Coverage of controversy tilted against the Catholic Church

Saturday, November 21, 2009

The Post's anti-Catholic bias continues unabated ["Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum," front page, Nov. 12]. To call the Archdiocese of Washington's announcement that it may have to discontinue certain social programs if the gay-marriage law is passed an "ultimatum" was both charged and inaccurate. The archdiocese has a long partnership with the District but was fairly alerting officials that it will not sacrifice its religious beliefs.

Quoting D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3), who called the church's response "somewhat childish," was outrageous.

This story followed another about House passage of health-reform legislation [front page, Nov. 8], which included a pro-life amendment. That article mentioned lobbying by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The article failed to say that the bishops inserted themselves into the discussion because the right to life is a tenet of their faith.

Last month, The Post claimed that Rome was "fishing" for Anglican members, another outrageous headline, in light of the fact that Anglican groups had approached Rome -- not the other way around -- seeking union with the Catholic Church.

I'm not sure why The Post figures it is okay to bash the Catholic Church. I suggest editors insert the name of another religious group into a proposed story and ask themselves whether it would justify outrage were it to go to print. If it would, then it shouldn't.

Diana Sims Snider,



I was dismayed to read the profile of Bishop Harry Jackson ["Seeking to put asunder," Style, Nov. 18]. Was it really necessary to let Wil Haywood spend 2,200 words lionizing someone who believes the D.C. Human Rights Act should protect all minority rights except those of the gay community? How about profiling straight D.C. Council members who have the courage to recognize same-sex marriage as an issue worthy of their leadership?

Michael Kearns,


© 2009 The Washington Post Company