Weasel Journalism
John Allen has a piece in the NCR on line that display the worst of his “just the news,” but let-me-start-some-trouble approach to reporting the “news.” It begins: “Back in 1993, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger gave an address in Hong Kong to the presidents of Asian bishops’ conferences on Christology, meaning the church’s teaching about Christ. Ratzinger criticized trends in contemporary theology that he believed gave too much away for the sake of accommodating religious diversity, and a footnote cited the work of Belgian Jesuit theologian Jacques Dupuis.”
Eight years later, Dupuis had a “notification” from Ratzinger’s Vatican and lived under a cloud. Those appear to be facts. Allen goes on to draw a contemporary comparison: “In the most recent issue of the Quarterly of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, Capuchin Fr. Thomas Weinandy, executive director of the U.S. Bishops’ Secretariat of Doctrine, subjects Tilley’s presidential address to the CTSA last June to a withering critique – in effect, suggesting that it offered clever rhetoric masking ‘doctrinal ambiguity and error.’”
Allen ingenuously suggests that we have an analogous situtation here, while nonetheless observing that Weinandy is not Ratzinger and that Weinandy has the usual disclaimer: these are his personal views and not those of the U.S. Bishops Conference for whom he works. And yet he repeats Weinandy’s attack, and implies what????
So what’s Allen up to? http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/doctrine-chief-us-bishops-takes-leading-theologian (better link I hope).
Here is Terrance Tilley’s address to the CTSA: http://www.ctsa-online.org/presidential_addresss_2009.pdf
Here is Thomas Weinandy: http://www.catholicscholars.org/publications/quarterly/v32n3fal2009.pdf (It begins on page 4.)
on December 4th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
“So what’s Allen up to?”
I don’t know.
But when Weinandy asserts that the Vatican always treats theologians “in a scholarly, respectful and professional manner,” I burp.
(But maybe he’s buckin’ for a red hat? Oops, I’ve digressed.)
on December 4th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
I tried briefly and unsuccessfully to find the 1993 Ratzinger text for comparison, so this is a bit blind.
Even though Weinandy has the caveat at the end about not speaking for the USCCB, I do think that his position with the USCCB and his article’s generally supportive stance regarding situations where the CDF acted against dissenting theologians, combined with the charged language (he says of Tilley’s speech that “Much of its theological argumentation was superficial and fallacious.” and compares Tilley with the heretic Arius), makes Allen’s suspicion somewhat fair.
That said, Allen does not disclose a source indicating that Weinandy’s statement reflects an interest within the USCCB to act against Tilley, so Allen probably went too far in his piece as well.
on December 4th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
One cannot fairly judge modern Christologies by automatically applying the categories of the fourth century.
on December 4th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Allen is out of his depth, but so is Weinandy — he heard only “stump rhetoric and pulpit rousing” in Tilley’s nuanced speech. Weinandy seems to find no hermeneutical problems at all in hailing Chalcedon as a conclusively satisfactory statement of Christology not only for then (though it left the Church divided) but for now. When he scolds Tilley for lacking “table manners” in his criticisms of the CDF his criticism could rebound on himself. Tilley, if anything, is excessively mild in his comments on the CDF. He does not use such words as “skullduggery” for example.
on December 4th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Seems to me that Allen is just doing that ole religious journalism he does for a living. He is a journalist covering news relevant to American Catholics. And Capuchin Fr. Thomas Weinandy is the executive director of the U.S. Bishops’ Secretariat of Doctrine.
Well, Weinandy is the head of the Secretariat of Doctrine, right? I took this off the USCCB website for the Secretariat of Doctrine: “the Committee on Doctrine has the following objective: to support and promote the Pope’s universal teaching authority and leadership”
Could this become the first salvo of an attack/investigation?
on December 4th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
This is a fantastic speech by Tilley. Shows some greatness coming out of Fordham. http://www.fordham.edu/academics/programs_at_fordham_/theology/faculty/terrence_w_tilley_26159.asp
Wonder what Dulles would have thought about this talk. Benedict XVI, along with John Allen, might place the following from Tilley on his wall.
“The very sharing of prayer and table fellowship in spite of theological impasse
is a reconciling practice. Reconciling practices are the hallmark of the Jesusmovement,
past and present. Demanding theological conformity in a time of
impasse is a divisive practice.”
on December 4th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
“Allen ingenuously suggests that we have an analogous situtation here, while nonetheless observing that Weinandy is not Ratzinger and that Weinandy has the usual disclaimer.”
I am not a theologian but I am interested in rhetoric. You say “ingenuously suggests” where the reader might have expected from the the general tone “disingenuously suggests”. Were you being disingenuous? Either way I think I share your opinion of Mr. Allen.
on December 5th, 2009 at 8:04 am
“Weasel Journalism” seems to me an especially tasteless label, but perhaps I’m missing some subtlety here.
on December 5th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Tilley is doing a great job at Fordham, as far as I can see. Young, energetic, interesting hires in lots of subfields.
on December 5th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Mr. Molloy: Perhaps unfair to the genus Mustela. Let’s go to the dictionary: “2. a person regarded as sneaky or treacherous;…To be evasive; equivocate…[from the weasel's habit of sucking the contents out of an eggwithout breaking the shell.]. American Heritage Dictionary
Joseph Gannon: Now that I have the dictionary open I have looked up ingenuous/disingenuous: ingenuous, “2. Having or arising from an inventive or cunning mind”; disingenuous, “1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating.”
Possibly this story is both ingenuous (cunning) and disingenuous (not straightforward; calculating).
In any case, I’ll stand by weasel journalism–which is neither ingenuous or disingenuous–pretty straightforward.
on December 5th, 2009 at 10:00 am
I quite agree that “weasel” is exactly right.
on December 5th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Someone put this direct question in an off-blog e-mail: “Who is Allen carrying water for?”
on December 5th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I’ve found the vast majority of Allen’s reporting to be pretty even-handed and insightful. Some here clearly do not share that opinion.
In any case, this particular piece did strike me as a bit odd in the juxtaposition it presents. Tom Weinandy, in addition to his position at the Bishop’s conference, is also a theologian. Isn’t he allowed to express an opinion on Tilley’s address without it being hinted that this is some opening salvo in an episcopal crack-down on Tilley or the CTSA?
It is no secret that many see the CTSA as representing a very particular constituency among Catholic theologians in America (i.e. a liberal/revisionist constituency) and those who do not see themselves as part of that constituency (e.g. those who are likely to roll their eyes when they hear phrases like “the Jesus movement”) are intermittently bored, amused and annoyed by what goes on at CTSA meetings. Rather than shifting into paranoid mode and preparing for the arrival of the Spanish Inquisition (an exercise in futility, anyway, since nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition), I would simply see Weinandy’s piece as a not-untypical response by a more conservative theologian to what goes on at the CTSA.
As to who Allen is carrying water for in this piece (to take it to another level of paranoia), I suspect he simply wants to be the first with the story should this turn out to be a big brouhaha between the bishops and the CTSA. If that is so, I further suspect that he will be disappointed.
on December 5th, 2009 at 10:58 am
It struck me that Fr. Weinandy is right out of the Cardinal George “fully Catholic mantra school.
Either wholeheartedly with the magisterium or you’re not “fully catholic.”
So it goes at the Vatican and USCCB.
John Allen is operating at the PR center of that area, which gives him news of what happens, but as usual, his analysis is skewed (see the Jenkins Commonweal review of his new book.)
The impasses Fr. Tilley talks about are not going to be solved by the approaches like this by folks from the ecclesial perspective.
If the Cardinal of Chicago really wants to get into a better (read loving, not control) felationship with the Catholic media, higher educators and theologians, he needs to work on his listening skills -and perhaps so does Mr. Allen
on December 5th, 2009 at 11:00 am
There is something to be said for the interpretation of J. Allen as the male counterpart of the ingenue–can there be an ingenu?. Why not? He acts the part of the innocent but wise soul who explains the true character and motives of the Vatican Behemoth to worldly and suspicious sceptics. This brought me back to an earlier idea that you were using “ingenuous” with irony. I looked in the American Heritage Dictionary and what I found was this: INGENIOUS: having or arising from an inventive or cunning mind; INGENUOUS: artless, innocent; frank, candid.
So I thing we have the dilemma: ingenu or weasel. But “ingenu” here is a pretend ingenu and so a weasel too.
on December 5th, 2009 at 11:23 am
I hadn’t see Fr. Bauersvhmidt’s post when I wrote, but I think it’s fair to say that :While Fr. Weinandy has the right to express his view, given his position, is he not contributing to the impasse of which Fr. Tilley speaks and doing so in a rather harsh way?
Does that become just another peg in the division as well as the reporting thereof by Mr. Allen?
I don’t think that’s a paranoid perception or a description of a new Spanish inquiistion, but rather another attempt by one side of the impasse to use the exercise of control, not love to endforce its point of view.
As to John Allen, I see him more and more as a favorite of a point of view that utilizes his reporting to spin out what it wants heard. I find the “even handed” description hard to accept.
on December 5th, 2009 at 11:30 am
John Allen is entitled to his views as we all are, and to pass on gossip and rumor as gossip and rumor. When I first read his piece on line it struck me that though this was a “news” story he hadn’t actually done what a good news guy would have done. What’s the news:
The head of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Office, who is a theologian, writes a criticism of the address of the president emeritus of the CTSA. The head of the doctrinal committee claims these views as his own and not those of the bishops’ conference. What was the next step for a good journalist.
1. He might have given a precis of the points of dissension between the two discourses.
2. He might have called the episcopal head of that committee to find out what the committee was thinking on the matter. Possible episcopal response: “no comment.”
3. He might have called some other theologians/Christologists for comment on the disagreement.
4. He might have cited the source for his own looking into the two discourses.
on December 5th, 2009 at 11:32 am
To have greater access to scoops in the church Allen has compromised himself. He really is not typical of a reporter for the National Catholic Reporter. They keep for what he was and for his access. This access has allowed him to greater wealth since the mainstream media recognizes his access, especially to Ratzinger. This is who he is carrying water for. The second reason is being an orthodox reporter opens up the chanels of lucrative lectures which only the hierarchy can provide.
He is not the first. Novak and others have followed that track. John Allen is now a darling of the right. And that’s just where he wants it now.
on December 5th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Fr. Bauersvhmidt:
Spot on!!!!
So many criticize Bishops and the magisterium as being poor theologians, authoritarian, closed, etc. I applaud Weinandy’s critique not to mention his proviso.
I also very much enjoyed Tilley’s piece as well.
The etymology of the term dialogue is across intelligibility’s or words (sorry I am not providing a precise definition of “logos” but I think most on the board understand its theological meaning).
To me this difference and discussion from all places and angles is simply part of the development of the sensus fidelium or perhaps the sensus ecclesiae.
At any rate, I am always supportive of calm, dispassionate, free dialogue when people take their respective “hats” off and speak simply as fellow pilgrims.
on December 5th, 2009 at 11:53 am
I’m confused. Is this dispute not news?
on December 5th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
What’s most interesting to me is the potential conflict of interest in roles–and the apparent contrast between my two fields on these matters.
Law professors, like other academics, express views on matters, and vigorously criticize the views of others. We’re not shy. Nonetheless, when a lawyer, or a law professor gets appointed to the judicial branch, most of them tend to show significant restraint. They don’t want to prejudge, or appear to prejudge, cases that come before them. They are sensitive to the requirements of their different role, and the need not only for impartiality, but also for the appearance of impartiality. This is important not only for the judicial system actually to function well, but also for it to appear to function well–and to have the trust of those who operate within it.
So the question I would have is what sort of self-restraint, regarding “scholarly criticism,” is appropriate for someone in Weinandy’s role? Who held that role before–and what sort of self-restraint regarding scholarly criticism did they show?
on December 5th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
What’s news? Two theologians disagreeing? Perhaps; perhaps not depending on the subject. As I suggested above it’s probably news if the head of the bishops’ doctrine committee is a party to the disagreement. But what is the place of his “office” in the disagreement. He apparently denies that there is any (according to Allen).
Allen by analogy to the Ratzinger/Dupuis dispute suggests that there is something more than two theologians in dispute… This is not news; this is innuendo (or so it seems to me).
on December 5th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Right on, Margaret!
Reading John Allen these days is tricky. He plays a variety of roles. The ingénu is clearly a favorite. It is a familiar rhetorical ploy. (Think of Gulliver, the innocent who is just telling you “how things were…”. But of course at the same time, Swift intends the reader to perceive that Gulliver is frequently wrong, and he wants you begin to read his Travels aware that behind the mask of innocence is a satirist with a serious agenda. You can’t get the message without understanding the game that is being played.)
What might Allen’s agenda be here? A clue is often found in his hypotheticals. My take on it is that the comparison of the response to Tilley with Ratzinger’s earlier comments ( with the implication of “we know where THEY led….”) constitutes a threat, safely moderated by the messenger’s mild air of innocent wonderment that has to make long-time Allen-watchers immediately ask themselves whose errand he is on this time.
on December 5th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Back at 11:30 Peggy Steinfels wrote:
“When I first read [John Allen's] piece on line it struck me that though this was a “news” story he hadn’t actually done what a good news guy would have done.”
She then suggests a series of things he might have done to flesh out the story. A couple of them make eminent sense, such as including a fuller precis of the issues involved and seeking comments from other theologians regarding the disagreements — though, in fairness to Allen, either he or the editor did provide a number of helpful links. One can also, with Fritz Bauerschmidt, find “odd” the juxtaposition Allen makes.
Based on Peggy’s complaints, then, one might envision a headline like: “Allen’s Sloppy Reporting” or “Allen’s Missed Opportunity.”
The actual headline (however parsed by the American Heritage Dictionary) in my opinion carries an unfortunate innuendo and turns the discussion toward imputing motives. “Who is X carrying water for?” is a question that can be flung at any of us and hardly advances a discussion. It only confirms those already set in their certitudes
on December 5th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
An Open Letter to Father Weinandy
Dear Tom,
In the fall semester of 1976 we both began our teaching careers at Georgetown University. Then and now we have agreed on some theological issues and disagreed on others, both methodologically and substantially. I have followed you stalwart defense of the doctrine of divine impassibility with interest.
However, I was very disappointed by your essay, “Terrence Tilley’s Christological Impasses: The Demise of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. ” The main reason is that you fault my presidential address for superficial scholarship. However, your essay never mentions over three decades of my published scholarship that underlies the address and was cited in the notes. This is especially disappointing coming from the Executive Director for the Secretariat of Doctrine of the USCCB and the Convener of the Christology Section of the CTSA.
First, you misrepresent my views. I affirm the doctrine of the Incarnation. See my The Disciples’ Jesus (Orbis, 2008) especially 36-37; 224-231. I do not support adoptionism. I never say that the classic councils were “complete failures,” although for reasons stated I do think that the central problem was not resolved.
Second, you misinterpret my views. I do understand the centuries of discussion and debate that led to the orthodox formulae differently from you. I simply point out the political issues were also involved. I am not a cultural relativist as you suggest (see Inventing Catholic Tradition [Orbis, 2000], especially 156-170, and History, Theology and Faith Dissolving the Modern Problematic [Orbis, 2004]). Nor do I hold that “the present culture always trumps the content” of the gospel. I do hold—and have argued—that the contemporary use of terms like “nature” do not mean what “phusis” or “natura” meant in the Patristic era and so cannot be used to communicate the tradition accurately today (unless, of course, one expects all believers to have graduate degrees in theology). Your inference that I challenge the authority of the magisterium is inaccurate; I do question how some magistri have exercised their authority.
Third, you fault my rhetoric, yet you tar the approach I use by rhetorically associating it with other approaches that lead to positions I never address and that you find abhorrent. In so doing, you at least neglect the maxim “abusus non tollit usum.” This sort of rhetoric implying “guilt by association” is hardly fair, especially from a person of your status.
There are other issues that I find you misread or misinterpret. That contributes to my sadness at the tone and content of your essay. But they are too many for discussion in a brief note.
I hope that you will begin to emulate the theologian whose name graces the chair that I have agreed to take up in January, 2010. His practice was always to read others’ work thoroughly, interpret it charitably, and report it accurately—especially when he disagreed with them.
Sincerely yours,
Terrence W. Tilley
Avery Cardinal Dulles Professor of Catholic Theology(elect) and
Chairperson of the Theology Department
Fordham University
on December 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Bill M says:
He really is not typical of a reporter for the National Catholic Reporter. They keep [him] for what he was and for his access.
True enough.
I think “compromised” is strong, or at least uncharitable, language toward John Allen. He is a reporter, sometimes an analyst, but not a polemicist.
on December 5th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I’m often bemused by posts here that, when someone is wrong, their defenders say that need to be treated with charity -even if the wrongers seem lacking in charity themselves.
on December 5th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Fr Weinandy’s critique is the kind of rhetoric that fills the web. While he addresses particular comments, there is little or no apparent effort to understand the more fundamental differences. This leads to misunderstandings and skewed commentary. To put it in the terms of Christology, he sees doctrine as divine, absolute and unchanging, while Tilley is looking at doctrine as human, bounded by time and context. While Tilley recognizes both these facets to some degree, Weinandy recoils at any suggestion of finite, changeable boundaries for theological expression.
Given that, I can understand why Weinandy sees heresy in Tilley’s position. But there are usually opposing heresies that point each other out — Arians see all others as docetic, and Monophysites see Arianism even among the Orthodox. (this is a comment on the difficulty in discerning heresy while holding a position oneself, certainly not an attempt to discern heresy in either of these gentlemen)
John Allen reporting on this is innuendo, but innuendo is what we have to work with. What we learn is that there is a group of people who get together to discuss doctrine in the US (the bishop’s committee on doctrine) and that a prominent member of this group has ‘relativism’ on his mind, particularly a relativism that describes most post-modern thinking. We could treat the committee on doctrine as a secretive “Star Chamber” shrouded by a “Cone of Silence” that we cannot pierce, or we can look at what the committee members talk about and try to glean some insight. The latter is undoubtedly innuendo, and it is less certain than a transcript of the meeting, but it does give some indication of the discussions in the room.
on December 5th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
We have a lot more than innuendo to work with. This is after all the era of instant global communication. We have Peggy’s four points for openers and the response of Terry Tilley adds more to the conversation. Allen certainly knows all this. But he has become more of a spinner than a reporter.
on December 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I don’t think it’s been mentioned here that Prof. Tilley’s article appeared in June in Origins, which is a publication of the Catholic News Service, which is a department of… the USCCB.
Origins is a kind of “of record” resource for theologians. Publication in it increases the news value of a lecture–if I’m not mistaken, it is no longer an in-house CTSA lecture but may be cited in scholarship.
on December 8th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Apart from the purportedly debatable aspects of Tilley’s Christology. there are three other pieces to this discussion:-Having read the CTSA lecture on .ine a while back and while some even discussed here in previous threads, why this sudden article by Fr. Weinandy?
-Was the manner/methodolgy of Fr. Weinandy’s critique and brief response both reasonable and charitable? A number here (including myself think not)
-Why was this pushed outside the academic community by John Allen? And was characterization of CTSA fair? i must say it reminded me of a Stonehill approach.