Has your diocesan paper endorsed McCain?
Diocesan newspapers are fond of accusing the mainstream news media of bias, and at times they are right. But what about the diocesan papers?
I’d like to ask if your diocesan newspaper is reporting fairly on the presidential campaign. Or has it strongly suggested through its choice of stories, headlines, photos, story placement, editorials and columns that one candidate is preferred?
The question is prompted by a Sept. 29 Catholic News Service story that leads my local Catholic paper, Brooklyn’s Tablet, this weekend under the headline Dems May Be `Party of Death.’ The story quotes Raymond L. Burke, former archbishop of St. Louis and now prefect of the Vatican court, as saying that “At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a `party of death’ because of its choices on bioethical questions as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book, `The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life.’”
It’s a valid news story, for sure, but it violates the most basic rule for fairness in journalism: Get the other side of the story. The CNS story has no comment whatsoever from the Democratic Party (or, in standard journalistic procedure, a sentence saying that it declined comment) or anyone else who might disagree with the archbishop. Nor did The Tablet insert such a comment in its lead story.
Did your diocesan paper play this story this weekend? And how is your paper handling the campaign in general this year? It won’t make an endorsement in the campaign, of course, since this would risk loss of non-profit status. But has it in effect endorsed a candidate?
Last week our diocesan paper pointed out, in the pastor’s letter, that Jesus was a conservative. He didn’t mention whether he thought McCain was a conservative or not, however.
I can’t post a comment on Cathleen Kaveny’s Mary Ann Glendon’s passages. They are very helpful. Thanks, Cathleen, for posting them.
Here in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, ther eis a rule against prtisanship at even the parish level.
I”m sure though (see the times article on Scranton, Fidelis, etc.) that many right wing Catholics will push the one issue button as hard as possible.
Yestyerday, we had a beautiful sermon by a deacon reflecting on his life, ours and spirituality through the prism of the three readings and incorporating BXVI’s encyclical on hope and also the exmple of St. Francis.
Coming out of Mass, each car had a McCain, Palin, Pearce card stuck under the wiper; I was glad it was raining, so when I threw it on the ground, it would be wet and muddy for the miscreant who put it there to pick up.
Just as I am concinced that one issue Cathoicism which splintered off abortion as the “priority” actually weakened the issue by its fragmenting the total “seamless garment” message, so too the politiciztion thereof weakens the message by more fragmentation and division.
Despite that, I expect there’ll bve a number of “little Burkes” only too happy to fall in line.
In Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, Houston – they have a tendency to repeat key quotes or opinions by bishops such as Chaput, Egan, etc.
Texas is heavily Republican already although local elections reflect a more democratic vote as do Hispanics.
The papers do not do a good job of focusing on Faithful Citizenship. Even more, individual pastors are allowed to print and say anything in their parish bulletins – I have seen quotes dating back to 1998 from some insignificant announcement of JPII; quotes from different encyclicals taken out of context; some have clearly stated that abortion is the only issue; some have reprinted the voting guide from 2004 that came from a right wing neo-Catholic group (Burke, et al.).
Unfortunately, in Dallas, with a few rare exceptions most ordained priests barely have a masters in divinity with little to no theological training that goes beyond that. They tend to reflect their own pieties and hang ups.
Yikes. Meant to say parish paper not diocesan paper.
“The CNS story has no comment whatsoever from the Democratic Party”.
Is there a single reliable Democratic Party spokesperson? Surely a Catholic diocesan paper is expected to report a statement by a Catholic authority. [I think I've used a "bad word"].
Apart this point, the archbishop said that the party is becoming the party of death. To analyze that would take a lot of work. Let the party do its own work. Lord knows, they’ve got enough money and enough apologists.
There has been much comment that the abortion issue has led to a “one issue” stance. Now the pro-life people believe that the killing of fetuses is murder, and an ongoing murder. Much like, say, the Shoah. So strange a person as Peter Singer said that if he believed that abortion is murder, he would be leading the charge against abortuaries.
It is not even a one time happening, like the Massacre of the Innocents.
I have heard that the Pro-life people do not care to support unwed mothers, to offer care for their children, and the like; that the Church does not assume responsibility for the poor. That I can say, simply, is a lie. I wish people would give up repeating it. I have before offered a rudimentary list of the many organizations that offer such support. Many are listed in each of the parish and diocesan papers.
One does not mind arguing doctrine and dogma and principles. But there is no serious arguing about facts.
Gabriel said: “I have heard that the Pro-life people do not care to support unwed mothers, to offer care for their children, and the like; that the Church does not assume responsibility for the poor. That I can say, simply, is a lie.”
No, Gabriel, no one is saying that. They are saying that the Church does in fact assume responsibility for the poor. It is the Party that claims to be “pro-life” that doesn’t. So far, the Catholic Church has not become a wing of it, try as the Party might to make it so.
The increasing affluence of Catholics has resulted in many or most Catholics becoming Republican mostly due to feelings of class rather than philosophy or ethics. The formerly persecuted Catholics (Irish and Italians need not apply) have now made and prefer exclusion to justice. Now that they have made it they hold on to the status quo. The French Revolution and the American Civil Rights Movement, had not support by the hierarchy or the conservatives in the Catholic Church. The French Revolution was panned just as the Civil Rights movement was condemned. Only exceptional Catholics like Ted Hesburgh made a difference.
This is the same with abortion as a clarion call. It is an issue on the cheap and is being ridden until it is discredited. Like the anti-civil rights position and the support for slavery.
I don’t think that there is any question that the hierarchy has openly supported W. Bush the last two time. John Paul II shamefully received W even afte the invasion of Iraq.
We have to confront this neglect of the basic gospel by many Catholics.
http://www.cny.org/archive/ld/ld10092508.htm
I too was greatly disturbed by the Brooklyn TABLET’s frontpage headline. A few weeks a go on page 3 the paper ran on top of a story about the GOP a headline to the effect that the GOP platform reflects Catholic values (I don’t remember the exact words.) I was horrified. I think the TABLET needs to be taken to task for this, and Paul Moses, I think you are the man for this. (I really liked your piece in COMMONWEAL on the African bishop with brooklyn connections.) With your creditentials, I think the editor would have to respond.
I forget the word “convention” after the words “a story about the”
About 2 or 3 months ago, the diocese of which I fall under began to “enlighten” the faithful to a George Weigel piece in each publication of its bi-weekly newspaper. To make matters worse, the Publisher has placed Weigel’s commentary under the section dubbed “The Catholic Difference.” For the past month or each publication has featured Weigel’s “Campaign 2008” series. It is incredible. Weigel posses a series of questions 1) for both McCain and Obama; 2) just for Obama; 3) just for McCain – on campaign issues that he picks and chooses. Needless to say, the subjects and the way the questions are posed by Weigel does little to help form a “conscience for faithful citizenship” – in my opinion. I’m not so much bothered that Weigel has been allowed into the diocesan publication (though I am sure he/Ethics and Public Policy Center is being compensated and that sort of does get under my skin – not sure if I will be throwing any money in the collection for this publication any more), but that there seems to be no room in the publication for other view points that aren’t aligned to Weigel’s (I have even asked in an editorial (and so have others) – but yet to see anything yet). In my opinion, the sign of a VERY insecure Publisher.
Our diocesan paper has yet to do such a thing and I am doubtful that it will.
This past week the diocese sponsored two Faithful Citizenship forums and I attended one. It was really well done and the foundational focus was on the respect of all life, beginning at conception. There were appropriate points made about the abortion situation and we were also given many other things to consider such as poverty, health care, education, housing, war and the death penalty.
New to my diocese, I will say that it is the most balanced that I have ever lived in and our lives are greatly enriched by a good bishop, strong teaching and many opportunities to deepen our faith.
The ultimate reality – which our bishop clearly stated the other night – is that no one party or candidate fits the entire Catholic requirements. We must learn, pray and move forward with our informed consciences to choose candidates who do the most good and the least harm.
That is never a single issue choice as even that single issue demands much thought, reflection and action from all.
We have all seen the bias of many hierarchs in pitching the Repub/McCain anti abortion stance. Do they not ‘look at the record?; As a ‘seamless garment’ person I looked at McCain’s self admitted womanizing while married in the 70s and know for certain, it’s that kind of behavior that brings on abortions. Not words to pander votes but real abortions.
Today I picked up our diocesan paper in my parish here in Montreal. Since Canada is also headed into an election (albeit a less entertaining one than our neighbours’), there was a lead article on the statement from the Canadian bishops with guidelines for Catholic citizens to consider when they exercise their civic duty.
First of all, they decry complacency and apathy and urge the faithful to be informed and active in the political process, not only in voting but also in engaging their political representatives on pressing social issues. The bishops expressed “a deep gratitude owed to all who are running for or serving in political office.” In Canada, that is quite counter-cultural.
They highlight first of all “respect for the life and dignity of the human person.”
“One of the greatest responsibilities of a Catholic is to love life, respect it and protect it.” They list the following life issues –
protection for the human embryo and fetus;
defending the most vulnerable and poorest;
supporting people with disabilities, the elderly and ill;
respecting the life and dignity of those who are dying;
protecting people from exploitation in the use of biomedical technologies;
promoting peace and ending violence;
encouraging policies that help people balance family life and work.
The bishops do not threaten to cut Catholic politicians off at the Communion rail for failing to pass laws that limit abortion.
They devote three paragraphs to the environment, calling it “a fundamental debate that Canadian society can no longer ignore.”
The article goes on to say that a Catholic cannot vote for laws or policies, which directly contradict “the fundamental contents of faith and morals.” But making political choices may well involve “choosing the lesser evil,” they say.
I quoted liberally from the article by Michael Swan of the Catholic Register who, in turn, quoted from the bishops’ document. The full text of the bishop’s statement is available at http://www.cccb.ca
The Archdiocese in which I attend church is too busy going apoplectic in its archdiocesan rag over same-sex marriage and missing no chance (including the latest editorial) to screech “Vote Yes on Prop 8″ which, of course, is attempting to change the state constitution’s definition of marriage. My home diocesan paper pretty much parrots the same messages.
Comment by an American posted on an Australian discussion forum:
” I just heard a reading of my bishop’s letter at mass on abortion as being the main and for all practical purposes the only election issue. If the US bishops want to be suckers again, they can do it without me again. The electorate in this country wants abortion. That will not change until there is a change of general attitudes. I’ll be satisfied if I can elect someone who won’t abort the whole country. ”
I hope that most US citizens want to leave an opening for “responsible choice” in this matter, not enforcing a blanket anti- or pro- abortion dichotomy. That possibility in turn demands proper and “decent” social support for parents who find themselves in extremely difficult circumstances eg a parent of a Downs syndrome baby who needs full-time care, ideally by a parent.
I continue to be amazed.
One of our political campaigns advocates an intrinsic moral evil, a bishop says so, and dotCommonweal’s concern is whether diocesan newspapers were balanced in covering it?
“Fiddling while Rome burns” comes to mind.
Sister Mary Wood,
Your comments can be read in 2 ways. The first I take to be a legitimate Catholic question: How can we provide for parents in difficult situations?
The second strikes me as a confused issue of conscience: How can I be part of the outlawing of abortion if I know some parental situations are difficult?
One of our political campaigns advocates an intrinsic moral evil, a bishop says so, and dotCommonweal’s concern is whether diocesan newspapers were balanced in covering it?
John McG,
John McCain advocates embryonic stem-cell research, which is an intrinsic evil. There is a thoughtful post over on Vox Nova arguing that Catholics may not vote for either Obama or McCain, since both advocate intrinsic evils. The argument is that if abortion is a “nonnegotiable issue,” and embryonic stem-cell research is as well, voting for McCain is no more acceptable than voting for Obama, even if you believe that McCain is the lesser of two evils. One a few of the comments agree, but the argument on both sides is on a very high level.
Thanks to Barbara DeLorenzi for posting the link to the Canadian bishops’ statement on voting and other political activity by Catholics. It’s an uncommonly good statement,one that exhibits thought that is clearheaded, powerful and carefully nuanced.
In other words, it has little, if anything, in common with the kinds of remarks we’ve been subjected to by prelates like Cardinal Egan, Archbishops Chaput and Burke, and Bishops Morlino and Martino of Scranton.
No one, but no one should say or even suggest here or in any other context that no American Catholic voter can in good conscience support either Obama or Biden, or for that matter, McCain or Palin.
If someone wants to say something apout this election and abortion, intellectual honesty demands that he or she read this Canadian document and take it into consideration.
No one, but no one should say or even suggest here or in any other context that no American Catholic voter can in good conscience support either Obama or Biden, or for that matter, McCain or Palin.
My brief description of the post by Policraticus on Vox Nova doesn’t do justice to the care with which he presented his view. Here’s a bit of what he said, with a link to the entire post:
http://vox-nova.com/2008/10/04/catholic-questions-heading-into-right-to-life-sunday/
I would have to say that, at least as I read them, most of the statements from American bishops, including official statements from USCCB, tilt so heavily against Obama and for McCain, that they almost amount to endorsements, albeit the kind that don’t risk tax-exempt status. The American bishops, and conservative Catholics in general, have bought into the Republican approach to abortion: Elect a Republican president in the hope that he will appoint judges who will overturn Roe v Wade, and then have 50 battles trying to eliminate abortion state by state. This aspect of dealing with abortion is not mentioned (here is my favorite quote again):
It seems to me this aspect of Catholic teaching, which I would consider to have equal or greater weight than the aspect of a legal ban, is suppressed because it doesn’t fit with the conservative, pro-life, largely Republican agenda. And that doesn’t do justice to the authentic and consistent pro-life teachings of the Church.
It seems to me that it is also rarely mentioned that Catholic Church in the United States could save approximately 350,000 innocent lives a year by convincing Catholic women not to have abortions. As is well known, Catholic women have abortions at a slightly higher rate than average. Of course, we are coming up on an election, and most of the statements coming out recently have been pretty much explicitly about what public policy should be and how Catholics should vote. That does not mean, however, that no mention need be made about the personal responsibility and obligations of each Catholic to follow Church teachings in his or her own life. When it comes to procuring abortions in the United States, Catholics are not following the teachings of their Church, and at the same time the Church is telling them how to vote, it ought to acknowledge this fact and tell Catholics how to behave.
I am not charging the Catholic bishops with hypocrisy for trying to an abortion ban on the whole country what they can’t even convince their own members not to have abortions. But I do think those in authority in the Catholic Church have to look inward and ask why Catholic women have abortion out of proportion to their numbers in the population, and ask themselves why they have failed to convince their own members. Perhaps if they figured out how to convince Catholics, they would be in a better position to convince everyone.
This is a political issue pure and simple. Republicans want to talk about it constantly while Democrats are not concerned. Those appointees on the Supreme Court will not bring it to a vote because their party does not want RVW overturned. It just helps get Republicans elected and people distracted by the opulence and injustices of the bishops.
First off, I am a pro-life Democrat and wish abortion did not exist. However, that doesn’t mean I don’t wrestle with the idea that I sometimes vote for a candidate who supports Roe v. Wade. I am excited about the growing number of Pro-Life Democrats and if I truly believed in a Republican candidate, I would certainly vote for them as I have in the past.
I believe that most Republicans are disingenuous and do not truly want to overturn Roe v. Wade. Even if it is overturned, abortion will not end, it will simply go to the states. Then what, will the debate be over? Ironically, many of the Republicans who support overturning Roe v. Wade are now arguing that it is a “states rights” issue. Since when are “states rights” the preferred moral stance on government?
I believe that many Catholic Republicans are Republican and happen to be Catholic and on the preferred end of the abortion debate. If the parties suddenly switched their platform on abortion, it would be interesting to see how many would change their party. A good example are the many pro-choice Catholic Republicans – why do they get a free pass? Is it because they believe in “states rights”? Is small government more “moral” than big government?
It’s frustrating.
I’d also like to thank Barbara DeLorenzi for pointing out the Canadian bishops’ statement. Thanks also to fellow Brooklynite Anthony Andreassi.
On the question of endorsements: here’s one, from the current New Yorker, that’s worth a look:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/13/081013taco_talk_editors?printable=true
On the question of abortion and voting, this article (“A Catholic Votes for John Kerry”), by Fordham sociologist James Kelly is also worth reading:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3769
I agree with Anthony Andreassi and Paul Moses that the Brooklyn Tablet is overstepping its bounds regarding the endorsement of a political party. The current headline is “The Democratic Party is the Party of Death”; then the Bishop’s column says he cannot say who he will endorse because that is a violation of the separation of church and state, but it is clear that there is a choice between life and death.
It is very upsetting to see this development. The life issue encompasses all life, and treating all life with dignity and respect. Abortion is an evil but as another more learned person than myself has said, this country has tried overturning Roe v Wade for 25 years and one has to ask how many lives have been saved? Maybe a new approach is needed – one that focuses on people and relationships instead of legal language.
I’m afraid I have very low expectations of “journalistic standards” when it comes to diocesan papers. They’re not really interested in journalism — at least not in my experience, though I’m sure there are exceptions. They’re propaganda instruments, designed to repeat what Church leaders and their spokespeople do and say, not evaluate its content, wisdom, etc. That’s not a negative function per se — I learn things from a diocesan paper I’d never encounter elsewhere. At their best they serve a valuable function in keeping people informed about what’s happening outside their parish. But I don’t expect them to operate the way independent media outlets do. Even the National Catholic Reporter has difficulty covering so-called dissent fairly, or placing the statements of the hierarchy in a larger context — local papers can hardly do better, especially when they are published out of the chancery and their advertisers are all church-based.
…And how is your paper handling the campaign in general this year? It won’t make an endorsement in the campaign, of course, since this would risk loss of non-profit status. But has it in effect endorsed a candidate?
On the September 12, The Anchor, the weekly newspaper of the Diocese of Fall River (Massachusetts), published a full page ad for Brad O’Leary’s The Audacity of Deceit prompting my letter to Bishop George W. Coleman with a copy to the Executive Editor of the paper, Father Roger Landry:
I am outraged at that you published a partisan advertisement in the September 12 edition of The Anchor. Your disingenuous disclaimer placed beneath the ad hardly covers your complicity in this deliberate distortion. Even if, as I suspect, Fr. Landry decided to accept this ad on his own without consulting you, your complicity here derives from your having tolerated his several past ad hominem attacks where he has distorted facts for rhetorical effect. Having looked the other way more than once, you have encouraged him in this practice.
Anchor policy concerning political advertisements according to a recent directory of Catholic newspapers was to not publish political advertising. My phone calls to The Pilot (Boston) and The Free Press (Worcester) revealed that they do not accept such advertising. Curiously, neither paper had been approached to place the ad in question. Why was the Anchor alone approached? Hmmm….
A casuist might categorize this as simply a book advertisement and might thereby ignore the blatant partisan content of the ad and its linked website. Such a person might also ignore author Brad O’Leary’s well publicized career as a Republican Party operative and fundraiser whose reputation suggests an ends-justify-the-means approach in political campaigns. Such a person would also have to ignore that O’Leary’s book is a public relations stunt using a vanity press to bypass the rigorous vetting process of any respected publishing house in order to achieve his political objective: smear the candidate he opposes just before the election. By looking away now and in the past, you are complicit in his smear.
My outrage is prompted not so much by the gutter tactics so common in political campaigns—although I am embarrassed that my bishop has lent his office to blatantly partisan operatives using such tactics. Rather, my anger arises from your clumsy intrusion into the deliberative processes of the faithful as we strive to be faithful citizens. You have abused your teaching office and insulted the dignity and intelligence of every person in the diocese. Know that I hold abortion and the destruction of embryonic stem cells as intrinsically evil. Positions taken on these issues alone by both candidates should deeply trouble all Catholics as they discern for whom, if anyone, to vote. As teacher, your role is to reinforce or clarify Church teaching for the faithful, not to endorse candidates. Our role is to form our own consciences in light of this teaching and then to exercise our prudential judgments with our votes. Ours is not to be your lemmings. Is this not the thrust of Faithful Citizenship? Some, who would attach your “imprimatur” to the O’Leary ad, may well cut short their discernment process following what they perceive to be your direction. Others will have more work to do to evaluate this material. By publishing this mischievous ad, you have thrown them a red herring making it more difficult for them to contend with their citizenship responsibilities. In stark contrast, Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Lori were deft in exercising their teaching office as they corrected the confused statements made in televised interviews by Speaker Pelosi and Senator Biden. These bishops have effectively exercised their teaching office and have served their flocks well…
As yet, I have received no direct response from bishop or editor, save for an oblique reference to my letter (my interpretation) in a Landry editorial lumping my outrage at an apparent violation of advertising policy in with editorial criticism by those who refuse to accept the Church’s teaching on abortion.
Today’s NCR on line carries a piece about how the laity are moving the conversation away from “one issue” politics.
Our own Peter Steinfels is quoted as saying that several Bishops have told him they disagree with the bishop of Scranton’s approach bu tare afraid to speak up.
Shades of Fr. Hesburgh on Church leadership?????
Mr. Nunz – don’t forget the common saying: “When a priest is consecrated a bishop, they remove his backbone!”
Bill, we have another expresion here in the southwest for what’s lacking…
Meanwhile, NCR later today published survey results showinmg most Catholics favoring Obama, but beyond that, most younger Catholics (19-34) moving further away from the one issue approach.Clealrly, leadership of the American hierarchy continues to fail in not loudly proclaiming the whole gospel instead of “prioritizing.”
One needs to wonder if we continue to get (the few) jPII clergy but many younger Catholics are moving away from their approach, what does the drift of the future hold???????
The are “afraid to speak up !!!!!” Afraid of what? Whom? Don’t they usually trumpet that they are direct reports to the Big Bishop Himself and none other? Will B16 send down a bolt of lightening and smite them back to front? Let’s face it, folks: men of vision, character and fortitude rarely have made it into the watered silk and french cuff set in the past 30 years or so. They go along to get along and maybe even get fired up to Rome. If I were an honorable priest and was tapped for the Really Big Time, I’d turn it down post haste for fear of losing the respect of those around me. Cowards, cowards.
Good and reassuring news from NCR, indeed!
Paul Moses has probably seen the October 11, 2008, of the Brooklyn Tablet. In the letters’ section, there is an Editor’s Note, which I quote completely: “Let’s be precise and accurate. The Tablet does not endorse candidates. The Page 3 article to which you refer is a news story, not an endorsement. It is an account of a group of Catholic Republicans who are urging their fellow Catholics to vote for McCain/Palin. The Tablet printed it as a statement of fact. Again, we do not endorse specific candidates.” The editor is Ed Wilkinson.
——
Headline writers sometimes misrepresent the thrust of the story. If I may point to the October 11 issue again, Page 3 carries a headline, “New Parish Comes to Light in Eastern Queens.” Great news, I thought, as I sat on a bus in Red Hook. However, the article went on to announce that two parishes, St. Pascal Baylon and St. Catherine of Sienna, were being merged into a single parish under a new name, Our Lady of Light. The loss is headlined as a gain. If an editor repeatedly uses doublespeak in headlines, the newspaper loses credibility.
Joe McMahon