... need to observe any level of accuracy in their claims? Or is any assertion, no matter how plainly wrong, legit, provided it somehow advances the Agenda?
My question is neither idle nor rhetorical.
In the opening paragraph of her essay against Abp. Dolan, Jacoby writes “New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who strongly supports gay marriage, is a Catholic accused by the Vatican of ‘public concubinage’ for living with a woman to whom he is not married.”
What’s that you say? The Vatican has accused Cuomo of concubinage?
The Vatican has said no such thing, at any time, in any place. Period. So, whence springs this patently false claim?
Well, Jacoby duly hot-links the phrase “public concubinage” in her essay, but to where, exactly? To (A) the Vatican website; (B) a published speech by the pope or curial cardinal; (C) a low-level Vatican bureaucrat; or (D) an anonymous source Inside the Walls?
The answer, folks, is (E) none of the above.
That is from Dr. Ed Peters' post, "Need journalists advocating 'gay marriage' observe no standards at all?", posted yesterday on his "In the Light of the Law" blog. He is referring to a recent post by Susan Jacoby of The Washington Post, an atheist who likes to use her status as former Catholic to launch rhetorical broadsides that are almost always, in my reading experience, heavy on sour snippiness and light on substance. Like so many others who have gone after Catholic doctrine and practice (Jack Chick! Dan Brown! Maureen Dowd! Etc.!), Jacoby often relies on the dread visage of Powerful, Menacing Vatican, without much concern for specificity or accuracy.