NYT talks about Oakland's cathedral & sexual abuse garden

The almost-completed Oakland cathedral, which by the way, currently looks like this...

... also includes a small garden devoted to the victims of sexual abuse (concept photo):

... and this is exactly the sort of story the New York Times loves talking about: for one thing, it allows them to continue discussing the clergy sexual abuse scandal, in addition to painting those who oppose this garden as reactionary.

Fact is, this is just a stupid and very-poorly executed idea, on several levels.

(And it's not like we can hope for a natural disaster to free us of this aesthetic effrontery - it's rated to withstand a 1000 year earthquake. Well, I guess we can always pray for a miracle.)

... and before the comment box starts humming, let me make very clear that what I think is primarily wrong with this idea is the solution of setting up a meaningless zen garden to heal the hurts caused by sexual abuse. Abstract landscaping is not how Catholics heal spiritual and psychological trauma.

Ph/t: AmP reader James.