It’s all about homosexuality. Ever since Archbishop Nienstedt criticized the pro-gay film, “Brokeback Mountain,” he has been targeted by homosexual activists all over the nation. So it is hardly surprising to read a story on him in today’s New York Times that cites his take on the movie. Had he liked it, and had he been silent on the subject of gay marriage, no one would be calling for his resignation.
If there is one area where critics have a point it is the handling by archdiocesan officials, prior to Nienstedt’s tenure, of two disturbed priests: there were enough red flags early on to warrant a more punitive approach. What these critics fail to say, however, is that the red flags involved homosexuality. At least in one case, it appears that the priest was protected precisely because he was gay. This is indefensible.
Further proof that homosexuality is the real issue driving the foes of Nienstedt can be found in today’s Star Tribune and Pioneer Press, two newspapers in the Twin Cities. Both asked him yesterday what he does in bed and with whom. He told the former, “No, I’m not gay. And I’m not anti-gay.” When the latter asked if he had had sex with men since becoming archbishop, he said, “No. Not even before.”
We have hit a new low when journalists descend to the level of probing puritans. They would put a camera in his bedroom if they could. If these same reporters spent more time trying to out Nienstedt’s anonymous accusers—instead of trying to out his sex life—justice would be served. But that is not their interest, which is why injustice reigns supreme.