The New York Times, a newspaper that within the space of a year hired the photographer who created the infamous "Piss Christ" monstrosity andcompared a Christmas movie to Triumph of the Will feels that it can tell the Pope what to say. And as Allahpundit writes:

From the miserable bastards who not only wouldn’t publish the Mohammed cartoons, but had the titanium balls to illustrate an article about the ensuing jihad with Chris Ofili’s manure Mary.

What is it with the Times and bodily functions, anyhow?

Last year, Glenn Reynolds wrote, "it's surprising the extent to which people who routinely make the Halliburton and chickenhawk slurs seem to require much greater delicacy from others". The Times is the paper of record for what Barack Obama recently dubbed "the party of reaction". So I guess its not surprising the amount of delicacy they demand from the Pope.

But why would a leftwing newspaper written largely by atheists and agnostics want to lecture two of the world's dominant religions, in the first place?

Last year during Newsweek's "Koran In The Can" invention, I wrote:

So how 'bout it, MSM? We now know how ardently you'll defend a religion which is practiced by about three million Americans according to Daniel Pipes, and roughly double that from other sources. Ready to start defending the Judeo-Christian faiths practiced by--or at a bare minimum, respected by--the other 290 million people in this country?

To paraphrase the Times' editorial, the world listens carefully to the words of any newspaper. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. It needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology for trampling Christianty, demonstrating that words can also heal.

But needless to say, the world isn't holding its breath.