Fr. Cutie exposed by Mexican tabloids, scandalizes the Church

This story broke earlier this week but I only cover it now to point out the predictable feeding-frenzy occurring in the mainstream media.

Yes, Fr. Cutie (really, the irony) messed-up big time:

"Before God - full of love and mercy - I ask for the forgiveness of those who may be hurt or saddened by my actions. Since I entered the seminary at the age of 18, the priesthood has brought me great joy. The commitment that I made to serve God will remain intact. I am grateful for the love and support I have received today from so many in our community, especially my parishioners and the supporters of the radio stations who have demonstrated great compassion and understanding toward me as a human being. I ask for your continued prayers and support."

What his Archbishop had to say:

"I am deeply saddened by the news surrounding Father Alberto Cutié. I apologize on behalf of the Church in Miami to the parishioners of Saint Francis de Sales Parish, where he serves as administrator, to the listeners and supporters of Radio Paz and Radio Peace, and to the entire Archdiocese.

Father Cutié made a promise of celibacy and all priests are expected to fulfill that promise with the help of God.

Father Cutié's actions cannot be condoned despite the good works he has done as a priest. I ask for everyone's prayers at this time. Scandals such as this offer an occasion for the Church on all levels to examine our consciences regarding the integrity of our commitments to the Lord and to his Church."

What ... the mainstream media had to say:

Oh please, like we didn't see that suggestion coming. But, of course, the answer to violating the vows of celibacy ... is to observe the vows of celibacy. Not to toss them out! That's why the public improprieties of Fr. Cutie constitute such a grave scandal - they diminish the witness of the Church to the world.

Yes, we ought to pray for Fr. Cutie, but let's also re-double our prayers for the noble young men (and women) who are faithfully living lives of celibacy as they study to become priests (and professed women religious).

Let us also pray for those who have already taken on the vow of celibacy that they remain faithful to it and thereby provide the world with a wonderful (and so needed) witness!

[photo: UK Daily Mail]

John Tomasic tries to cast Abp. Chaput in a bad light

John Tomasic, writing at the Colorado Independant, tries to do a hit job on me and Archbishop Chaput:

"Rejoicing in the anti-Obama speech campaign, “American Papist” blogger Thomas Peters referenced Chaput’s letter-writing call-out in real time at the blog. Peters later blogged his hope that Bishop D’Arcy employ the “nuclear option” and “remove Notre Dame’s Catholic identification.”"

Let's get the facts straight. First, I don't "rejoice" at anti-Obama speech. Instead, I rejoice at Catholic bishops upholding Catholic teaching, which always defends the rights of the innocent, and especially the helpless. Second, I never expressed "hope" that Bishop D'arcy would employ the "nuclear option", I said: "I don't think it will happen in this case, but down the road ... next time .... somewhere else .... it's worth reading up on the possibility." (see the difference?)

Here is one more taste of the journalistic backlash Archbishop Chaput receives on his home turf for trying to defend the unborn: "The archbishop is likely back in Denver now. Look for him to appear at a major local news outlet soon, if he hasn’t already."

And why, exactly, shouldn't an Archbishop make media appearances? Notice how Tomasic doesn't even try to grapple with what Chaput is saying. For Tomasic, the mere fact that an Archbishop is speaking out publicly about current issues strikes him as inappropriate.

Well, guess what, freedom of speech applies to the leaders of the Catholic Church, too.

Outrageous: "Facebook users wage condom campaign against Pope"

Science rarely restrains Stupidity:

Critics took to the social networking site Facebook to voice their fury over Pope Benedict's remark that condoms do not prevent HIV.

Thousands have pledged to send the pontiff millions of condoms to protest the controversial comment he made to journalists as he flew to Cameroon last week.

... "The clergy aren't supposed to have sex at all, but they are free to tell people how to conduct themselves? That's like a girl who wears no make-up as the CEO of CoverGirl," one member posted on the page, "Condoms for Pope Benedict XVI." (CNN)

Before they start trying to figure out international postage, they might consider reading (senior Harvard research scientist) Edward Green's op-ed in this Sunday's Washington Post: "The Pope May Be Right".

Carl Anderson of the Knights of Columbus comments: "We need more people like Dr. Green, who won't let politics color their objective judgment and more journalists who will pay attention."

Meanwhile the UK "Lancet medical journal [has] accused Pope Benedict XVI of distorting scientific evidence in his statement that condoms worsen the AIDS crisis. It said he should retract the comments.

Finally, through Zenit, a reference to "HIV/AIDS in Africa: What is the Science actually saying?".

Day 4: MSM takes note of Notre Dame scandal (finally)

It took awhile, but the mainstream media is finally taking note of the Notre Dame scandal, aided no doubt by the tends of thousands of signatures gathered by the Cardinal Newman Society (and more by the minute).

Drudge recently posted this story with the headline: "Obama faces Notre Dame Catholic backlash..." and once Drudge picks it up, it's news. Numerous media outlets are posting their own coverage of the controversy.

{update - the story has also made the front page of FoxNews.com...

... told you the story would be big.}

This means we can now expect such enlightened commentary as this from the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder:

"Life, Taken For Granted: Given that President Obama went out of his way to give pro-life pastors a prominent place at his inauguration, aren't the demands of those who want Notre Dame to rescind its commencement invitation to Obama a little.... well... of course they're predictable...but mostly... uncivil? Also: aren't both side of the abortion debate more mature than this now? Shouldn't pro-lifers want as much contact with Obama as possible?"

First of all, that's a very ironic title, because most people who have life do in fact take it for granted. Second - let me get this straight: Obama invites a few folks who happen to be pro-life to his inauguration and that means the debate about life issues is over?! Third, isn't it a problem in the first place that pro-lifers have had so little involvement in Obama's administration? Pro-life Catholics shouldn't have to pander for face time.

Also: you will see this insinuation of Ambinder's repeated by others which basically goes "isn't it time to move on?" It's an extremely patronizing misdirection which dismisses debate without even attempting a response ... because they'd much sooner have us stay quiet. Consider for a moment: how much attention do you think the media would be paying to Obama's position on life issues right now if this protest wasn't taking place?

More on Condoms

Some follow-up links to the story we've been covering the last couple days:

• The Cathoholic: Condoms, the Pope & Africa
• NRO: Benedict Has It Right (good article)
• Kathryn Jean Lopez: Media coverage of papal comments on AIDS in Africa is March madness.
• Whispers: Damage Control, PopeTrip Edition
• Off the Record: African wife-beaters urged to practice "safe-sox"

Was Pope Benedict misquoted on condoms in Africa? Maybe not.

Damian Thompson proposes that he was:

The Vatican has just published its transcript of the Pope's comments about AIDS in Africa and it turns out he said that condoms risk making the problem worse.

Maybe it doesn't make much difference, but the English-speaking press had the Pope saying that it "even aggravates the problems". Not quite the same resonance; not as headline-worthy.

The CNS blog meanwhile reports on a clarification issued by Vatican spokesman Fr. Lombardi, this after CNS's own John Thavis claimed Pope Benedict to have said the distribution of condoms "only increases the problem of AIDS."

... now, this is not the end of the story. Here's why:

The Vatican press office has royally flubbed its handling of these situations before.

I remember breathing a sigh of relief last year during the pope's in-flight interview on his way to the United States that nothing went wrong, because things did go wrong in 2003 during the pope's in-flight interview on his way to Brazil. The Vatican press office's solution was to issue a toned-down version of the pope's remarks about Mexican lawmakers the next day.

The Vatican press office might have decided to apply that same solution today. Especially since, from what I've seen, Fr. Lombardi has not specifically claimed that the mainstream media's reporting of the pope's words was in fact erroneous.

One thing we can be sure about: because the Vatican has denied claims made by the mainstream media about what the pope actually said, you can bet that the mainstream media sources are going to go back to their audio/video recordings of the interview and double-check what he said.

So be prepared - possibly - for an audio or video clip of the Pope, well, misspeaking.

Then again, this could just be media bias. Time will tell. Stay tuned. And be aware of the history, too.

update: Ruth Gledhill agrees about the comments (though I don't agree with her about condoms).

update 2: sure enough.... "It looks like some idiot in the Vatican press office tampered with the Pope's quotes. Time for sackings"

Praise for Pope Benedict's letter about SSPX

Canon Lawyer Ed Peters:

One can hardly praise a pope without sounding a bit presumptuous, but here goes: the 10 March 2009 letter of Benedict XVI on the SSPX excommunications remission is a fine document.

The pope's letter acknowledges that the excommunication remissions came as a surprise to all and were issued without adequate contemporaneous explanations. As a result, even friends of the pope were ill-prepared to defend his actions in the court of human opinion (and yes, the court of human opinion matters, as evidenced by the pope's letter itself). Church enemies had a field day amid the confusion, but since that's what enemies do anyway, there's not much more to be said about them. [More.]

Advance text of the Pope's letter and coverage here.

Update: Holocaust-denier Bp. Williams apologizes for comments

Zenit:

Bishop Richard Williamson, formerly excommunicated member of the Society of St. Pius X, apologized today for statements in which he denied the extent of the Holocaust.

In a statement published on his return to London on Wednesday after being expelled by the government of Argentina, the prelate explained that "the Holy Father and my superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy."

... Bishop Williamson continued, "Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them."

The prelate said that on Swedish television he only gave the "opinion [...] of a non-historian," a perspective "formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available, and rarely expressed in public since."

However, he recognized, "the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused."

He added, "To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologize."

AP video of a reporter trying to confront Bp. Williams as he left Buenos Aires:

Related links:

• Reuters: Holocaust-denying bishop makes apology
• CNS: Bishop Williamson says he regrets remarks denying Holocaust
• CNA: Bishop Williamson expresses ‘regret’ for Holocaust comments’ effects
• NYT: Bishop Apologizes for Statements on the Holocaust

Outrageous: Call for pope to step down over Holocaust denier

Ludicrous (and I don't use the world lightly):

Attacks on Pope Benedict XVI's decision to lift the excommunication of a Holocaust denier escalated Monday, with one theologian calling on him to step down as the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

Criticism following the pope's January 24 announcement has been particularly cutting in Germany, where denying the Holocaust is a crime punishable with a jail sentence.

"If the pope wants to do some good for the Church, he should leave his job," eminent liberal Catholic theologian Hermann Haering told the German daily Tageszeitung.

"That would not be a scandal, a bishop has to relinquish his position at 75 years, a cardinal loses his rights at 80 years," he said. Pope Benedict is 81. (AFP)

The amount of ignorance it requires to call for such a drastic move is staggering. Ignorance of Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzingers own efforst in Jewish-Christian relations.

It's no surprise the AFP picked this story up as newsworthy. Any informed source would find it laughable/pathetic.

Breaking: "Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad Sacked"

After their valiant efforts to raise the funding, a disappointing rejection from NBC:

"NBC has refused to air CatholicVote.org’s new pro-life ad during its broadcast of this Sunday’s Super Bowl game.

According to a Jan. 28 press release from CatholicVote.org, “After several days of negotiations, an NBC representative in Chicago told CatholicVote.org today that NBC and the NFL are not interested in advertisements involving ‘political candidates or issues.’" (NCRegister.com]

Political candidates or issues? NBC is telling us there will be nothing aired during the Super Bowl that involves a political issue? No health care ads? Global warming ads? Unemployment ads?

You've got to be kidding me! What a double standard.

And you can bet they'll be other ads that feature or in some way make reference to Obama.

{update - You can watch the rejected pro-life ad here:}

Visit the Catholic Vote website here.

Papist Quote of the Day

From an AFP article entitled "Vatican official accuses Obama of 'arrogance'":

"Fisichella is president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, one of a number of so-called pontifical academies which are formed by or under the direction of the Holy See."

*Ahem* - "so-called"?! That's exactly what it's called.

I guess any body that dares to criticize Obama's decisions must be relegated to "so-called" status.

The March for Life media blackout

The annual March for Life is the mainstream media's favorite event not to cover, as Get Religion notes.

That's one of the reasons why there's AMP NEWS. We'll be there.

"Pew study finds election coverage of religion was shallow"

No kidding.

Of note:

"Sen. Joe Biden, who is the first Catholic elected as vice-president and whose pro-abortion rights views and comments were criticized by leading prelates, received only 0.7 percent of religion-focused campaign coverage, according to Pew."

Remember, under-reporting is a form of media bias as well.

update: Phil Lawler on this.

Video: How Obama Got Elected

This video is quickly making the rounds today:


It's a small part of a comprehensive poll, Hot Air has the numbers.

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

I found it especially interesting at the end of the video when the people mention where they get their news.

Clearly more people need to read American Papist.

"Black Pope could follow Barack Obama's election, says US archbishop"

I hope this is an example of a mainstream paper misinterpreting Archbishop Gregory's meaning - but some of the quotes are just hard to get around:

The election of Barack Obama as the first African-American US President could pave the way for the election of the first black Pope, according to a leading black American Catholic.

Wilton Daniel Gregory, 60, the Archbishop of Atlanta, said that in the past Pope Benedict XVI had himself suggested that the election of a black pontiff would "send a splendid signal to the world" about the universal Church.

Archbishop Gregory, who in 2001 became the first African American to head the US Bishops Conference, serving for three years, said that the election of Mr Obama was "a great step forward for humanity and a sign that in the United States the problem of racial discrimination has been overcome". Like Mr Obama Archbishop Gregory comes from Chicago, and was previously Bishop of Belleville, Illinois. (UK Times)

There are some obvious problems here:

• The selection of popes does not follow "the trend" set by our selection of American Presidents. The idea that Rome looks to where the American voter is tending ... is just silly.
• I'd like to see Pope Benedict's exact quote, but I'm sure he wasn't advocating some sort of affirmative action in the selection of popes for the universal Church, and I dislike this whole notion that the Catholic Church has to elect a black pope to prove that it does not discriminate. That's an American hang-up, not the Universal Church's. Frankly, you could make a better argument that the Vatican tends to be euro-centric, and as an American shouldn't I be complaining about that? Nope. So what - we've been getting great popes.
• I'm happy to hear Archbishop Gregory say the election of Obama means that racial discrimination "has been overcome", though I doubt the USCCB will uniformly act as if it agrees in the future.

The other quotes from Archbishop Gregory are more nuanced and I get the distinct feeling he's being re-read through the Times' lenses.

I do also resist this attempt by the Times and other papers to claim some sort of Vatican endorsement of Obama as Obama. Every official statement I've seen so far from the Vatican is an endorsement of Obama as President.

And it's no surprise - Obama will be the leader of the most powerful country in the world and the Church is a universal institution with universal interests and considerations to take into account.

And I'd like to see the original interview in La Stampa.

Oh and - seriously - Richard Owen gets put up in Rome by the Times to report "trends" and make "predictions" like this?

Next up ... "Does the recent mention of iPods at the World Synod of Bishops signal that the Church is switching from PCs to Macs?!"

update: the AFP's headline is even worse: "Catholic Church ready for black pope: US archbishop".

... yeah, because I can just see those cardinals in the Vatican reading their morning paper:

"Good heavens! The Americans elected a black man as their President! Why - do you know what this means? It means we can finally have a black pope! This is awesome news. I'd like another espresso, please."

Yeah, right.

The issue that wasn't... Obama's YES on FOCA

Mark Joseph complains (and I agree):

The McCain campaign has been such an abject failure in so many ways that it’s difficult to focus in one just one. But let me try.This morning I received the following messages from two friends. The first, a minister in the Chicago area wrote:

“This FOCA [Freedom of Choice Act] statement has put me over the edge at the last possible moment…I’m voting for McCain as an anti-Obama vote…wish I’d known about this sooner…I would have told my congregation about this…in line waiting to vote now.”

The second, from a college professor in Florida, was similarly themed:

“Somehow, though I knew he was pro-choice, I had never heard of FOCA or his statement on FOCA. That settles it for me, I can’t in good conscience not vote against someone who said this. I wasn’t going to vote for McCain, perhaps writing in Jeb Bush, but even if it’s futile, I have to live with my vote and what it could, against the odds, contribute. That statement isn’t about governing from the center–it’s about dominating from the left.”

Both are referring to a speech featured on YouTube that Obama gave to Planned Parenthood in which he promised to make as his first act after being elected, passage of the Freedom of Choice Act which would invalidate all state laws against abortion.

It’s just another measure of the utter and complete incompetence of the McCain campaign that voters like these never heard about the issue until the day they were voting. If ever a campaign deserved to lose an election it was this one.

To get a sense for the categorical way in which most of the mainstream media simply would not talk about Obama's position on abortion and FOCA in particular, see this article published by CNN today titled "Ballot hot buttons include abortion, same-sex marriage" which, you guessed it .... doesn't mention Obama once.

Defendin' Palin

George Marlin does his best over at The Catholic Thing:

Governor Sarah Palin is driving liberal and conservative members of the eastern establishment bonkers.

Because Palin is a working mother of five, didn’t abort her Down syndrome child, is the main bread winner in her family, gave a terrific acceptance speech, held Biden’s feet to the fire in the vice presidential debate, attracts large crowds at campaign rallies, and is good-looking – liberal feminists are frothing at the mouth.

In their quest to destroy Palin, these self-appointed guardians of the women’s rights movement have discarded all the rules of civility and fair play.

Sullivan, predictably, predicts Catholics for Obama in November

I took issue with Amy Sullivan's last piece for Time Magazine on this topic ("Time Mag. asks: "Does Biden Have a Catholic Problem?"). In this current edition, she looks at the race from the perspective of the recent Al Smith dinner (previously blogged here - pictures & here - video).

Head-scratching line:

The slight [of not being invited to the Al Smith dinner in '92 and '96] was particularly painful for Bill Clinton, who developed an affinity for the Catholic Church as an undergraduate at Georgetown University.

I'm sure he was real, real hurt. The disregard of the social teaching of the Church (where it differed from his own) throughout his presidency notwithstanding.

Into her argument:

Why then was Obama welcomed to the Al Smith Dinner, his hand on Cardinal Egan's shoulder as they chuckled together, while Kerry had to stay away? It helps that Obama is not Catholic. Some Catholics have criticized his support for abortion rights, but as he is not a member of their tradition, they don't feel the same need to sanction him. But more importantly, the political landscape for Catholics has changed since 2004.

In a hierarchical tradition like Catholicism, debates don't happen very often. Right now, however, American Catholics are going through a revival of the arguments that took place in the 1980s between bishops who believed abortion ought to be the top political and moral focus of the church and the camp led by the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin that argued for a more "consistent ethic of life."

Truncated initial conclusion:

As a result, many Catholics can now argue that neither party fits precisely with Catholic social teaching — the Democratic position on abortion is still unacceptable but so are GOP positions on education and health care and the war in Iraq. This realization is reflected in changing party identification — as of this past February, 41% of Catholic voters called themselves Independents, an 11-point increase since 2004. And in opinion polls, Catholics are evenly divided between Obama and McCain.

41%?! An 11% increase? Can that be correct?

Amy claims a resurgence of the "progressive Catholic left":

This [liberal Catholic] void, and Kerry's defeat, prompted a group of progressive Catholics to create their own infrastructure after 2004. When two young graduate students first launched Catholics United, they had $1,000 in seed money and were operating out of a dorm room. Four years later, the nonpartisan organization has more than 30,000 members and a $200,000 budget. This month they are sending a direct mail piece titled "What Does Being Pro-Life Really Mean?" to 50,000 Catholic households in Pennsylvania and Ohio. The same message is plastered across billboards in heavily Catholic swing states.

This is a funny story considering today's revelation that two of the prominent liberal Catholic groups (including Catholics United), we now have reason to believe are funded by mega-billionaire progressive George Soros. What an awkward explanation for how these kids went from working out of their dorm room into their current opulence. Grassroots - or big money?

Sullivan, in her clever way, spends a bit more time mentioning the various arguments put forward by pro-Obama Catholics (without mentioning the obvious factual replies), and then throws her hands up and says it's all about the economy. Sullivan seems to have a habit of sowing doubts about a long-presumed position, and then switching topics completely instead of providing the other side of the story, for she did this in her last article as well.

Anyway, Amy:

In a year like 2008, when the economy trumps social issues, Catholics are most likely to return to their roots in the Democratic Party. And that's particularly true when they hear fellow Catholics arguing that Democrats reflect their religious values.

Indeed, for pro-Obama democrats have discovered the solution to Kerry's "Catholic problem" - simply ignore it. Simply claim there is no problem with Obama's position on abortion (and embryonic stem cell research), and suddenly he becomes a compelling candidate.

Make no mistake, the final push to rope Catholics into the Obama camp is in full swing. It feels like a full-time job simply documenting the examples. Because of this volume, I'm just going to focus on one narrative myth advocated by Sullivan in my next post.

The one issue the MSM is careful to avoid

Look at this transcript of CNN's coverage of a townhall meeting with John McCain:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, first of all, thank you both for all you're doing for our country. I wanted to ask you about -- about the issue of abortion, and specifically about the debate a couple of nights ago. The moderator cleverly never brought this -- the question up.

And with the debate coming up again, I would ask if you're going to find a way to bring the subject up, even if it's not asked about, because I firmly believe it's an issue which you have the advantage.

PHILLIPS: John McCain campaigning in Waukesha, Wisconsin. You can still watch this live, if you want, at CNN.com/live. He's talking about your money and his pledge to bring it back.

Isn't that something? Someone brings up the topic of abortion - and the fact that it's not being talked about - and CNN immediatly cuts-away from McCain's response. More than that, the anchor claims that McCain's talking about "your money and his pledge to bring it back." Maybe earlier he was, but right now, he was talking about...

the one issue we're not supposed to talk about.

Ph/t: Philokalia Republic.

Liberal website libels Catholic author Dawn Eden

I watched this story develop over the weekend and around 9pm tonight I knew it was time to get involved. You see, it's a twisted tale - as twisted as the nutroots efforts to attack Sarah Palin in any way/shape/form that presents itself - including the fictitious.

I'll quickly describe the situation and you'll see what I mean.

A while ago Catholic author Dawn Eden (a personal friend, I should add) posted her SAT scores online. A few days ago, someone doing a Google image search for "SAT scores" found Dawn's photocopy, and substituted Sarah Palin's name for it - and replaced some of the scores with lower ones. The point of this forgery was to spread the rumor that Sarah Palin didn't perform well in her standardized testing.

Fast-forward a couple blog news cycles later, and most the major liberal outlets that had claimed the story to be true ... backed off.


Then Gawker stepped in it. Dawn:

"Three days ago in the post below, I exposed how Gawker fell for a forgery that purported to be Sarah Palin's SAT scoresheet but was actually a Photoshop job—made by someone who stole my own scoresheet off my blog and pasted in bad grades. Now, Gawker admits it fell for a forgery—and libels me by claiming the bad grades are mine.

That is just plain bad reporting, and, if not corrected, crosses the border into libel. (It would be hard for Gawker to prove absence of malice, given its previous reportage on me.)"

Click the image above or here for a preview of Gawker's post - no reason to give them traffic unless you are curious.

The only one with egg on their face at this point is Gawker, who swooped in on a story that was wrong to begin with, and then when they discovered their error, made a second serious error (or at least embarrassingly poor fact-gathering), and just presumed that because Dawn is a practicing, conservative, chastity-talk-giving Catholic ... well then she must be stupid.

Gee, if you look at the facts, it's Gawker that sure looks stupid. I mean - at least Dawn demonstrates fourth-grade reading comprehension. I'm not sure that I can say the same about Gawker.

Also, if anyone wants to represent Dawn against Gawker pro-bono, drop her a line.

Gawker might benefit from the detention.

Pic: Anti-Catholic, Anti-Bishop Cartoon in Scranton Newspaper

Bishop Martino of Scranton, PA - the hometown of pro-choice Senator Joe Biden - recently wrote a pastoral letter for Respect Life Sunday which focused on the evil of abortion. He told all his priests to read the letter in place of their homily this past Sunday.

Here's how the local paper, the Scranton-Times Tribune responded:

Gee, I guess depicting the Bishop with a baby cradled in his arms wouldn't convey the kind of point this cartoonist-satirist is comfortable with. I've said before that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice, and this is a perfect example. Imagine a cartoon that claimed Jewish leaders are shills for the Democrat party? Yeah, it doesn't get published.

I don't want this story to get unfocused by chasing down the rabbit trails of biased reporting that is also coming out of the Scranton-Times Tribune (here they are if you are interested). Suffice it to say the paper has a history of allowing this sort of anti-Catholic editorial and journalistic content. {Just look at this cartoon also mocking Bishop Martino.}

I think the best thing is to submit a letter to the editor telling them why you don't appreciate this cartoonist mocking a bishop for caring about the rights of unborn children - a constant teaching of the Church. And watch your own papers - this sort of thing is sadly not confined to Scranton.

Related: "The Five Non-Negotiables" (Mark Brumley lists: "Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell experimentation, human cloning, and same-sex marriage." This list is not alphabetical.)

Video: Palin's glasses designer likes Obama

"Plumbing the Depths of Irrelevance"

That should be the theme of the reporting team who came up with the Palin's Japanese Glasses story.

CNN stretching a story to promote Obama. What a surprise. I almost lifted an eyebrow.

Time Mag. asks: "Does Biden Have a Catholic Problem?"

The short answer is, of course - yes, he does.

{update: forgetful me - here's the article link.}

There's so many little quibbles I have with this piece, I've decided to go point-by-point first:

• Abp. Chaput did not get "marginalized in the bishops conference — losing key leadership elections — in part because of his extreme views about denying communion to politicians."
• "[the recent actions of the bishops] has Catholics Democrats worriedly asking themselves: Can one of their own ever again win national office?" The answer is: yes, if they stop allowing/promoting abortion.
• "[Kerry] was utterly unprepared for the attacks that came his way." No, he had his entire public career to prepare himself, if he had even bothered to understand his Church's teaching.
• "[Kerry] left unchallenged the idea that he was a bad or insincere Catholic." Actually, he tried to act like he was a Catholic in good standing - that's what got him in the biggest trouble.
• "Biden also benefits from the work of progressive groups like ... Catholics United." An organization that I exposed as a liberal front-group some time ago. Seriously - who are they fooling? (Besides writers for Time?)
• "And some conservative Catholics are speaking out as well, venting their disappointment with Bush policies that have not reflected Catholic social teaching and with the Republican Party's focus on overturning Roe v. Wade as the only way to address the abortion issue." Ah, finally, a meaty argument tucked-in an innocuous paragraph. But disappointment in one party does not mean one will vote for the other, or that - overall - it is the more palatable choice. The GOP is certainly far from perfect, but is the DNC better?

Okay, now that we've the little things off the table, let's jump into the last two paragraphs. Reading them, I'm once again amazed how unobjective journalists can be on this topic (and how their editors can let them get away with it). Let me explain what I mean:

The second-to-last paragraph tries to make the claim that there is an "inconsistency" in the bishops' public stance on moral issues. The only proof for this claim is an interview given by Abp. Chaput about the topic of McCain's support (background) for embryonic stem cell research.

But wait a minute, the same author (Amy Sullivan) began her article by dismissing Abp. Chaput's views as extreme and isolated. Now which is it? Are we to listen to Chaput or not? Apparently we can dismiss his pro-life advocacy because he is, well, isolated, but we must take note of his lack-of-extreme criticism of McCain on the topic of embryonic stem cell research. Moreover, Chaput's supposed-waffling (I have not reviewed the tape to corroborate Sullivan's charecterization), is somehow supposed to undermine the combined teaching of the 27/13 bishops who have spoken-out against Pelosi/Biden.

The last paragraph then blithely goes on to claim that the entire proceeding discussion is irreleveant because "[the democrats] are already poised to improve on Kerry's support from Catholic voters, whose top issues this year have been the economy and national security instead of hot-button moral issues."

So why did the author feel she had to ask if Biden has a Catholic problem in the first place? Evidently, the future is already secure. So her answer, I guess, is "no he doesn't". But just in case he does:

"Even so, Catholic Democrats can't afford to look like the kids in the corner who don't know their Catechism. In the future, they might want to resist the temptation to wade into theology and stay firmly in the world of policy."

That's right, don't engage your faith, don't have that faith inform your policy. Ask fellow Catholics to follow you not because of how you've acted, but because of who you just "are."

Yep, no problem here.

update: This has been edited-down and cross-posted to the CatholicVote.com blog.

Media ignoring US Bishops' statement on Biden?

Here's a hypothetical:

The leadership of the single largest religious denomination in America publishes a statement saying the democractic vice-presidential nominee was in serious error when he claimed a major policy position of his party could be reconciled with his religious beliefs... and only the AP mentioned the situation.

Oh wait, that's not a hypothetical so far.

Video: US Weekly editor attempts to defend cover

Megyn Kelly takes on Bradley Jacobs:

Background here.

Pictures: US Weeky's double standard (Palin v. Obama)

For today's example in objective, non-editorializing popular journalism, I give you:

Exhibit A: "Barack Obama. He loves his wife. She calls him "my rock." Isn't their wedding picture cute? There's nothing much else to say, folks, because it's all good - just like him!"

Exhibit B: "Sarah Palin. She lies. She's immersed in scandals. She's having babies like crazy. Her daughter doesn't know how to use birth control. She fires her sister's ex-husbands. Need we say more?"

The backlash has reached 10,000 boycotters, and US Weekly is feeling the hit.

More than sickeningly embarassing.

Related: Women shifting to McCain according to Rasmussen

Oprah snubs Palin, Palin wins over America

Drudge is claiming that Oprah Winfrey has decided not to have Sarah Palin on her hugely-popular TV show (despite many, many requests from her viewers) while Oprah denies that Palin was ever even considered.

This is a surprising decision for (at least) two reasons: 1] Oprah typically loves the opportunity to showcase accomplished, prominent women and 2] Oprah can't really claim neutrality here because of her whole-hearted support of Barack Obama.

It's not like Palin needs the exposure, after her extremely popular, effective convention speech, Rasmussen polling is reporting that she is more popular than McCain or Obama! And indeed, every time people like Oprah snub Palin, her stock increases.

I also agree with Brian Saint-Paul that "if John McCain wins the 2008 presidential race, it will be because Sarah Palin dragged him across the finish line."

Without intending any sort of pun ... Palin sure is polarizing.

Palin's Pregnant Daughter

Most of you have probably heard the news, which broke over the labor day weekend.

Fr. Z has a post on how the media is using this as an opportunity to criticize, of all things, abstinence education.

Diogenes, meanwhile, wins the "so obvious we all probably would have missed it" award:

Congratulations, Sarah Palin. You've got the New York Times talking-- on page 1, above the fold-- about whether it's wise for a mother of growing children to hold a demanding full-time job. Somehow I don't think a liberal Democratic candidate could have accomplished that.

Congratulations, Bristol Palin. You've got the Boston Globe worried about out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

Exactly. Suddenly these issues are important to liberal media-types, and now they are quickly adopting positions opposite to their usual ones, because ... they want to criticize the conservative veep pick.

I guess this is another example of people trying to claim moral values in an election year.

On a parallel, but not unrelated note, Brian Saint-Paul looks into the embarassing lack of vetting and forethought that is evidenced by these Palin details emerging so soon after her public selection.

Sandro Magister, others, on the growing Hindu violence

Magister adds his commanding take to the story, which I covered extensively last week here.

In India, the Christians' Offense Is Fighting Against Slavery

The slavery is that of the caste system. Against this, the Christians both preach and practice equal dignity for all. Professor Parsi explains the reasons for the growing Hindu violence. And he warns about the international repercussions

This morning, the 25,000 Catholic schools in India closed their doors for the entire day. The Indian Catholic Church has called for a day of prayer and fasting for the first Sunday in September, with peaceful processions all over the country.

The reason is the new wave of violence that has struck the Christians in the state of Orissa. Every day, there is news of killing, wounding, rape, assaults against churches, convents, schools, orphanages, villages, carried out by Hindu fanatics. Thousands of people have had to abandon their homes and flee to the forests.

The spark for the latest explosion of violence was struck with the killing, on August 23, of the Hindu religious leader Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati and five of his followers. The killing was carried out by armed Maoist groups, but the Hindus used it as a pretext for blaming the Christians and taking revenge on them. [More.]

Meanwhile, a local Indian Archbishop calls this violence a case of "Christianophobia":

The international community must demonstrate the same commitment to wiping out growing ‘Christianophobia’ as to tackling anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, the Vatican’s foreign minister said on Friday.

Archbishop Dominique Mamberti was speaking as Hindu mobs continue to go on the rampage against Christians in India’s Orissa state in retaliation for the killing of a Hindu leader, despite the Indian government saying that Maoists are most likely responsible for the murder. At least 13 people have been killed in the violence and hundreds of Christian churches and homes have been burned down.

Archbishop Mamberti said religious freedom was fundamental to upholding human dignity.

"In order to promote this dignity in an integral way, so-called 'Christianophobia' should be combated as decisively as 'Islamophobia' and anti-Semitism," he said.

More than 3,000 people, mainly Christians, have fled from their homes to government-run relief camps or surrounding forests. - Christian Today

Christians are not demanding special treatment, simpy equal.

Looking at the news feeds, I'm seeing practically no major US-media coverage of this story.

Liberals already going after Palin

{post updated, 12:35pm}

Perhaps taking the cake is Daily Kos trying to claim that Palin's fifth child, who has down syndrome, is actually Palin's daughter's child. Give the story some time to sort itself out, I'd say.

Also, a particularly glaring example of bias from MSNBC:

From the very first moment that John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin for his Republican running mate was announced, the MSNBC news network was engaged in a deliberate attempt to smear the Alaska governor, according to Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.

During Friday night's edition of "The O'Reilly Factor," the Fox anchor displayed MSNBC's "breaking news" graphic, which ran the message, "How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?" (see picture here.)

And the feminist bloggers? "Crap."

Classy.

Meanwhile: $10 Million Woman: Palin a Hit with GOP Donors

How long can Obama ignore it?

A quick check in with point-woman Jill Stanek might yield an answer:

An insider tells me Obama's camp is going "ape sh**" over all this.

More basic question: how long can the media ignore the story?

One of the worst - but sadly expected - introductions to the pope's visit

I read this story in USA Today yesterday about the upcoming pope visit and felt like I was getting nauseous.

What a relief to find out that Carl Olson has risked his supper to point out its hackneyed failings point-by-point.

Commentary: Filling in the "generation gap" in the Catholic Church in America

Catholic bloggers have been doing an excellent job pointing out some of the fallacies and false oppositions being set out by the media in the advance days before Pope Benedict XVI visits the United States.

One uneven treatment that I think this blog is uniquely suited to address is well represented by this story by the Associated Press: "Generation Gap Shapes Catholic Church in America".

From the introductory paragraphs:

In his visit this month to the United States, Pope Benedict XVI will find an American flock wrestling with what it means to be Roman Catholic.

The younger generation considers religion important, but doesn't equate faith with going to church. Many lay people want a greater say in how their parishes operate, yet today's seminarians hope to restore the traditional role and authority of priests.

Catholic colleges and universities are trying to balance their religious identity with free expression, catching grief from liberals and conservatives in the process.

There is a little good mixed in with a great deal of bad here. That little good is the part about seminarians. But it makes them out to be an isolated phenomenon. Young lay persons, at least the hundreds I've encountered in my life, also want to see the traditional role and authority of priests upheld.

And while, on the whole, the younger generation (which I presume, must also include non-Catholics), "doesn't equate faith with going to church", there are also certainly hundreds (again) of youth that I have personally met who do. See the uneven picture emerging?

The article tries to broadly suggest a great deal of interest on the part of American Catholics in the figure of Pope Benedict, but a generally lax approach to following the teachings of the Church.

Again, my experience says otherwise, and while I'm limited to what I know (which is a good deal considering my years of blogging these issues), and is supported by the sheer numbers of individuals I know who actually subscribe both to the truth that Pope Benedict preaches and the life which results from the teachings of Christ.

Can the Catholic Church in America improve? Yes. Are the youth especially called to fidelty? Absolutely. But is it really such a lost cause? I would strongly disagree with intimations that it is. Consider:

Older Catholics who remember the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s are still debating its modernizing reforms. The council changed everything from the role of lay people to the direction priests face while celebrating Mass.

Benedict has revived some traditions and prayers that had been largely abandoned since Vatican II, refueling the debate.

But young adult Catholics are fed up with the fight, according to James Davidson, a Purdue University sociologist of religion who studies American Catholics.

This line of argument especially irks me, because it dismisses Catholic youth as being either uninvolved, uninterested or uninformed about these debates, or normally - all three. Well, try telling that to the "Whapsters" , or the kids at PhatMass, or me (frankly), or the amazing and brave young men studying for the priesthood, or the thousands of kids attending education at orthodox Catholic colleges, or the dozens (if not hundreds) of youth blogs who I've come across in these past years.

I'm not saying there's a silent majority here, I'm saying there's a very vocal minority. But passionate, creative minorities change culture too, and often, sooner. And my thousands of young readers don't waste time.

The article's explanation of the next generation of priests is especially lacking:

Monsignor Thomas Nydegger, vice rector of the Immaculate Conception Seminary School of Theology at Seton Hall University, said seminarians today are reaching back in Catholic tradition — like Benedict does — for rituals and clerical garb they find inspiring.

But they blend that interest with modern church goals: to serve parishioners and the larger community and to reach out to people of other faiths, he said.

The author reveals his impoverished understanding of the landscape by using "but" to start the second paragraph. In fact, this interest in "modern church goals" is part-and-parcel with their devoted reclamation of traditions that were falsely discarded by the previous generation. And the mentioned goals aren't modern, they're ancient.

Moreover, this new generation has seen the projects of their predecessors, and has decided what works - not always the innovations of the last twenty years, but always the tradition that has inspired the Church to proclaim the gospel for the past twenty centuries. And yes, that can even include distinctive clerical garb.

The truth of what I'm saying is born out by the phenomenon of recent priestly vocations - the men coming into the priesthood are attracted to orthodoxy and tradition; and the same applies to catholic youth who stay within the Church. In other words, if you don't think being Catholic is important, you aren't very likely to stay. If you do stay, especially in today's hostile climate, it's a good bet you believe in what she teaches and strive to live it.

Before this gets too lengthy - okay, it probably already is - I'll respond to the final paragraph of the article:

One visit from Benedict won't solve the problems of the American church. But by coming to the U.S., he can show Catholics — even briefly — what it might be like to be truly united by faith.

Without realizing it, the author has stumbled upon a very true insight. Yes, one visit from the pope won't overcome the challenges facing Catholic youth in America in the 21st century. But guess what? You can listen to the pope when he isn't physically in your country. Some of us - *cough* - make rather a habit of following what he says, year round, even when he's Rome-bound. It's a good way to bridge the gap this author points out.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, bookmark AmericanPapist, and get the wider picture. Fill in the gaps!

CNN tries, fails, to talk about "online confession" intelligently

CNN has published a typically-incompetent attempt to discuss the points-of-comparison between the traditional Catholic sacrament of confession and the fake, trendy online substitutes that have appeared in recent years across the web.

The article,"Forgive us father, we'd rather go online," begins with the line: "If you can pay for your bills online, why not pay for your sins?"

Hmm, can you guess what's coming next?

Most of the article is standard fare explaining how these websites do business by letting people "confess" their sins anonymously, but then it gets to talking about the Catholic Church:

"The Georgetown University study, which came out in 2005, found a significant decline in Catholics who go to confession. Although the Roman Catholic Church officially opposes online confessions, the Archdiocese of Washington used radio advertisements last year to encourage sinners to return to the sacrament. And in Chicago, Illinois, five parishes hosted "24 Hours of Grace" with rotating priests."

You've got to be kidding me. Did the author really just try to claim a contradiction between the Church's opposition to "online confessions" and the fact that the Church advertises traditional confession on the radio ("Although...")?! Even the next sentence about penance services in Chicago do nothing to support the author's conclusion. Yes, the Church is against online confessions; yes, the Church is attempting to make traditional Confession more available. What's so hard about that?

I'm similarly dissapointed by what the interviewed priest either had to say, or what the interview left out. There is no mention of Jesus or God, or that forgiveness actually happens through the sacrament. Instead we get words like "accountability", "responsibility" and "impact." Please.

Bottom line: people are still sinning (surprise) and online substitutes for confession aren't helping people, emotionally or actually (surprise). Oh yeah, and CNN wouldn't know a confessional from a fancy phone booth.

A clearing house of the challenges facing Catholic public witness

... is handily provided by this article in the UK Times, both in what it says, and in how it says it:

"Italian bishops condemned for urging actors to shun sex scenes"

Point 1: Let's just pause at the title.

The bishops themselves are the ones being "condemned" for urging actors to shun sex scenes. The news subject is actually the bishops being criticized for speaking out.

Point 2: A misappropriation of the facts:

Father Nicolò Anselmi, head of the youth section of the Italian Bishops Conference, said that Moretti was normally noted for his “idealistic and sensitive” films. But the “gratuitous” sex scene with Isabella Ferrari, his co-star, would have an undesirable effect on the “impressionable young” since it was shown without any context involving love or tenderness.

I doubt this quite captures the essence of the Italian Bishops' criticism. Sex scenes in movies are not problematic only when they are "shown without any context involving love or tenderness." Sure, that's a part of the problem. But more fundamentally, sex scenes involve ... people engaging in sexual activity(!), and doing so outside of marriage b) publically c) for profit and publicity, etc., etc.

In other words, sex scenes depicted even in a "context involving love or tenderness" would still be wrong.

Point 3: Anti-Catholicism.

Franco Zeffirelli, the film and opera director, said: “The Church is full of pedants who have lost all sense of proportion.” It was a “fourth-rate” film that did not merit the publicity generated by the bishops' intervention.

A condescending generalization. It's like saying "America is full of nitwits who have lost all sense of honor." What organization besides the Church can routinely be treated in this way with such tolerance? This comment from the man who has previously offered to help Pope Benedict with his style, saying on the one hand "The papal robes are too opulent and flashy" but then claiming "I am in continual contact with his inner circle. The Holy Father honours me with his esteem." He sure isn't sounding like a reliable opinion source to me.

Point 4: Anti-Catholicism (again):

"The row comes amid charges that the Centre Right, led by Silvio Berlusconi, is playing the Catholic card by making abortion an issue in the run-up to the general election in April. Mr Berlusconi has asked the United Nations to pass a moratorium on abortion and the death penalty."

Bringing up the issue of abortion, in a county with one of the lowest birth rates in a continent already experiencing population implosion, is ... "playing the Catholic card." I'm sorry, I don't get it.

Point 5: Anti-Catholicism (surprise):

The comments posted in response to the article follow certain numbing, universal patterns of argument on this topic. Most of them hold that because the Church allowed the sex abuse scandal to happen, for it to speak out on any issue of human sexuality ever again is nothing but hypocrisy. Well, try to defend that conclusion logically.

The later comments do, however, contribute a little glimmering of hope in their use of reason and practice of civility. But honestly, those voices are generally marginalized.

Just like the Italian bishops.

YouTube reverses ALL decision, claims "technical malfunction"

As reported on Tuesday, YouTube pulled an American Life League video for being offensive when the all it did was excerpt various Planned Parenthood TV ad segments (the PP advert, meanwhile, was not removed).

I just got an email from ALL saying that YouTube has reversed its decision:

After numerous articles and pressure from Catholic and online media, Google-sponsored YouTube cited a “technical malfunction” as the reason American Life League’s pro-life video was censored by YouTube staff.

... Praising the YouTube decision, Sedlak commented “We are pleased that YouTube has reversed their decision to remove our video. Our ALL News Report was neither objectionable nor inappropriate. While it is unfortunate that YouTube chose this tactic in the first place, it is encouraging to note that they corrected their poor decision in a timely fashion.”

I agree with that sentiment: don't give YouTube a hard time for making the right decision (eventually).

YouTube double standard: ALL video yanked, PP video remains

"On Monday morning, American Life League (ALL) was informed by YouTube that one of its exposé videos on Planned Parenthood was evicted from their for its “inappropriate nature.” Strangely enough, the ad that the ALL was criticizing remains on YouTube."

“All we did in our video report was show a couple of clips from Planned Parenthood’s ‘Mile High’ ad (...)" said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League. “If there was anything inappropriate in our report, it came from Planned Parenthood’s ad, and yet their ad remains while ours is removed.” - CNA

YouTube employee: "I am shocked, shocked, to find that inappropriate material is on YouTube!"

Exorcism in the modern world...

... is a topic almost impossible for the modern reporter to accurately present.

Case in point, WaPo's "Ritual of Dealing With Demons Undergoes a Revival."

Quotes from the beginning and end of the article:

POCZERNIN, Poland -- This wind-swept village is bracing for an invasion of demons, thanks to a priest who believes he can defeat Satan.

The Rev. Andrzej Trojanowski, a soft-spoken Pole, plans to build a "spiritual oasis" that will serve as Europe's only center dedicated to performing exorcisms.

...

Trojanowski is a priest in the northwestern Polish port city of Szczecin. He said that he sees as many as 20 people a week who are under the influence of evil spirits, but that he needs more space to treat them properly.

At his exorcism center, he said, people could check in for a few days and receive ministrations.

Plans for the center were announced in December after an archbishop gave approval to build it on church land in Poczernin, a village surrounded by cabbage fields about 20 miles outside Szczecin.

The news came as a bit of a shock to the villagers, who said they hadn't been consulted and weren't sure they liked the idea of demons coming home to roost.

In between these two quotations is a great jumble of the usual:

• confused presentations of Church teaching
• "required" exorcism pop culture references (The Exorcist, etc.)
• wierd claims (e.g., John Paul II was "himself an occasional demon chaser" - huh?)

Now, the article does make a few helpful distinctions and observations, but really, the more I read reports on this topic, the more I'm convinced that accurate summaries are far beyond the average reporter's kenning.

I don't mean they are malevolent, I mean they are ill- (or non-)equipped to discuss the topic cogently.

L’Osservatore Romano nails La Sapienza profs for Wikipedia misuse

How. Embarassing.

The Vatican daily L’Osservatore Romano is reporting that 67 professors from La Sapienza University in Rome who wrote a letter opposing a visit by Pope Benedict XVI based their opposition on a quote taken out of context from Wikipedia.org.

The professors portrayed themselves as defenders “of freedom of research and of knowledge.” “In the name of ‘freedom of research and of knowledge,’ they have taken false information to be true, accepting an assertion without checking whether it is factual,” the Vatican newspaper reported. - CWNews

Icing on the proverbial cake:

“That Wikipedia in all likelihood is the source of the quote is evident by the fact that the letter from the 67 professors makes reference to a speech by Cardinal Ratzinger on March 15, 1990 in Parma. The speech was given, but it took place in Rome, at La Sapienza University on exactly that day,” L’ Osservatore continued. “The surprising thing is that whoever took the quote from Feyerabend could not have read the rest of the entry in Wikipedia, as he would have realized that the meaning of Ratzinger’s statement is exactly the opposite of what the 67 claimed the Pope was saying.”

“Each person is free to judge if this way of using reason is correct or if it is an act of disloyalty. The risk of reason folding to the pressure of interests and to the attractiveness of utility is exactly the risk which the Pope would have warned the staff of La Sapienza about had he been able to speak there,” the Vatican newspaper stated in conclusion.

I don't think this discovery can be overplayed as it brings out several important points: 1) This is a scandal to the protesting La Sapienza professors. 2) This ellucidates the anti-catholic and anti-papal bigotry in play here. 3) L'Osservatore Romano should be praised for its original journalism and forthright presentation of the facts.

Typically biased reporting on religious life demographics issued by the BBC

The BBC hasn't learned any new tricks:

Newly published statistics showed that the number of men and women belonging to religious orders fell by 10% to just under a million between 2005 and 2006.

During the pontificate of the late Pope John Paul II, the number of Catholic nuns worldwide declined by a quarter.

Is it me, or is the second paragraph somehow trying to claim a causal connection between the decline in religious life and John Paul II's conservative reign? If anything, he probably prevented those numbers from falling lower. What we are seeing now and what obtained during his pontificate is the long-term fallout of the 60's and 70's.

The figures were published next to a report of Pope Benedict XVI's meeting with nuns, monks and priests from many countries gathered in St Peter's Basilica in Rome last weekend.

The BBC's David Willey in the Italian capital says the accelerating downward trend must have caused concern to the Pope.

I'm sure this news was no surprise to the pope. I'm sure the reporter knew that such statistics have been around for a good while now, but hey, it must have been a slow news day, right? Of course this is cause for concern, but where is mention of the other significant causes of hope? Oh right, it's not that slow of a news day.

And, just in case we forgot the BBC's pet theory that "JP2 = no nuns", the article ends:

The number of Catholic nuns worldwide declined by about a quarter during the reign of Pope John Paul, and this further drop shows that new recruits are failing to replace those nuns who die, or decide to abandon their vows, he adds.

Got it.

update: well, riddle me this:

Vatican corrects figures showing steep drop in religious orders

Between 2005 and 2006, L'Osservatore Romano reported, the number of male and female religious in the world dropped by nearly 95,000. The entire religious population now stands at just over 945,000.

However, on the day after those figures were published in the Vatican newspaper, the Vatican press office corrected the record. Father Ciro Benedettini, the deputy director of the press office, said that the accurate figures showed a decline of just 7,230 over that one-year period.

Thus although the world's religious population did decrease between 2005 and 2006, the decline was less than 1% of the total-- rather than nearly 10%. - CWN

Commenters below take note - less than 1%, not 10%. Who ran the first set of numbers, I wonder?

Encyclical reporting and the "ginger factor"

Tom via Jeff:

The Ginger Factor, named for a well-known "Far Side" cartoon, is a measure of the ratio of words said to words understood. A dog named Ginger, for example, only understands the word "Ginger" in the sentence, "Okay, Ginger, if you get into the garbage one more time, you'll be spending the night outside."

I think most people, not just benighted reporters, experience a high Ginger Factor with most papal encyclicals; my post below includes a paragraph from an apostolic letter that has a high G.F. for me. Naturally, a reporter doesn't report on the parts of a papal statement that sound like, "Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. blah" And naturally, a reporter does recognize (and report on) the part that sounds like, "This means Senator Rawkins is being naughty."

As Jeff explains, in the case of Spe Salvi, all the reporters can really comprehend gets boiled down to the sentence "Pope blasts atheism", and he has quite a few example headlines to demonstrate that.

Hmm, I wonder notable cases of militant atheism we've been talking about could take note.

Commentary: Head of Church in Canada Cardinal Oullet issues open apology

Cardinal Archbishop of Quebec Mark Ouellet, the highest member of the Canadian clergy, published an open letter in Quebec's newspapers today, apologizing for wrongs committed by the Canadian Church, especially in its handling of their clergy sex abuse cases.

You can look at this gesture in two ways: how it might effect the dispositions of Catholics and how it will be intepreted by Canadian media and government.

I think the argument might be made that this letter will provide some solace to those who have been victimized by some member of the Church. One can then ask, however, what the utility of this gesture will prove to be among the wider Canadian populace.

Before considering that question, let's take a look at the media reaction and intepretation:

The CBC report claims that Cardinal Ouellet in his letter said that the Church errored in its attitudes (Reuters: "narrow attitudes") in the 1960's by favouring "anti-Semitism, racism, indifference to First Nations and discrimination against women and homosexuals." That's quite a list.

Ouellet also "acknowledged that abuses of power hurt the church's image in Quebec and hindered its moral authority." Well, yes. That and other things (like not excercising it's moral authority).

The letter concludes "These scandals shook the confidence of the people towards religious authorities, and we understand them. Forgive us for all this pain!" and says that the church will make a public display of repentance during Lent next spring. The CBC report helpfully ends by adding "Ouellet is considered among the highest-ranking Roman Catholic officials in the country and has often spoken publicly against same-sex marriage."

Reuters is more harsh:

... The senior Roman Catholic clergyman in Canada, seeking to get rid of church baggage and turn over a new leaf, asked forgiveness on Wednesday for sexual abuse and discrimination committed by Catholics in the past.

Ouellet also sought forgiveness for certain "narrow attitudes" before the 1960s, when what is known as the Quiet Revolution ended the pervasive Catholic grip on Quebec society. He said some Catholics tended towards anti-Semitism, racism and indifference to natives, and discrimination against women and homosexuals.

"Please forgive all this wrong," he said.

Context:

He made his statement in the context of a Quebec government commission that is touring the mainly French-speaking province to examine the extent of "reasonable
accommodation" Quebec society should make to religious and other minorities.

Ouellet said he was imitating a general confession of sins in 2000 on behalf of Catholics by the late Pope John Paul II.

The CBC video report (available in Quicktime forma here and RealMedia here) is somewhat slanted, describing Cardinal Ouellet's letter as an "unusual plea" and the reporter embellishes that "there are many" mistakes the Canadian Church has to apologize for, including things I can't think the Cardinal included in his letter (e.g., women were told to stay home and have more children). The reporter also says reaction has been "mixed", and that various advocacy groups are dismissing the letter as not enough, as it represents the Cardinal's personal opinion and not the official position of the Church.

(Let's pause a moment here: isn't it incredible how precise these groups are able to destinguish the personal opinion of a Church official from the Church's official position expressed by a person of the Church in this case? If even they can see the distinction, why can't the media ever seem to get it?)

Now let's return to the question concerning the utility of this gesture. I would, of course, prefer to see the full text of the letter before rendering an opinion. But the fact remains that most people won't read it and will let the media outlets summarize it for them. Such a summary will come down to: "Head of Canadian Catholic church admits church was wrong and promises to turn over a new leaf." I'm sorry, but I think that's how this will play out.

We also can't forget in this discussion that the Canadian Church is fighting a fierce, losing battle against Canada's militant, anti-Christian (and particularly anti-Catholic) secularism. In this atmosphere, politicians and those who hate the Church will find in the Cardinal's letter ready ammunition to further discredit the Church's moral authority and competence. And are trying to restrict the Church's freedom however they can.

Honestly, when apologizing "for the Church" in the public forum, it's absolutely crucial to do everything possible to clarify that these faults and errors were committed by persons of the Catholic Church and not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, in itself, is not anti-Semitic, anti-women, anti-homosexuality (properly understood), anti-minority, etc. It is more "pro" these groups, properly understood, than any secular government ever could be, because Jesus Christ is the Church's foundation.

I think it is so difficult to ensure that this distinction is maintained once the letter goes through the public grinder that it almost makes the action futile. Note that I say "almost." I could be wrong. But history, in these matters, has a ruthless tendency of repeating itself. New, smarter ways of combating the slanders voiced against the Church are required. Now more than ever.

Apart from this, I had heard previously generally good things about Cardinal Ouellet (pronounced "wa-let"), but here's a (I hope) helpful tapestry of the impressions I was able to discover after some dedicated searching. The more I find out about him the more I like him:

• He's at the forefront of Quebec's upcoming International Congress, and has good things to say in a brief interview with CNA.


• Speaking to a public commission, Cardinal Ouellet said that the people of Quebec "need to rediscover their religious identity" and that the problem of cultural identity in Quebec can be traced back to "the malaise of the Catholic majority, which needs to find a religious reference point" and concluded that "Quebec is ripe for a profound new evangelization" reports CWNews.


• He acted forthrightly and forcefully against "The Army of Mary", legitimately using his canonical authority to exclude them from receiving communion for various grace reasons, and many other canonical sanctions and penalties.


• The New Liturgical Movement has reported that Cardinal Ouellet has allowed a church to perform the extraordinary form of the Roman rite (related pic).


• Rocco describes Cardinal Ouellet as a member of Pope Benedict's "kitchen cabinet." Cardinal Ouellet is a member of Communion & Liberation, which perhaps explains some of the affinity, as does the fact that Cardinal Ouellet used to work in the Curia, Rocco reports.


• Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston describes Cardinal Ouellet as a "wonderful theologian who gave fantastic talks." That was evidently at the USCCB's June retreat in Albuquerque. I think it's significant that the USCCB decided to fly-in a Canadian Cardinal to give their retreat.

Sure sounds like a good guy to me.

I wish to be proven wrong in my misgivings about the prudence of this public apology and continue to hope and pray for strength in the Canadian church. I think if anyone can achieve this formidable task, from what I've seen, it's Cardinal Oullet. Let's hope that people listen to him when he isn't apologizing for being wrong and thereby realize that, when teaching on behalf of the Church, he is very, completely right.

Woefully pathetic reporting by the AP on "women priests"

Two women who made Roman Catholic religious history say they are ready to be the new face of the priesthood, even as Archbishop Raymond Burke moved to formally penalize them for violating church law. [- Associated Press]

Really, where to begin? Carl Olson, luckily, has a stronger stomach than I.

Related: Fr. Z comments on a revealing remark caught by an open mic at today's USCCB midday press conference.

Once again, a UN official blames the Catholic Church for the spread of AIDS

I guess the Reuters reporter and I simply have a difference in perspective:

Reuters:

The rapid spread in Latin America of the virus that causes AIDS is made worse by the Roman Catholic Church's stand against using condoms, a U.N. official said on Monday.

I respond:

The rapid spread in Latin America of the virus that causes AIDS is made worse by young people not following the Church's teaching on promiscuous premarital sex, the AmericanPapist said on Tuesday.

Reuters:

..."In Latin America the use of condoms has been demonized, but if they were used in every relation I guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region," said Alberto Stella, the UNAIDS Coordinator for Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

I respond:

..."In Latin America the Church's teaching has been ignored, and if every person followed her teaching, I can even more guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region, said Thomas Peters, the AmericanPapist in Washington DC.

Reuters:

... The Catholic Church, which holds sway in Latin America despite the rise in evangelical churches, opposes all forms of contraception and instead promotes abstinence as a way to avoid spreading AIDS.

I respond:

The Catholic Church, which is actually joined by the evangelical churches on the issue of teaching that premarital sex is immoral, opposes all inadequate responses to this disease and instead promotes abstinence as a way of attacking the underling cause of the aids epidemic, e.g., rampant premarital sex (and by the way, does Reuters truly believe that the folks who are already disobeying the Church about premarital sex aren't in fact also using condoms as well?).

Maybe an analogy would help make this point more clear:

If we notice that a culture is getting into the habit of hitting each other over the head with baseball bats, should we respond by a) giving them Styrofoam pads to put on the bats so they don't hurt each other as much, or be) should we teach them to stop hitting each other with the baseball bats in the first place?

Intelligent readers will hopefully be able to make the appropriate conceptual substitutions.

What Pope Benedict said about Creation at Loreto

The ever-industrious Teresa Bendetta of the Papa Ratzinger Forum has uploaded the English translation of Pope Benedict's homily, delivered September 2nd in Loreto to a gathering of 300,000 youth. The press has already decided that his entire homily was primarily about saving the planet "before it's too late" (to quote from the Reuters headline). I'm going to reproduce the relevant passage where the Pope does speak about safeguarding Creation.

This quotation consists of 162 words out of a 2,569 word address:

One of the fields in which it is urgent to work is most definitely that of safeguarding creation. The new generations are responsible for the future of the planet, which shows evident signs of a development that has not always known to preserve the delicate balances of nature. Before it is too late, we must make courageous choices with a view to a strong alliance between man and the earth.

We need a decisive Yes to safeguarding creation and a strong commitment to reverse those tendencies which risk bringing us to a situation of irreversible (environmental) degradation. That is why I appreciate the initiative of the Italian Church to promote greater sensitivity to the problems of protecting the environment by designating a national day for this purpose on September the first.

This year, attention is directed towards water, a most precious asset which, unless it is shared in a just and peaceful way, will become a cause for tensions and bitter conflicts.

... and that's it: an entirely reasonable admonition for youth to protect Creation. Notice that the scope of the stewardship, as I read it, focuses on problems of micro environments, i.e, scarcity of water in certain regions, and a plural reference to the "balances of nature."

Reuters has a real howler with its claim: "Intentionally wearing green vestments, [Pope Benedict] spoke to a vast crowd of mostly young people..." Yes, Pope Benedict intentionally wore green. But green is the proper liturgical color for ordinary time. It's no more a witness of support for environmentalism than wearing red would be a witness of support for communism!

The article also says, "Last month Benedict said the human race must listen to "the voice of the Earth" or risk destroying its very existence." As LSN pointed out, the media is twisting the Pope's words here. First of all, it adds the conclusion "or risk destroying its very existence." He does not say that next. What he actually said next (in its full context) was this:

"... obedience to the voice of the earth is more important for our future happiness than the voices of the moment, the desires of the moment ... our own planet speaks with us and we should be listening if we want to survive and decipher this message about the earth... and if we should be obedient to the voice of the earth, much more we must be obedient to the voice of human life." (and he goes on to say:) " ... we not only take care of the earth, but we must respect the other, other human beings ... only in absolute respect of other (humans) ...can we make progress."

See the important clarification? Concerns for the environment are a subcategory of our more fundamental concerns for man. Where man's interest and nature's interest conflict - man comes first. This is the essential qualifier that the media consistently ignores; and it is also what differentiates qualitatively Christian environmentalism and secular environmentalism.

Every environmental issue that involves risk to human life deserves attention. Most of these issues involve microclimate issues of scarcity, and require individual, practical applied judgement. I'm all for prudence and stewardship in these situations, as the Pope exhorts. I don't see anything about global warming even implied in the Pope's speeches, nor a categorical condemnation of industrialization (which, in general, helps raise standards of living) in his talk.

Just my first reaction. Please, comment away.

Update: More liturgical ignorance (and just blain hokeyness) from the UK Independant:

Wearing green vestments, the Roman Catholic liturgical colour of hope, Pope Benedict XVI yesterday urged half a million youngsters to save the planet while there was still time.

Yes, green is the liturgical color for hope (as well as life), but - again- it represents our Christian hope in Christ, not in saving the environment. Distinctions, people - they save.

Correction: *this* headline wins the "most twisted" contest.

Update: I think Brandon may have found one that beats even the previous record holder:

"Dismay And Anger As Pope Benedict Declares That Protestants Cannot Have Churches" - Free Internet Press

Now that's just stupid!

(and from the comment box, as honorable mention: "Vatican: Protestants not true Christians".)

Original post: How on earth does the Vatican releasing a document entitled "Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" prompt the headline ....

"Vatican hits 'wounded' Christian churches." - ABC News.au

.... as if the image we're supposed to conjure up in our heads is anything else than a big bully walking around a playground and "hitting" a "wounded" little kid.

Oh. My.

Conflating document and commentary: bad reporting or poor releasing?

Today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released two texts, but if you read much of the reporting that has gone on today, you would not realize that fact. What are the two texts?

• the first text is a document entitled "Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" and is available at the Vatican website in English here.
• the second text is a commentary simply entitled "Observations" (at least on the English-language page) and is currently only available on the Vatican website in Italian. An unofficial English-language translation is available, for instance, here from Vatican analyst Sandro Magister (scroll-down to find it).

Now, here is my question/problem. The Reuters story released today (under the title "Vatican says other Christian churches "wounded") conflates the document with the commentary - and indeed - favors the commentary for its quotations, mainly because those quotations are sometimes less irenic.

Here is what Reuters says towards the beginning of its story:

"16-page document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict once headed, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a "wound" since they do not recognise the primacy of Pope.

But the document said the "wound is still more profound" in Protestant denominations."

"Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them," it said.

The "16-page document" can only refer to the actual document "Responses to some Questions..." when it is combined with the accompanying commentary. The actual document itself (without the commentary) is far shorter than 16 pages.

Moreover, the word "wound" (which is used in the Reuters headline) and the (by far most inflammatory) phrase which ends "it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could not possibly be attributed to them" both do not appear in the document: they appear in the commentary instead.

Reuters is not alone in conflating the document and the commentary in its reporting, nor is Reuters alone in favoring the commentary heavily for its quotations. Here, for example, is a quotation from the AFP's coverage:

"Central to that identity is the idea [of the Catholic Faith] that eastern or Orthodox churches were suffering a "wound" because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope."

"It [the document] said "the wound is still more profound" in "communities emerging from the Reformation" -- the Protestant and Anglican churches."

Again, in both cases the reporters are quoting the commentary and not the document itself.

This situation prompts a question: is the commentary on an equal level with the actual document to the point that one can honestly quote from both alternatively without any specification as to which one is being discussed?

The Catholic News Service article describes the commentary as "authoritative" but proceeds to be very specific when it is quoting from the commentary as opposed to quoting the document itself.

On the other hand, the VIS released today does not mention the commentary, and specifies that the document released today was published in multiple languages (in order to be readily received by the universal Church).

This leaves my final set of questions, which I'll be happy to have answered via email or in the comment box: is the media missing an important distinction (between document and commentary), and therefore should they in future avoid conflating the two genres of Vatican text? Or, do both types of text hold identical "weight"? (And in this is the case, isn't it confusing for the CDF to release two types of text when they are equally authoritative?).

Okay, I've thrown it out there.

NYT's first take on the Motu Proprio

The New York Times has released its advance coverage before the MP's release: "Wider Use of Latin Mass Likely, Vatican Officials Say."

If this article proves to be typical of the treatment the MSM gives to the MP's release, I don't think we have too much to worry about. Sure, all the old complaints and cheap jabs are there, but so are some decent (albeit out of context) quotations from the likes of Fr. Fessio and a pro-Trid. grad student studying in Rome.

The article does give an undo weight to the resistance of some bishops against the promulgation of the MP, but the account also includes the distinction that the issue here "is not a compulsory return to the Tridentine rite."

In any case, I hope Fr. Z will take a look at the article sometime and give us his opinion.

Update: Fr. Z - happily - appears to agree in substance with my diagnosis: "All in all, this wasn’t too bad was it?" Do check his post out to get the play-by-play.

An extreme example of Limbo mischaracterization

The mind boggles. Simply boggles.

Look at this Washington Post headline and its byline on the recent Limbo decision:

Mercy trumps 'theological hypothesis'

Panel rules that Catholics are free to reject church's teachings on limbo

Now, a little golden gem from the article's body:

While the church is often viewed as a top-down organization in which bishops tell ordinary Catholics what to believe, the commission's report suggests that in this case, the process worked partly in reverse.

And don't worry, Alan Cooperman also managed to bring up the "sensus fidelium."

Really - where to begin?

Pope Benedict "lashes out" against laws that contradict Natural Law

The AFP starts us out:

VATICAN CITY (AFP) - Pope Benedict reportedly lashed out against laws that he said threaten the family and social order, saying none "can overturn that of the Creator."

"No law made by man can overturn that of the Creator without dramatically affecting society in its very foundation," said the pope, according to the I-Media news agency, which reports on Vatica affairs in French.

The pope's remarks to a delegation attending a conference on "natural law" at the Pontifical Lateran University came as Portugal moves to liberalise abortion and Italy plans to grant legal status to unwed couples. [More...]

Now, I could see a variety of verbs that might describe what Pope Benedict did, but "lash out" just isn't one of them. "Lashing out," to me at least, connotes an uncontrolled, violent reaction to something one cannot handle rationally or unemotionally. Does this sound at all like the Pope Benedict we know?

I think the phrase "sternly rebuked" or "strongly asserted" would be far more appropriate. But I don't compose the copy.

Dom found another doozy in one of those ever-humerous and overly-histrionic British tabloids:

"Portugal yesterday voted to sweep away centuries of moral domination by the Roman Catholic church in a referendum allowing the government to reform one of Europe’s most restrictive abortion laws."

Goodness!

Perhaps what they are really scared about are these words, quoted from a far more balanced CWNews report:

"We must have the courage to remind our contemporaries what human beings and humanity are," the Pope said. As an example of that approach he mentioned the late Andrei Sakharov, the Russian scientist and human-rights activist. "If under the Communist regime his exterior freedom was fettered, his interior freedom, which no one could take away from him, authorized him to speak out firmly to defend his compatriots in the name of the common good,” the Pope said.

And some fascinating backstory:

"The Pope's choice of Sakharov as a model for the Academy's work was particularly significant because the Russian nuclear physicist was also a foreign associate member of the group. In fact, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was named to the Academy to fill the spot created by Sakharov’s death in 1989."

The question I ask myself is how the Pope's speech possibly relates/prepares for the expected CDF document that is going to be issued on Natural Law. This is one story I'll be watching eagerly.

Odd how someone who is prone to "lashing out" can simultaneously be working within a backdrop of such careful planning and drafting. It really makes you wonder which side is more disposed to "lashing out", doesn't it?

Finally, on a related topic, this article covers the Italian bishop preparing a statement against civil unions. Some statistics from that article:

Also, according to data released by the Italian agency Istat, fewer than 250,000 marriages were celebrated in Italy in 2005, a number that shows the continual decline since 1972, when just short of 419,000 weddings occurred. The information revealed more than 500,000 Italian couples living together outside of marriage. Istat also stated that 15% of Italian children-- 80,000 in 2005-- have been born outside of marriage. That figure is double the number for just ten years ago.

The average age at which Italian men now marry is 32 years old while for Italian women it is 30.