NCRegister editor responds to questions regarding Maciel scandal silence

In the midst of the Maciel scandal breaking, a former writer for the (Legion-owned)Register published a lengthy piece in First Things demanding that the Register end its silence on the issue, saying:

"A good Catholic newspaper must not shy away from the truth. But it would frankly make the newspaper look absurd if the whole Catholic world is discussing Fr. Maciel and the Register’s pages largely ignore the whole matter."

Today, in answer to a letter to the editor, the Register responds:

Our publisher, Father Owen Kearns, knew of Father Raymond’s concerns when he wrote in his publisher’s note for the Feb. 22 issue, “I’m also grateful for those who have expressed their indignation and their hurt. I know that it comes from their love for the Church we all love so well, and which the Register is dedicated to serving.”

... The paper covered the Holy See’s 2006 communiqué regarding Father Marcial Maciel with a wire service news story. Father Owen Kearns wisely limited any defense of Father Maciel to two pieces bylined by himself, one in 2001 and another in 2006. We have told Father Raymond repeatedly that the Register fully intends to correct the record on that coverage as soon as we can do so accurately.

The Register is dedicated to follow this story in as responsible a way as possible. This will mean, for the most part, relying on journalism produced independently of the Register to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.

At the Register, our mission is to form and inform Catholics. We are more than a newspaper — we have a mission to bring readers closer to the Church. But we are also a newspaper, and accuracy is our fundamental value.

We will keep readers informed about this situation in a way that is accurate, above all, and in keeping with our mission to form and inform.

Not surprised: National Catholic Reporter promotes Feuerherd to editor-and-chief

Whispers reports some most unwelcome tidings:

"Placing the marquee publication of American Catholicism's progressive wing in feisty, fearless and familiar hands, earlier today the National Catholic Reporter announced the return of Joe Feuerherd -- until last year, the paper's longtime Washington correspondent -- to its masthead, but now as publisher and editor-in-chief."

Pure nerve from chairman-of-the-NCR-board:

“We are also impressed with Joe’s strong commitment throughout his adult life to peace and justice issues, as well as to the documents and spirit of Vatican II.”

"Spirit of Vatican II", I'll say....

Feuerherd has most recently got himself into hot water with this offensive "screed" published in the Washington Post, in which he literally expressed his desire to see the American bishops "damned" before he would fail to vote democrat this fall.

Feuerherd was quickly answered roundly by Ramesh Ponnuru, more notably by Sister Mary Ann Walsh of the USCCB, and most notably by Canon Lawyer Ed Peters who observes that under Church Law a very sound case can be made that Feuerherd deserved to be "punished by an interdict or other just penalties" (CIC 1373).

Hmm, someone who deserves to be punished by a Church interdict?!

Yep, promote him to your publisher and editor-and-chief.

Good call, NCR. Way to show us what sort of record you admire.

This seriously deserves a petition....

Charge: CNS behaves more like "LPNS" when choosing interview subjects

In other words, not "Catholic News Service", but "Liberal Protestant News Service" says Carl Olson over at the Ignatius Press blog.

Christopher Blosser at the Benedict in America Blog explains the cause for Carl Olson's charge - it's the inexplicable fact that CNS writer Chris Herlinger chose to interview students at a "nondenominational graduate school of theology with Protestant roots and a home for Catholic academics who have run afoul of the Vatican" to get a reaction to the pope's visit.

It shouldn't surprising the resulting article came up with quotes like this:

"For her part, [Union doctoral student Kim] Harris -- a Catholic who used to be Presbyterian -- said her concern about church reform, specifically the need to expand the eligibility for clergy to include noncelibate men and women, is coming out of real and "lived experience.""

Christopher Blosser asks in response:

Does this subjective feeling of resentment invalidate the argued position of the Church?

Catholic News Service identifies itself as "the primary source of national and world news that appears in the U.S. Catholic press," however with the disclaimer that "while created in 1920 by the bishops of the United States, is editorially independent and a financially self-sustaining division of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops."

I wonder if "editorially and financially independent" is to the USCCB what "plausible deniability" is for the President, when the CIA does a black operation? Honestly, I would have normally expected this backstabbing tripe from the likes of the National Catholic Reporter.

Diogenes at Catholic World News' Off the Record blog doesn't have much patience for this sort of thing either.

Joe Feuerherd gets himself into hot water

Two quick updates:

• Catholic News Agency presents again the argument published at the In the Light of the Law blog, and then takes a second opinion by J. D. Flynn, a canon lawyer for the Archdiocese of Denver.
• More importantly, Sister Mary Ann Walsh of the USCCB has replied in the WaPo.

This story was first mentioned indirectly here and then at more length and directly here.

It will be interesting to see if Feuerherd tries to mount a response to the wave of criticism he's received.

Time Magazine Rethinks Scripture on Divorce, Separation and Remarriage

The fact-pattern:

Christianity Today publishes an article entitled "When to Separate What God has Joined: A Closer Reading on the Bible on Divorce" which attempted to revise the biblical teaching on these questions so that it could be reconciled to the modern prevalence of divorce in secular societies well as Evangelical circles. David Van Biema covers the story for Time magazine, and it has become one of the most popular articles being read on the Internet.

My take:

A false assumption plagues this piece from the outset (all underlining mine):

Last month, the cover story of the monthly Christianity Today was titled "When to Separate What God has Joined: A Closer Reading on the Bible on Divorce." The heated controversy provoked by the story showed how Biblically flexible some Evangelicals can be — especially when God's word seems at odds not just with modern American behavior, but also with simple human kindness.

Catch that? Jesus' teaching on marriage doesn't seem to square even with "simple human kindness." Jesus' historical teaching that husbands cannot put away their wives and thereby marginalize their subsistence was actually contrary not only to "modern American behavior" (the new normative guide to morality?), but also to "simple human kindness." You know, the stuff that's just darn evident to everyone. Cruel Jesus, making husbands keep their wives.

From the beginning the author operated upon the false premise that Jesus' teaching on marriage required all spouses to remain with their husbands no matter what.

This false premise appears again in the second paragraph:

Finally, Instone-Brewer tallies four grounds for divorce he finds affirmed in both Old and New Testaments: adultery, emotional and sexual neglect, abandonment (by anyone) and abuse.

What is in fact allowed in these cases is separation (which no one would argue, if the grounds for separation are legitimate). Remarriage is an entirely different question, but don't expect Van Biema to present that consideration.

Errors quickly compound as Van Biema's inability to distinguish separation from "divorce" play-out:

... the Instone-Brewer essay appeared to be its editors' attempt to offer Evangelicals an escape from a classic dilemma. The "plain sense" of Jesus's words without quotes seems clear enough, but also inhumane: how could a loving God forbid divorce, even by omission, in cases of wife-beating, or of abandonment by a Christian spouse?

See above. Jesus isn't teaching that women should stay in an abusive marriage. Perhaps the "plain sense" of scripture mentioned here isn't enough. That's no surprise. But it's wrong to conclude that a holistic reading of the biblical accounts contradicts the "plain sense" teaching of Jesus against divorce, when accurately understood.

Next it really gets good (by which I mean, of course, bad):

Each branch of Christianity deals with divorce in its own way: Catholicism bans it entirely, but many divorced and remarried couples nonetheless find that their conscience permits them to take Communion.

Error count rising. "Catholicism bans [divorce] entirely." False. Legal divorce which results in the de facto separation of spouses is allowed, and even suggested to spouses in an abusive relationship. Van Biema happily constructs a straw-man of the Church's teaching. And it's easy to destroy a straw-man. And it's rare to find anything but straw-men in this treatment.

Second error: "Many divorced and remarried couples nonetheless find that their conscience permits them to take Communion." Well, receiving Communion isn't only a matter of "finding oneself permitted." If one has remarried after a divorce, and has not received an annulment from their marriage, the Church presumes that they are committing fornication, which as a mortal sin, bars the communicant from receiving until they have confessed.

Amazingly, the article even quotes someone who brings up the significance of remarriage:

If a split itself is inescapable, notes Christianity Today editor Andy Crouch, "remarriage is where the rubber meets the road," and many remarried couples find themselves denied church membership.

It remains inextricable to me why Van Biema didn't claim something along the lines of "nonetheless, many Evangelicals find that their conscience permits them to remain part of their church." Such flawed ecclesiology evidently applies to Catholics - why don't Evangelicals get the same (false) primacy of conscience option?

Van Biema seems to have encountered at least one person who realized that he wasn't going to understand the problem, but incredibly, Van Biema takes this reticence to discuss the issue as some sort of "gotcha!":

Asked if he does [believe that an abused woman should leave the marriage], Moore demurred: "Let me think about that for a little bit. I could answer in a way that would be very easily misunderstood."

I don't think the interviewee was demurring because he thought his answer was incorrect, I think it is more likely the case that he didn't want his words twisted. Well, they were anyway.

Van Biema wraps it all up for us:

Still, the controversy suggests that even the country's most rule-bound Christians will search for a fresh understanding of scripture when it seems unjust to them. The implications? Flexibility on divorce may mean that evangelicals could also rethink their position on such things as gay marriage, as a generation of Christians far more accepting of homosexuality begins to move into power....It could also give heart to a certain twice-divorced former New York mayor who is running for President and seeking the conservative vote. But that may be pushing things a bit.

The message: when scripture doesn't square with a) your pre-conceived categories of justice, or b) the practice of individuals or c) could get in the way of your presidential-hopefuls candidacy then...

Rethink scripture.

Oh! And hey, while we're at it, we can revise what the scriptures teach about homosexuality and "gay marriage". Isn't it amazing what new vistas of human self-fulfillment are available to those who ...

Revise scripture.

(A note to Christianity Today: when Time Magazine starts agreeing with you, that's a warning sign.)

Update: And of course, if we want to be cynical about it (not saying we don't), this article is handily presented by Time just as Rudy Giuliani begins to take increasing flack for his multiple remarriages (this claim is supported by the fact that the Christianity Today article is evidently over a month old already) . And who, you might ask, is dishing out the Giuliani criticism? *drum roll* ... that's right: evangelicals and social conservatives! So what better time than the present to paint them as hypocrites? And hey, if we can call into doubt the teaching of Scripture on homosexuality, then all the better. Forget rethinking or revising, let's just forget it.

O'Reilly on the Niederauer scandal

Update: Here's the link to watch the segment.

A few observations:

• He claims that the Catholic Church is doing an internal investigation of the incident and "doesn't want the police involved" at this point. I haven't heard about that elsewhere.
• O'Reilly mentions the apology, and actually blames the mayor of SF, Gavin Newsom, for the incident because, O'Reilly claims, he refuses to take actions against homosexual lobby groups. This accusation seems to be part of a general O'Reilly (FOX?) invective against the "power structure" of SF.
• O'Reilly mentions that there has been a virtual media black-out on the story, while claiming that if such an incident had occurred in a synagogue or mosque it would be all over the place. I have to say, I've been waiting to hear some reports, but haven't heard a peep. Anti-Catholicism: the last acceptable prejudice.

Update 2: Roman Catholic Blog has some valid criticisms of the segment here.

Newsweek's take on the Limbo Story

I'll just give you the bookends. The article by Matthew Philips begins:

In the world of Vatican reversals, it’s a big one. According to a 41-page report released last week by the Roman Catholic Church’s International Theological Commission, limbo—a celestial middle ground between Heaven and Hell—is no longer necessary. That means that babies who die unbaptized are now free to go to heaven rather than being consigned to limbo, where for the last 800 years they’ve been forced to await the End of Days, unable to share in the beatific vision of God and Jesus Christ with their Roman Catholic brethren.

And here is how it ends:

"With the Vatican report, all those anxieties about babies that have been part of growing up Catholic can finally be put to rest."

Okay, so, this is pretty bad. Now, the mid-section really isn't so bad. But apparently you have to stick the most offensive jabs in the first paragraph (because many people read no farther), and for those who do stick around and read the entirety of the article, you have to end with a snappy dig about "all those anxieties" that are just, golly-gee, "part of growing up Catholic."

Oh, and who is Saint Augustine? "The fifth-century theologian who believed that the souls of the unbaptized went to hell". Why you might ask did St. Augustine believe that? "Since original sin was seen as being indelibly tied to the act of sex, and since babies were the natural result of that act, Augustine reasoned that they must carry sin. Ergo, those who die without having that sin removed must necessarily go to hell."

Goodness! With summaries of Church tradition like that, it's no wonder that we have to fight anti-Catholic prejudice on a daily basis. I wouldn't have much patience for the Church if that's all she really was.

Prepare for Limbo fallout

Amy notes that the International Theological Commission's report on Limbo has been released.

CNS has very good coverage:

After several years of study, the Vatican's International Theological Commission said there are good reasons to hope that babies who die without being baptized go to heaven.

In a document published April 20, the commission said the traditional concept of limbo -- as a place where unbaptized infants spend eternity but without communion with God -- seemed to reflect an "unduly restrictive view of salvation."

The church continues to teach that, because of original sin, baptism is the ordinary way of salvation for all people and urges parents to baptize infants, the document said.

But there is greater theological awareness today that God is merciful and "wants all human beings to be saved," it said. Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ's special love for "the little ones," it said.

"Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered ... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision," the document said."We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge," it added. [More...]

The entire article is well worth the read for those who are interested.

Zadok (who I can't believe fell off my blogroll for awhile - he's back now) has this to say:

"We cannot expect intelligent reporting of this in the secular press. Expect headlines to speak of the 'Pope' or 'the Vatican' 'abolishing Limbo'.What we actually seem to have is a rather measured document which does not declare the automatic salvation of the unbaptized and does not totally dismiss limbo as being an unsupportable theological position. The report suggests that it does not obscure the genuine difficulty of the question and insists on the necessity and obligation of baptism."

To be fair, the Reuters treatment isn't so bad at all. In fact, the article quotes CNS's coverage twice. It seems that Philip Pullella, the author of the Reuters coverage, stuck very close to what CNS said on the topic. What somewhat puzzles me is why Pullella decided to throw in a reference to Dante at the end of his piece. Now, don't get me wrong, I dearly love Dante and his Divine Comedy, but Dante wasn't a priest, and the Divine Comedy has practically nothing to do with this new ITC document. Maybe Pullella thought the article needed some spice?

The Associated Press coverage is a bit closer to what Zadok predicted, but still very decent. Again, I think this is so because it references the CNS coverage and clearly stays close to what it says. The only line that irks me in the AP coverage is this one, the opening line: "Pope Benedict XVI has revised traditional Roman Catholic teaching on so-called "limbo," approving a church report released Friday that said there was reason to hope that babies who die without baptism can go to heaven." (underlining added.) I guess if you have a little dig to make, it *has* to go in the first line, because that's the one that most people will read.

Well, I have yet to see what the New York Times and the UK tabloids do to this news. Nonetheless, I can't really fault the AP or Reuters on their take. If I have anything to tell the MSM writers, it's this: keep reading CNS! Your coverage will benefit and your reputation among knowledgeable Catholic readers might improve.

The New Yorker's hilariously bad article on B16

Carl Olson takes one for the team and reads through (with commentary) a hilariously bad article on Pope Benedict that recently appeared in The New Yorker.

Really, you just have to laugh at these people. Hopefully they'll eventually get embarassed enough to do a little research before they start rehashing the same old and tired prejudices.