Perhaps I'm so sensitive to media bias that now it gets triggered even in innocuous instances. Or perhaps I should not be surprised but expect it, since the Church is not supposed to be of this world, unlike the newspaper.
So when the Columbus Dispatch mentioned federal funding of birth control I was ready to be underwhelmed.
I thought it would've been helpful if the article pointed out that all Christians - every denomination - opposed birth control until the Anglicans in 1930. So Christian acceptance of contraception is a relatively recent phenomenon in Christian history.
Second, the article admits that birth control pills only "usually" prevent ovulation; I personally know of some evangelical Protestant Christians who reject the pill for this reason.
I don't like is how newspapers get to choose who represents a religion or group. Thus Jesse Jackson is the go-to-guy for African American issues. And for Catholics, dissident theologians are considered co-equals with the bishops. The church isn't shepherded by theologians - the self-definition of the Church is apostolic - so Dan Maguire's comments are irrelevant except towards the pushing of an agenda.
There seems an unfortunate tendency in the media to quote dissident Catholic theologians if the reporter disapproves of the bishops' side of the issue. Perhaps that is not true in this particular case, but how often do you see mentions of those opposed to the Pope John Paul II's stand on the death penalty, for example?