentacostals or any other Christian denomination...in spite of what you Roman Catholic posters would like to assert...

And you fall into the trap ju

November 14, 2006 - 18:10 ET by Dan The Man 2

And you fall into the trap just as the Sanhedrin and others have thinking they have the lock on God. God did not found a physical church but one in spirit. He in fact tore assunder the early church to get them to travel to other parts. When, as you do, assume that their church is the church then you come into blasphemy against God.

God himself said tjhat everyone was accountable and that the only chance was the one we had on earth. He said he wrote the truth into everyones heart and we must circumcise it to allow His son to rule over us.

Well thats it for my little soap box.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

Hmm, well... "Politics a

November 14, 2006 - 21:56 ET by Indiana Joe

n2--As a Catholic I couldn't

November 14, 2006 - 16:39 ET by ncstevem

n2--As a Catholic I couldn't agree with you more. The Catholic Church has been burdened by many bad bishops the last 40+ years who by their actions and inactions have caused scandal among those within and outside the Church.

One area of scandal has been prevalent granting of annulments in that time frame. In 1968, there were a TOTAL of 300 annulments granted in the US. Now the figure runs about 50,000 annually. The previous pope told the bishops in the US on several ocassions to stop granting annulments on such a large scale but as usual, the bishops ignored him.

Part of the problem in the Catholic Church these days is that there has been almost a total breakdown in discipline. It began began back in the days of Vatican II and has continued to the present day. As far as I'm concerned , the previous pope, while a holy man, was a disaster as pope. He rarely disciplined those in the Church who should have been excommunicated. He even admitted to this right before his death. The Church needs a strong pope who's going to tell those in the Church either shape up or ship out.

it's your private opinion

November 14, 2006 - 16:57 ET by tumbler

Please indicate it when you express a private opinion, Steven. The things you say are off-the-wall in some aspects.

First-- We may have had bad bishops going back to the beginning. Many heresies even arose because of bad bishops. Nothing's new under the sun.

Bishops are in authority, God places them there. But the Church's guidance is really from the Holy Spirit. You can't be in conflict with any Pope in matters of faith and morals and still be faithful to the Holy Spirit. Christ very clearly told us that scandals were to come and we should have faith. We've even overcome some bad popes (the Borgia popes), but the Church wasn't undermined.

God is very able to bring a greater good out of some passing evil. We're warned about the final days by Jesus. All of us must maintain our faith and pray. Because trials and tribulations must come such as never happened in any past era and we must persevere. That is what's under way over the last 50 years. Trials and suffering for the Church, and Satan unchained. Yet we are taught this will never gain him power over us, the Church --The gates of hell shall not prevail.

What opinion of mine is 'off-

November 14, 2006 - 17:32 ET by ncstevem

What opinion of mine is 'off-the-wall' tumbler?

off the wall?

November 14, 2006 - 19:13 ET by tumbler

Off the wall, you ask? --Well. maybe your scruples about the anulled marriage overflow? We can be sure this is the business of canonical authorities, it's not up to laic oversight. You and many others question it; but only because you weren't consulted on a case-to-case basis. How can you tell this was badly overseen? A little bird? No- You & others simply take a pharisaical stance about something only God truly knows.

It all rests on the authority of the Church; not on our opinions. You may think something. But it doesn't make that something so. ----Also within the bounds of personal observation or private opinion: "these days is that there has been almost a total breakdown in discipline. It began back in the days of Vatican II and has continued to the present day." Supposing I, for one-- disagree? Who has the final word, in this judgment? Not you, not me. GOD.

You said, As far as I'm concerned , the previous pope, while a holy man, was a disaster as pope. He rarely disciplined those in the Church who should have been excommunicated. Again: a subjective view, and definitely off-the wall. We don't KNOW who was or wasn't disciplined. Nor can we justly say who ought to be excommunicated, about ANYONE. John Paul II was the final word, not the laity. We can question but not denounce. He even admitted to this right before his death. HARDLY. Discipline isn't always the answer. It may be more destructive to unity than conducive to respect and love. He knew what he was doing, in the accepted and most valid opinion. Dissent isn't such a good idea when what we really should be doing is praying for the Church and her stewards. They're only human after all.

I personally disagreed with him on the Iraq war. But he needed no approval from me. He as well as we had a right to a personal opinion without any cause for us to say he "was a disaster as a Pope," A patently unjust judgment of this great man.

First off tumbler, where did

November 14, 2006 - 20:28 ET by ncstevem

First off tumbler, where did I ever even imply in the post in question that my points were anything but my opinion? Secondly, where did I ever state that as a Catholic I wasn't subject to the authrity of the hierarchy?

You need to take a reading comprehension class so you can make logical arguments in the future.

As far as being scrupulous in regards to the number of annulments being granted, I guess the previous pope must have been scrupulous too since he urged the bishops on several occasions to reign in their diocesan tribunals and stop granting so many annulments. Come to think of it, I guess those in authority 50+ years ago must have scrupulous about the whole annulment process too since they granted a fraction of those now being granted.

Either you're unaware or you're lying about the fact that the previous pope apologized to the faithful for not exercising his authority more forcefully and thereby causing scandal.

The bottom line is tumbler you're in to the touchy-feely Catholic Church that has been in place for the last 40 years. You like Holy Communion in the hand, distributed by laymen, girl altar boys, because it makes you FEEL good.

I, on the other hand, recognize that just because the pope has the authority to grant these things, doesn't make it good for the Faith. Living the One, True Faith is an act of the will and the intellect. Modern Catholics are more into feeling good about their Faith. If there is anything that the Church teaches that makes them FEEL badly, then it is ignored.

First off tumbler, where did

November 14, 2006 - 20:29 ET by ncstevem

You need to take a reading comprehension class so you can make logical arguments in the future.

Either you're unaware or you're lying about the fact that the previous pope apologized to the faithful for not exercising his authority more forcefully and thereby causing scandal.

OK trach--name one person who

November 14, 2006 - 17:28 ET by ncstevem

OK trach--name one person who believed in the three main tenets of protestantism --- Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and the priesthood of all believers to read and interpret scripture for themselves- prior to Martin Luther.

Well trach--you regurgitate

November 14, 2006 - 17:23 ET by ncstevem

Well trach--you regurgitate the old protestant canard that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that we achieve salvation through our own works.

The Catholic Church has NEVER taught that salvation is attained through works. The Church teaches that salvation is a result of God's grace.

The most concise explanation I've heard of what the Catholic Church teaches in regards to salvation was something an instructor said during a class I was taking.

He said, "There's nothing we can do to earn salvation but there's plenty we can do to deserve Hell."

That pretty much sums up the Catholic Church's teaching on this matter. Unlike protestants who claim that all they have to do is declare themselves saved because of some 'born-again' experience and low and behold, they're saved. This was one of the many fraudulant inventions of Martin Luther.

So let me ask you this, can a born-again adulterer lose his salvation? St. Paul certainly says so. (1 Cor 6:9, Gal 5:19, Eph 5:3 - 7) Or how about someone who's born-again and then 'backslides'? Of course protestants contradict themselves with the concept of backsliding. Once someone is 'born-again', they're 'saved' regardless what they do with their life from that point on. So the concept of backsliding is moot.

Protestants will respond that the backslider was never really saved to begin with to which I respond then how can any person who's born-again be assurred of their salvation?

NL--My mind is 'closed' but s

November 14, 2006 - 16:52 ET by ncstevem

NL--My mind is 'closed' but somehow your mind is 'open' on the matter, eh?

But I'll play along with your premise NL. You accept the idea of theological relativism, i.e. two contrary ideas can both be true. It just depends on how one believer interprets his Bible as opposed to how another believer interprets his. So for you NL, Truth is fungible.

Of course Christ Himself teaches contrary to your 'interpretation' when He prays at the Last Supper that His disciples would be as one as He and the Father are one. (Jn 17:6-26)

why? Jesus Said I AM the wa

November 14, 2006 - 18:03 ET by lbcdawn

why?

Jesus Said I AM the way the truth and the life no man cometh unto the father but by me. And There is but one mediator between God and man and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no pope in there. To get nitty gritty religion doesn't save you God does. Read your Bible "Study to shew thyself approved unto God" rather then repeat your catchism book. I couldn't care less what religion someone is it all boils down to one thing.. He that hath the son hath life he that hath not the son hath not life. My sig line says it all.. religion is about doing.. Christianity is about done.

now to get back on track.. Haggards actions are reprehensible.. this episcopal priests is too. It is biased for the MSM to devote so much air time to talking about Haggard.. I wouldn't expect equal coverage of a lesser known man but some.. how often have we seen mention of a catholic priest scandal... couldn't have been more then 3 years ago some catholic priest was posting nude shots of himself that was all over the msm. he wasn't a big name he was a virtual unknown... why the disparity in coverage?

~lbcdawn Religion is about doing. Christianity is about done.

It is true that Jesus is the

November 14, 2006 - 20:58 ET by Conservative Voice

It is true that Jesus is the way the truth and the life no man cometh unto the father but by me. It is also true that Religion doesn't save you, Christ does. That doesn't mean we should forgo religion, because Christ also has given us apostles and prophets as a means to spread the gospel, to strengthen the saints, and to redeem the dead.

As far as hypocrisy goes, I think we are all sinners. But if we repent and call people to repentance than we are not hypocrites. Do we not tell our kids to avoid our mistakes? Are we hypocrites then if we preach against things that we know to be wrong, but struggle with? We are only hypocrites if we put ourselves above people and try and correct their behavior and ignore our own follies.

I agree with you, can we get back on track on what this thread is all about, MSM bias, not whose church is more correct?

tumbler......(and everyone el

November 14, 2006 - 18:59 ET by ww thumper

tumbler......(and everyone else)....In the writings of Paul .. NOwhere will you read that he instructed anyone he wrote to to pray to ..

Any man...Pope, Biishup, Priest, or any one else

Any Angel

Any Saint

OR any one else

Jesus instructed US ALL to pray to GOD the Father in His(Jesus) name.....I am not Catholic , I am a Christian man who can read the bible and understand it without any one "teaching" me what it says. I have studied it for over 50 years, I know what it says and I know what it means.........ww If I misspelled, sorry I don't spell real well sometimes :-) ww

reply to ww thumper

November 14, 2006 - 19:36 ET by tumbler

"tumbler......(and everyone else)....In the writings of Paul .. NO where will you read that he instructed anyone he wrote to to pray to ..

Any man...Pope, Bishop, Priest, or any one else----

Any Angel

Any Saint

OR any one else." Reply: No passage of the Bible says you should be your own interpreter of the Bible. All authority is vested in the holy apostles and disciples of Jesus. Can you show me a verse that says: "Blessed are the Bible Christians"--??? NO. Your view on this 50 years of understanding what you read "without anyone teaching you," is unscriptural. Jesus stated to His apostles, "If he will not hear the Church then let him be to you as the Publican and the heathen."

He meant HIS one Church, the Catholic Church. There is no other. When you boldly say the Church didn't have to teach you, you display human wisdom, human pride. They mean nothing to God. God dislikes the proud; you ought to know that, being an old Christian.

Paul says the wisdom of men is folly to God. You are commanded to have the Catholic Church ONLY for your teacher, by Jesus. He sent her to all the nations to spread His Gospel. He didn't send you a Bible. He sent His saints and His CHURCH. Later on, the same Church got us the Bible you worship in place of that Church. SHE received the Holy Bible first, not you.

tumbler.........Why are you

November 14, 2006 - 20:00 ET by ww thumper

tumbler.........Why are you Yelling at me?? The word says" be ye kind, one to another..." Don't yell at me and I will answer. I must do that later, because I have somthing to do just now, but I will answer your post without yelling at you. untill a little later...ww

tumbler....Well sir I a

November 14, 2006 - 22:40 ET by ww thumper

tumbler....Well sir I am back, I had to cook dinner for my wife and I , and have dinner , then go out and fill the car with gas. Now for your answers...The phrase I used "without anyone teaching me" was a poor choice of words at that time I posted. Im sorry about that . I have attended church sence I was 7. I have learned alot for the teaching and preaching of the word of GOD. Jesus never said anything about the Catholic Church. Jesus sent his desiples out to all nations . I don't worship my bible, I read it alot, and pray with it alot. Anyway Mr Tumbler I will not argu with about this , so I will just wish you well and a good night and may our GOD bless you and yours.. :^) ww

fine, mr. thumper

November 15, 2006 - 00:23 ET by tumbler

This is a welcome post, inasmuch as I would rather you & me be friends. Yes, scripture states that His Church-- meaning the first apostles & disciples, were to preach the Gospel to all nations; "teaching them to OBSERVE ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU (Matt 28 :20). --and that meant His Church's doctrine. Did you understand what the word "Catholic" means, in Greek? It's UNIVERSAL. Only one living Church is; the Catholic Church. You belong to a "denomination". A RIVAL of Christ's Holy Church. All sectarian rivals were founded by men. May I say just one more thing? ALL your blessed ancestors of generations ago-- all of them were faithful Catholics. And all believed in and loved Our Lord.

May He bless you and your loved ones, and keep you from all harm and misfortune.

tumbler.........thank you sir

November 15, 2006 - 00:48 ET by ww thumper

tumbler.........thank you sir for your gracious comment ,I too would like to be friends with you and all on NBs. We will not aggree on the church, but we do worship the same GOD, and Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour. :^) I am going to do some study now and go to bed. Good night and God bless you and yours. ww

Damn tumby

November 14, 2006 - 20:12 ET by Six String Spiff

Thump that bible a little more tumbler geez

Stolen Election?

And Jesus said "I shall

November 14, 2006 - 20:27 ET by Dan The Man 2

And Jesus said "I shall build my church on this rock" So he built the one and only church on that very rock? Did he say that he was to build others? The church is not a place except in teh believers heart. It is also not a denomination as you seem to think. I beleive that the Catholic Church is falling or has fallen into teh same trap teh Jewish ruling council fell into. Martin Luther pointed this out to the church and was thrown out. The church at taht point was corrupted and the "holey" men were the purveyors of sin. The people did not know any better because they trusted teh Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is not all roses as you seem to think.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

not a denomination at all

November 14, 2006 - 21:56 ET by tumbler

Dear Dan The Man:
You question Christ's Church? There's just one in the beginning; the one built on the Rock, Peter. It's the same Church we see in that 1st chpt of Paul's epistle to the Romans. Who were these Romans, Dan? All converts, mostly brought to the faith by Paul.

They're the people of Rome, Christians living under the Caesars at that time. These are the famed martyrs who were crucified and burned alive by Nero, et al, the emperors. In Rom 1, 8 Paul lauds them as those Christians whose faith was known "all over the world".

Let's parse the words. All over the world means universal. Catholic also means universal. In every place on earth, and all times and in heaven and on earth. --universally. Wasn't Peter told he was being given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, by Jesus? Whatever you bind on earth, bound in heaven. --Universally. Or loose on earth, is loosed in heaven as well. Universal authority, in the hands of Peter and the apostles, who are Jesus' universal, only Church. Peter, universal apostle of Jesus' ONE Church. All this is in the Bible. It's also historically known.

OK, the Church is even now in that city-- Rome; as the heartland of Christ's faith, given us by the apostles. She never departed for any other place. She SENT the Gospel out, and from Rome we have every doctrine, dogma, mission and holy work which goes out all over the world (universally). They call it the holy city and it is. Ask Saint Paul, who wrote that epistle. He acknowledged that Holy Church.

He and Peter were each martyred in that city's Colloseum, Peter crucified with his head pointing down to the ground. Paul was beheaded, because Paul, unlike the others was a Roman citizen. They didn't crucify Roman citizens. Rome is the See of Peter, who was her bishop when he embraced martyrdom for Christ.

Under this city are the Christian catacombs, where many of the earliest successors of Peter as bishops of Rome were entombed. As well as hundreds of other saints. Christ's Church was holy from the beginning; blessed with the blood of Christian martyrs and saints. Including the two great apostles. That's so much better, Dan, than "all roses".

You missed it because you can

November 14, 2006 - 23:07 ET by Dan The Man 2

You missed it because you cant see the truth through your dogma.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

I'm honestly not getting wh

November 14, 2006 - 17:14 ET by sarcasmo

I'm honestly not getting what you're saying, or why I'd need reminding of the blatantly-obvious regarding homosexuality. My point was that (and you're going to hate this word, but it damn-well fits & everyone here knows it!) hypocrites make the news interesting/fun/funny. While this guy's online "wrestling" behavior seems maybe to better fit the Unitarians ;) than the Episcopals, it's clearly not coming from a guy going to a church with teachings like Haggard's. Hence the h-word, hence the newsworthiness or lack of same. (And believe me, for anyone who knows me, this is Hell-freezing-over weird that I of all people am in any way defending the news-judgment of ...ugh! The Miami Herald!)
JMR

"The scope of the patter

November 14, 2006 - 22:39 ET by Indiana Joe

"The scope of the pattern of child sexual abuse and tolerance of that abuse which was proven in court to have been demonstrated by the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church is shameful in an order of magnitude that I can't calculate when compared to these photos."

Your own bias is showing. I've addressed your "orders of magnitude" attitude at the top of this thread. 5th post from the top, to be exact.

The bias is in saying it's important when "A" is accused, but not when "B" is accused. And you've bought right into that bias.

Start at the top. I've said my piece once.

I will grant you that between adults, it's a different matter. But if you truly believe that Catholics, and ONLY Catholics have been accused and convicted of this, you need to do some research.

"I believe that if Our L

November 14, 2006 - 22:28 ET by Indiana Joe

"I believe that if Our Lord came back and walked the Earth today, this thread would be an example of what would disappoint him the most."

"Just read these postings and the demeaning denominational arguments. Just disgraceful."

Sadly, I must agree with you, cvg. And even sadder, I almost feel responsible for the direction it took!

I posted way up at the beginning of this thread, and I was nearly livid. I'm a recently "unfallen" RC, and the way the "Priest Sex Scandals" were handled by the MSM made me furious! So, I wrote a pretty blistering post about how this particular scandal was being swept under the rug compared to how the RC's got treated. If you care to look, it's most noticeable by the fact that every sentence is followed by the word, "Period."

I was responded to by a few folks, including a "ncstevem," I believe. Not a familiar SN to me. Then I believe "TruthMonger" joined in, and "tumbler." Most of what they said about my post was positive, and I thanked them for it. I checked back a while ago, and found the discussion had degenerated into a free-for-all, much as you describe it above. Who's right, who's wrong, this Chapter, that Verse....

I had actually seen that coming from the tail of my last post when I checked back. So I wrote a "can't we just get along" type of thing and posted it. Once I proceeded further down the thread, I felt I had strayed into a war-zone. I went back and deleted my last posting, knowing that the chance for cooler heads to prevail had long been passed. The delete is still there, as in "Indiana Joe says," followed by nothing.

I find it amazing and incomprehensible when I hear of Shi'ites and Sunnis killing each other over minor issues of interpretation. And then to see the way our own Christian brothers tear each other to pieces over the same thing is just ....I don't know, I don't want to insult anyone's beliefs. I just ...felt so good about having made my points about the original topic and found agreement. Then to have it descend into what I'm seeing here....

Rather disappointed by the whole sorry state of things ......

Indiana Joe If any thin

November 14, 2006 - 23:26 ET by ww thumper

Indiana Joe If any thing I have said offinded you, I am centenly sorry. I aggree sir , It's too bad we must argu about religion. I will not do that with anyone. I just made some statements that I sincerely believe. I don't think anyone is going to heaven because of what they do or don't do, or because of what church they attend .

You will make heaven your eturnal home by excepting Jesus Christ as your savior and Lord. I have done that and I am as sure of my home in heaven as if I had been there a thousand years already.. Praise the Lord! ww. Have a blessed evening Joe. :^) ww

ww thumper,No, no, nothing yo

November 15, 2006 - 06:26 ET by Indiana Joe

ww thumper,

No, no, nothing you or anyone here has said has offended me. What bothers me the most, I guess, is that such effort and yes, even venom, can be expended by people who should be celebrating the things within our beliefs that we SHARE, instead of the constant arguing over the details where we may disagree.

For instance, The Lord said "Keep the Sabbath Holy." How does one do that? I have my version (Mass), you may have yours. For some people, it may mean behaving a certain way on that Day.

I guess my point is, we have so much more, as Christians, that we AGREE ON. It seems such a shame to concentrate so much on the areas where there is not unanimity. And I don't think it's what the Savior had in mind when he said to "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

That's all that I meant. No offense taken, none intended

Regards,