Do you want to read a strange, strange, I repeat, strange story? Then click here.
Talk about dancing around the subject and burying a lead. Here is the opening of a New York Times report by Alison Leigh Cowan about the financial sins of Father Michael Jude Fay, who is accused of misusing funds and some other minor problems.
The Rev. Michael Jude Fay had his hair highlighted each spring at a local salon at prices of $85 or more, his hairdresser said. His vacation getaway was an ocean-view condominium in Florida that he owned with a close friend from Philadelphia. And he repeatedly spent thousands of dollars on luggage, jewelry and designer clothes, even though his salary was a modest $28,000 a year.
To many of his parishioners at St. John Roman Catholic Church in Darien, Father Fay’s lavish ways came as a shock nearly two months ago when the Diocese of Bridgeport demanded his resignation because of questions about his suitability for the priesthood, his lifestyle and his financial stewardship of the church.
Oh, he also had a flair for producing local versions of Broadway shows.
That enough information? In light of certain Roman Catholic teachings, I think that even the most tone-deaf reader would have a pretty good idea of what is going on there. Nevertheless, readers needed to dig deep into this long story — in which many of the crucial details come from parish bookkeeper Ellen Patafio — to hit a detail that might, just might, have needed to go higher in the story.
In the spring of 2005, Father Fay and his friend from Philadelphia, Cliff Fantini, a wedding consultant, jointly bought a $449,100 condo in Fort Lauderdale, property records show. Furnishings and monthly cable bills were charged to the parish, church records show. The two men are also listed as tenants of a luxury apartment on East 63rd Street in Manhattan, the building’s staff said. Mr. Fantini, known professionally as Cliff Martell, also stayed at the rectory for extended periods, Ms. Patafio said.
Ms. Patafio said Father Fay showered gifts, meals and trips on Mr. Fantini. “Jude was always chasing after him,” she said.
So this is a financial scandal with some other, more lurid, overtones.
That is, the other details are on the sexy side if you support the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality.
Which brings us to the amazing correction that the Times ran on July 12:
Because of an editing error, an article on Sunday about the lavish lifestyle enjoyed by the Rev. Michael Jude Fay, a priest under federal investigation in connection with allegations that he misused funds at St. John Roman Catholic Church in Darien, Conn., referred incorrectly at one point in some copies to the private investigators who documented questionable spending by Father Fay. They were hired by the church’s bookkeeper and associate pastor, not by the church itself.
Now, even this correction is rather vague. Look at that last sentence. Does this mean that the church — meaning the local parish — had declined to investigate this priest? Or does it mean that the Church — meaning Catholic authorities at the diocese or global level — had declined to investigate what was going on here?
So the associate pastor, with an even lower salary, and the bookkeeper had to foot the bill for the investigation into this priest, his (or so it appears) longtime companion and their various residences?
I wonder if the local diocese is very happy about this. Who, precisely, is getting in trouble here with the Catholic powers that be? Is the parish united or divided on this issue, meaning the issue of the priest and the issue of his “lifestyle”?
How about the local bishop and the diocese? Whose side are they on?
I think there is a big story here, and I am not sure that much of it was printed in The New York Times.
Night photo of Ft. Lauderdale Beach by floridafunnyguy, via Flickr.
 | Posted at 8:40 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (28) |
July 14, 2006, at 8:52 am
“I think there is a big story here and I am not sure that much of it was printed in the New York Times. ”
I don’t think this is an example of the NYT doing sloppy journalisim on a religion story, I think it is just another example of the generally sloppy state of journalisim at the Times in general.
The Times has become so enamored with their role as the “Holy Writ of the Democratic Party” they have just let the whole “quality journalisim” thing slide. They just aren’t very good at it anymore, as anyone who follows their stock price can tell.
July 14, 2006, at 8:55 am
Larry:
I disagree. I think there is tons of good reporting in the Times. That is what makes something like this so frustrating. I think there are topics — critics inside and outside the newsroom always cite homosexuality as one — that the Times simply does not know how to handle right now. The conflicts are simply too hot to handle. They can’t just cover the story straight on.
July 14, 2006, at 9:04 am
Who is the diocese unhappy with? The diocese has demonstrated that they (meaning Bishop Lori, Ordinary since March, 2001, and hangers-on) are most unhappy with anyone who exposes neglect and passive permission.
Don’t believe it? Check the Bishop’s reaction to those who had to do his job for him.
July 14, 2006, at 9:34 am
AP covered some of the juicier details a while back.
Among was the fact that the associate pastor was canned and forced to issue an apology to his parish for hiring the investigator.
July 14, 2006, at 10:38 am
All of these facts may be true, and maybe the church should be happy these two took it upon themselves to investigate it. If so, the questions are as stated - Why didn’t THEY investigate the strange behavior earlir?
On the other hand, I’ve seen and heard of too many angry “church splits” to have taken one side of *this* story as Gospel, either.
In other words: You mean to tell me that most of this story was based on a P.I.’s report - a report that was taken at face value, and paid for by what COULD have been a disgruntled employee of the church and an associate pastor who, I don’t know, COULD have other motives for seeing the priest defrocked or moved to another parish?
The failure to think critically about a situation and question seemingly credible sources with sympathetic stories is what gets reporters and papers in trouble.
July 14, 2006, at 10:45 am
How exactly do you confirm gossip that a priest is gay. The NYT story did plenty of gay-baiting in its description to tell the story to let the readers know it didn’t have the most crucial bit of information: no evidence he was gay. That’s the story your want, I realize, but how do you prove such a story.
So the NYT did a more tabloidish version hinting at hairdressers and Ft. Lauderdale and wedding planners.
How would you have done the story, especially since he was asked to resign for financial improprieties, which is not an uncommon church problem (look at the Orthodox financial scandal)?
In some ways, it would have been easier just to print some idle gossip from a parish harpie with someone saying “we think the priest had a boyfriend” instead of using gay-bating innuendo.
July 14, 2006, at 10:53 am
Michael,
I totally agree with your statement. It’s like the worst of both worlds in this story. No straightforward acknowledgement of the elephant in the room (probably due to lack of evidence) while at the same time engaging in blatant gay-baiting innuendo.
I actually think, similar to you, it might have worked for the reporter to say that specific people speculate accuse the priest of violating church teachings on sexuality but that there is no hard evidence.
Sometimes just being very straightforward with what you have in a report — and DON’T HAVE — can make a story stronger. Particularly when you’re dealing with a historically secretive church and complex motives all around.
July 14, 2006, at 10:57 am
I agree, Mollie. But I know that at my news organization, we could’t print the speculating gossip of someone’s sexual orientation when it doesn’t really relate to the underlying story, which is the demand for a resignation because of financial improprieties.
It’s a terrible Catch-22.
July 14, 2006, at 11:06 am
Michael,
I’m not familiar with the story really but the Times piece says the diocese demanded his resignation because of questions about his suitability for the priesthood, his lifestyle AND his financial stewardship of the church.
Now, again, the RCs are pretty secretive about these things, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t some way to tell the reader more about the first two — particularly if they fit into the underlying issue we’re discussing.
If there’s a story there, I think there are ways to flesh out more details without resorting to the “Broadway play” angle. But, if not, I feel strongly that reporters should avoid the gossipy angle. Don’t touch it — it burns!
Mollie
July 14, 2006, at 11:26 am
I didn’t catch the “lifestyle” and “suitabililty for preisthood” part. But again, is it related to the fact he’s gay or because he has all this property and has unfortunate highlights in his hair? (That’s the real crime here. )
July 14, 2006, at 11:27 am
There was supposed to be a
after the highlights comment.
July 14, 2006, at 2:04 pm
There WAS an article where the vicar talked about having to sleep in his car to stay away from the “fun” going on at the recrory. The local CT papers have done a much better job on this than the tired, sick, old grey lady.
July 14, 2006, at 4:18 pm
BOB:
Thanks for the link to the AP story. The details that it contains only make the NYTs story seem stranger.
MICHAEL and MOLLIE:
Amen. The buried lead to which I refer is the actual PURCHASING of the two homes with the other man. And with some payments linked to church funds? Amazing.
That’s the story. Is that linked to a gay relationship? The Times would have been better served simply by asking direct questions in the parish and diocese and printing the answers. Fewer hair highlights and Broadway tunes.
But the AP story certainly shows that there is division in this diocese about the case. Why? That’s another big story.
July 14, 2006, at 11:18 pm
Isn’t the reason that the NYT doesn’t know how to handle “homosexual” stories that many of its editors are homosexuals and don’t want to report on homosexual stories that reflect poorly on homosexuals.
Classic conflict of interest. It’s a problem for them worse than plagiarism because it starts at the top.
July 15, 2006, at 12:00 am
I don’t think that “many” of the editors are gay and the top ranks of the NYT are solidly heterosexual. Yes, the NYT—after a long history of significant animosity with the gay community—is now considered fairly pro-gay. That’s consistent with its readership. They write lots of stories that include gay people and their editorial page is clearly pro-gay. They clearly view gays as a fact of life, which isn’t surprising since they write about Manhattan.
Are they careful about stories that reflect poorly on gays? It’s hard to tell. I’m sure many people believe so, but there are many who would disagree. At the most basic level, your assumption is that people who consider themselves as victims of oppression or misunderstanding can’t be objecive.
Are Christian reporters soft on stories that make Christians look bad? Is it a classic conflict of interest for religious conservatives to write about religion and conservatives? If not, why do we assume religious conservatives can be objective and fair, but gays (or Blacks or women) can’t? We know that Christians view themsleves as oppressed and misunderstood. So do Christian reporters focus only on the good parts of religious conservatives?
Under your theory, Terry could never report on religious conservatives because he has a conflict and wouldn’t be able to write stories that make fellow religious conservatives look bad. Is that your suggestion?
July 15, 2006, at 12:07 am
Could someone explain how the NYT is engaging in gay-baiting in this article? It seems to me that the gay-baiting is taking place right here at Get Religion, not in that article … I’m not sure why we’re supposed to conclude that this fellow is gay simply because he has highlights and enjoys a good musical.
July 15, 2006, at 1:31 am
Why do rightwingers get so upset that the Times is pro-gay? The readership of the Times is profoundly well-educated, big city, and Northeast, which any opinion pollster will tell you, today is a very pro-gay demographics. People who tend to be homophobic, ie, live in the Deep South, rural, and uneducated, aren’t likely to ever pick up a New York Times anyway. They would be stupid not to be pro-gay in this modern day.
July 15, 2006, at 11:01 am
While I’m not going to go as far as Javier, I think there is a point about regionalism of a newspaper. How often does the Dallas Morning News write critically about Southern Baptists, the Salt Lake City Tribune write critically of the Mormon Church. Look at the non-crtitical coverage religious conservatives get in the Indianapolis paper, for instance.
Arguably, what some describe as biased coverage and conflicts of interest is actually a more balance coverage. The Dallas and Indianapolis papers don’t view religious conservatives as oddities; they are neighbors and important players in the community. So the coverage is of “regular folks.” The same applies to the NYT.
While it is a national paper, it’s also a local paper. In a city littered with conservative tabloids, the NYT is the paper of Manhattan instead of the boroughs. And in Manhattan, gays are just regular folks and not the oddities they are in places like Dallas, Indianapolis, or Salt Lake City.
The NYT doesn’t feel the need to interview someone from the Traditional Values Coalition everytime they write a story about gay life and gay rights. When the NYT writes about the gay marriage story in NY state, they don’t need to interview someone from Colorado Springs about the ruling since religious conservatives are not a major voice in opposition to gay marriage in New York. Arguably, interviewing ministers opposed to gay marriage in New York is overrepresenting the megaphone they have on that specific issue inside NY state.
July 15, 2006, at 11:16 am
MICHAEL:
You need to read the NYTs own internal docs on this and related issues. They are much more pro-American journalism — pro diversity, in fact — than you are. Who was it at the Times that said the paper had turned its gay coverage into cheerleading?
And, as you know, and as you said, the Times has a powerful role as a national and global papers. It’s own editors are talking openly about the need to diversify their newsroom, reflecting recent docs from Pew Forum and elsewhere.
And, BTW, the Dallas Morning News prints tons and tons of coverage critical of Southern Baptists and representative of the moderate-conservative-fundamentalist dynamic of that state. The DMNs has run off many thousands of readers with what many Dallas folks would consider very unbalanced, very pro-gay coverage, as well. Perhaps it was following the lead of the NYTs.
In the case of the Father Fay story, the problem is that they ignored or downplayed major facts in the story. I was curious as to why. I still am.
July 15, 2006, at 2:41 pm
Whether this priest is gay is really beside the point. The financial improprieties should be enough to cause outrage — he took money meant for mission and used it for his own entertainment. The relationship is merely another aspect of the same offense.
And does anyone think for a moment that, if Father Fay had been showering expensive gifts, trips, and meals on a woman, (a) it would be any less of a violation of his vows as a priest (on more than one level) and (b) most readers wouldn’t have concluded the relationship had a romantic and possibly sexual character? After all, one of the chief markers of infidelity private detectives sniff around for is a stream of expensive gifts to the paramour.
Given the evidence (the financial stuff, the “cancer card” observation), it appears Father Fay has had a poor priestly formation process going for years now. I wonder where he went to seminary?
THIS is why Katharine Jefferts-Schori is dead wrong about her lack of pastoral experience not being a problem for her as an Episcopal bishop. It’s not just administration. Pastors need pastoral support themselves. I’m just wondering when some of these RC bishops will understand that. Some of them seem to be really slow learners.
July 15, 2006, at 5:38 pm
I know there are internal critiques—which have been aired publicly— that some inside the NYT believe they have been too pro-gay marriage. There has also been plenty of internal and external critique that the NYT had very anti-gay coverage during your idol Abe Rosenthal’s reign at the NYT. People were literally dying in the newsroom and the streets of AIDS and Rosenthal wouldn’t give coverage of AIDS and gays in the NYT.
Maybe there are some who believe things have swung too far in the other direction, but there is still criticism in the gay community of how gays are written about in the NYT. Just like those Baptists in Dallas, they believe they don’t get fair treatment even though most would feel that they were being treated too softly. There are also many liberals who think the NYT is much too conservative and have quit getting the paper because of the way it covered the early days of the Iraq war.
In other words, you probably are going to anger somebody the moment you have a neutral piece about gays in Dallas or Indianapolis or a netural piece about the Bush administration in the NYT.
Yes, the NYT believes in diversifying the newsroom. I’m not sure why you think that’s a bad thing or has an underlying motive in this since you support adding more conservatives and openly religious people into the newsroom. My sense is you believe the diveristy has lead to unbalanced coverage by those who represent “diversity” hires.’
So does that mean when graduates of your “diversity” program enter newsrooms, the assumption is they are unabalanced in their coverage of religious conservatives? Just as you want a more balanced and fair take on social conservatives by adding more of them into the newsroom, Blacks, women, and gays have asked for the same thing. Of course, one runs the risk of being seen as having an agenda, which is something that also plagues religious conservatives in the newsroom.
July 16, 2006, at 1:20 pm
Javier has a great point when he says “…. The readership of the Times is …a very pro-gay demographics. People who tend to be homophobic, ie, live in the Deep South, rural, and uneducated, aren’t likely to ever pick up a New York Times anyway….”
This is directly contradictory to what tmatt says “… the Times has a powerful role as a national and global paper.”
The NYT has a choice, they can either reflect the values and views of their readership, or they can reflect the values of the majority of Americans. The two may have once been fairly similar, but as almost every election since McGovern shows, they no longer are.
I think the best example of this lies in the NYT’s own T.V. commercial where the very pretty African American lady says ” I think Sunday was made for the New York Times”… which always makes me (as a church going, gun owning, still on my first wife, Texan) want to scream “SUNDAY was made for WORSHIPING THE LORD you Godless Liberal twit!”. What bugs me is how the actress (in fact the whole commecial) simply assumes that you wouldn’t be going to church… as if no literate people do THAT anymore. (Down here we in Hicksville we read the paper either before or after service.)
Javier has one very important point, many people here in the Red States (even those us with book learnin and indoor plumbing) “…aren’t ever likely to pick up a New York Times anyway…”. Not that we don’t read newspapers (I get the Wall Street Journal every day), we just don’t respect the Times. In fact more than a few people down here (myself included) think the editors of the NYT are “actively giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war” and probably ought to be charged with treason.
This gap between the editoral positions of the NYT and the positions of millions of “red state” Americans may help explain why NYT stock closed at $23.56 a share yesterday.
If you pull a 5 year chart you can see that NYT shares have been on a steady slide since early 04 when it was well over 40. Back in mid ‘02 it was actually closing above 50 for a while.
Of course higher standards of journalisim would probably help. Poorly written stories (like above) don’t enhance the Times reputation. Neither did Jason Blair, and the other “Ooops, turns out that story was just plain made up and/or plagiarized” incidents.
But if you bought NYT stock in mid ‘97 you haven’t made a dime. If you bought it since then you probably have taken a loss. The editors of the NYT may be doing a lot of things, but apparently selling papers isn’t one of them.
So it would seem that the gap between Javier’s model of The Times (as a paper of and for Manhattanites and wannabe Manhattanites) and tmatts model of the The Times (as a paper that people all over the United States pay attention to) are mutually exclusive.
THAT is the issue the NTY editors need to learn how to handle.
July 16, 2006, at 3:30 pm
Ultimately, we can nitpick with almost any newspaper. If you think the Wall Street Journal respects religious conservatives, you better take another look. The editorial page thinks religious conservatives are nativists who just hate illegal aliens and whackos who want to prevent the use of embryonic cell research. The WSJ is as Northeast liberal as the NYT, it’s just wrapped up in Wall Street instead of Madison Avennue. Except one column a week where they write about religion, they are no more a “red state” newspaper then the Boston Globe or the NYT when it comes to social issues. If being pro-choice would lift the Dow, the WSJ would be all for it.
The NYT is in a strange position, because it is the newspaper everyone loves to hate. While liberals read it, they complain endlessly about the moderate and conservative viewpoints on the War in Iraq, the attacks on Clinton during the 1990s, and the perception that they aren’t terribly concerned about anything that doesn’t occur on the conservative-for-NY Upper East Side.
July 16, 2006, at 6:11 pm
I agree that the NYT seems to be ever more exclusively in tune with their hometown liberal patrons. However, Terry is still right about their national influence. I bet the managing editor and political and religion writers for most of the dead tree pulp media in the USA all read the NYT.
July 16, 2006, at 9:41 pm
Michael….
Peggy Noonan and Larry Kudlow are Northeast Liberals? Why just last Thursday tmatt posted on “Peggy Noonan sums it all up”, from the WSJ.
(BTW I agree with the WSJ on immigration… I may be to the left of them on that issue to be honest. Both my Mom and my Wife are immigrants.)
More importantly I don’t think seeing the share value of the company drop by over 50% in just over two years is “nitpicking”. (I would love to see what the Times circulation figures are.)
mjubba is right about the NYT still being the paper of record for the media. That being said, if the circulation numbers mirror their stock price they are well on their way to becoming America’s most important regonal newspaper.
I must confess I’ve never been in the NYT newsroom, but some here probably have. If so, could they please answer a few questions for me.
Do they have an employee lunchtime Bible study group? What is someone wanted to form one? Would they be allowed to meet in the building?
Could an evangelical NYT employee attempt to “share Jesus” with their fellow employees? What would happen if they did? What about someone who thought that homosexuality was a sin, and that it could be overcome with prayer? What would happen to them if they said this out loud?
Can you have a cross, a Bible, crucifix, or a holy card on your desk in full view of other employees? Would anyone be offended? Could you put up Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ photo? Would anyone be offended? What about a United States Marines poster? What about an “Equal Rights for Unborn Women” sticker?
How hard is it to get Yom Kippur or Good Friday off? Are there people there who won’t work on Sunday for religious reasons? If there were, would their bosses be understanding or shocked at the request?
I’m assuming that the NYT has an employee health benefit plan. I’m also assuming it pays for abortions. Is this correct? Has anyone ever objected to this?
If anyone works or has worked at the NYT I’d really be interested in knowing the answers to these questions.
July 21, 2006, at 9:34 am
Perhaps the reason the word “homosexual” or “gay” is not used is because of existing libel laws. I’m not an attorney, but I’m pretty sure that someone falsely identified as homosexual can automatically sue for libel or slander. So unless someone actually saw Fay and Fantini in the act itself, or if Fay and/or Fantini openly admitted to being gay, there is potential liability. It is possible, after all, that the two could be just very good, platonic friends.
Back in the 1950s, Liberace successfully sued the Daily Mirror for publishing an article that stated he was homosexual.
To play it safe, maybe newspapers have policies of not indentifying someone as gay unless there is irrefutable direct evidence of homosexuality.
July 21, 2006, at 9:36 am
To buttress my argument, even the conservative New York Post avoid the gay word in its reporting of this matter.
July 26, 2006, at 9:37 pm
[…] http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1748 […]