For the record
There is a curious reference to an unnamed “liberal Catholic magazine” in the May 3 Weekly Standard. It comes a few pages into a lengthy article by Joseph Bottum, the editor of First Things, about the current wave of sex-abuse revelations and allegations and the attending “hysteria” (“Anti-Catholicism, Again“):
Liberal Catholics see the scandals as a chance to discredit conservatives, and conservatives as a chance to discredit liberals…. The left-leaning National Catholic Reporter declares it “the largest institutional crisis in centuries, possibly in church history,” and another liberal Catholic magazine demands theological reform, to be achieved by arraigning “Benedict in the Dock.”
Emphasis mine. A quick Google search might lead one to suspect the “liberal Catholic magazine” in question is Commonweal, since we recently used the phrase “Benedict in the Dock” as the title of an editorial on the sex-abuse scandal. The only problem is that nothing else in that half-sentence matches Commonweal‘s position in the slightest. Neither that editorial nor anything else we’ve published called for the pope to be arraigned, even metaphorically. Is it possible for a reader to mistake our headline as a call to “[Put] Benedict in the Dock”? If so, simply going on to read the editorial (or even just the first sentence) would certainly correct that impression. As for “demand[ing] theological reform,” you won’t find that in our editorial either. (I double-checked!)
Last June, Bottum wrote in the Standard about Notre Dame’s decision to invite President Barack Obama to be its commencement speaker. That essay contained several similar mischaracterizations and distortions regarding Commonweal and this blog. Here’s hoping it won’t happen again.
But Mollie, if you read past the first sentence of the editorial there’s this:
“Much of the pope’s good work in this regard is now likely to be brushed aside as the history of his own negligence in handling an abusive priest when he was archbishop of Munich thirty years ago comes to light.”
In the Court of Commonweal, far more than being merely arraigned, the Holy Father has been found guilty of negligence.
It is odd, not to mention dangerous, that those who complain most about media coverage (and tout their own ethical standards) are often the ones committing the worst and most basic journalistic errors.
My Webster’s gives “on trial” as the meaning of the phrase “in the dock”; and isn’t “on trial” a worse situation than merely being “arraigned”? The headline, I presume, is the editors’? Poorly chosen if what you say about the editorial is true.
Mischaracterizations and distortions??
Come on, what has gone on in these pages the last several weeks has been nothing less than an unrelenting attack upon Pope Benedict, with many of the people here reveling in their contempt and disregard for the Pope, the bishops, the papacy in general, multiple teachings of the Church, and the theological structure of the Church.
Tired about all the complaints about bad media. NYT,unfair attacks ???
Read this 2-22-2002 memo by the aide, Chancellor to A/B Gregory while he was the Bishop in charge of the USCCB. Listen to the scorching words about Cardinal Law and the COVER_UP.. It’s by a LAYMAN/FATHER David Spotanski. 8 years ago..and more of an indictment than the NYT could ever make. Let’s not hear anymore the dumb it’s anti-catholic media, .
read the entire memo. and weep..
http://www.stlbeacon.org/spotanskiletter.pdf
In the internet era, it is easy enough to provide a link to one’s source. At minimum, a professional standard would seem to apply for journalists: attribute. Unless a source insists on anonymity.
Mr Bottums is no example of excellence in journalism. It may be he is loathe to link here for fear of contamination–his own or his readers. In which case, perhaps the opinion piece should never have been written.
For readers who mistake reasoned criticism for “unrelenting attack,” I invite you to consider the many blogs and news outlets unaligned with religion who have reported and commented on Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church. Pick your physical reaction: blood boil, face blanch, etc.. But make no mistake: among the world’s critics this site is mild by any comparison.
What is on trial? The Catholic Church, no less, before non-believers and fence-sitters and angry flock. People are rendering their own verdicts, by the tens of millions, and let’s not kid ourselves the mismanagement of sex addicts doesn’t have an impact on evangelization, charity, missionary work, and practically everything we do.
Clumsy commentary from the Right does the Church no good and is no credit, even if it manages to praise the pope.
Come on, what has gone on in these pages . . . .
Bender,
This is not Commonweal Magazine. I occasionally post messages over on the “In All Things” blog, but it would be unfair to judge America by my messages.
I don’t recall seeing any “contempt” for the pope here.
Fr. Komonchak, did you, too, misread the headline as “Benedict [Belongs] in the Dock”? And are you still confused about its meaning? If so you can read the editorial for yourself and determine whether my description is accurate.
You could say, couldn’t you, that he’s on trial in the court of public opinion.
In addition, you might want to distinguish between criminal and civil trials. You’re most commonly arraigned in a criminal trial.
By the way, doesn’t Jody’s critique of the numbers of Canadians who say they know sex abuse victims wrongly presuppose that each of them knows a DIFFERENT victim?
Too much time on planes, too much time doing brain teasers in the Delta Magazine.
You could say, couldn’t you, that he’s on trial in the court of public opinion.
That was what we thought the headline implied. “Arraigning” was Bottum’s word. I can’t guess what sort of trial he had in mind.
Commonweal editorial says “Benedict is in the dock.” As he has not, as a matter of fact, been arraigned by any court, it is perfectly clear that the dock of the “court of public opinion” is meant.
Quote from WS says “Unnamed publication demands Benedict be put ‘in the dock.’” As it is clear to everybody that he is already in the court of public opinion, the insinuation is that some literal dock is meant.
What is the most charitable construction that can be put on the quote? The author did not read the editorial; or the author is not able to handle metaphors so ubiquitous as to be standard figures of speech; or the author deliberately obfuscated, using the quotation marks and hinting at the identity of the magazine to which he refers.
Forget it. He just discredits himself, his own publication and the publication which printed his guest column.
“Too much time on planes, too much time doing brain teasers in the Delta Magazine.”
Not sure this is the tone we want to set here.
JC, I was explaining why I immediately noticed the number discrepancy in Jody’s article-that’s my life these days!–not describing Jody’s life. But he is calling into question the truthfulness or accuracy of a study of Canadians who report knowing someone who was abused by making a faulty assumption–that each Canadian knows a distinct person. And that assumption is wrong. It’s completely possible that one abused person told five people, each of whom could say they knew an abused person. To put it another way–the number of people who know someone abused does not relate in a one:one way to the number of people who have been abused.
About the unrelenting attack on popes, bishops, contempt for the church and its teachings, etc. Mr. (or Ms.) Bender is probably onto something here. Let’s assume for the moment, just for the sake of argument that both Benedict and John Paul were in fact entirely innocent of any knowledge of sexual abuse, and cannot be held responsible for its continuance. Let’s drop down a notch and assume for the moment that cardinals and bishops, both those in Rome and in the hinterland, were also entirely innocent (even Cardinal Law!) of any damning knowledge of abuse. All of them were good and honest men, doing their best to be true to their obligations as Christians. Let’s assume therefore that asking “Whose fault was it?” poses a non-question. It was clearly nobody’s fault, because nobody knew anything about the problem of sexual abuse.
Yet we know that the sexual abuse was there, and can’t be explained away. So the real question is not, “Who was at fault?” but must be instead, “What was at fault?” And clearly, the place to look for that “What” must be within the structure of the church’s governance, and in the culture it has encouraged. If not there, where else might that “What” be found?
Drop the blame game that points to particular individuals, in other words, and look to where the trouble really lies.
Mr. Bottom should attend his own backyard. The provincial neocon tribalism that engulfed First Things during the last decade should be his main concern.
Mollie: My “if-clause” did not state or imply doubt about the accuracy of your description of the editorial; the protasis was factual. I took the headline to mean: “Benedict [is] in the Dock,” and I understood it to be a metaphor. I did not think you meant the phrase of an actual trial, just as I didn’t take the sentence you quote as meaning “arraigning” literally. You say: “Neither that editorial nor anything else we’ve published called for the pope to be arraigned, even metaphorically.” No, but the headline is a metaphor for being on trial, in the court of public opinion, yes; but there is the legal metaphor.
Quite so. We used a legal metaphor to describe the situation Benedict was in. We did not call for him to be put “in the dock,” as Bottum says we did.
Prof Kaveny, Sorry. At first I thought you were talking about yourself, as you say. Maybe this says more about what I think Bottum is up to these days! He’s bright and reads a lot of fiction especially, but I miss Fr. Neuhaus. The most popular of the First Things blogs are totally mirroring general conservative craziness. The magazine kept above the fray, and mostly still does. But, the blogs are going to brand the magazine for so many people.
Ok, now I’m really confused. Is the persecution asserting that it’s perfectly understandable for Commonweal to use the phrase “in the dock” in the colloquial sense, but that it’s completely unacceptable for the defense, in the same dang sentence, to use the word “arraign” in the colloquial sense, and that the defendant is therefore guilty of some sort of highly unethical journalistic malpractice???
Paraphrasing Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, “Please tell me you have more than that, Kaffee.”
Mollie
Are you saying Commonweal does not demand theological reform, or that it didn’t in that particular editorial? As to the latter you are correct, but I am not sure that was what he was trying to get across. He was saying that both sides of the spectrum are using the abuse crisis as a tool to promote agendas that have nothing to do with the crisis itself. I think his comment was meant to talk about the general position of the of the magazine and was using the headline itself as an example of the attitude. In fact, the headline seems to have nothing to do with the content of the editorial other than it is about the pope.
I, frankly, found the headline offensive when I read it. The dock is where you hold an accused criminal during a trial. It is something like a guarded cage. A particularly unfair and disrespectful metaphor for a Catholic publication to use referring to the Holy Father.
Keep talking about metaphors as the Church sinks into the sea. phew.
The headlines could be better. (The one about the Senator from Jerusalem was bad, imho, and the dock one wasn’t that great, either. A Britishism.)
But the real problem with dotCommonweal, imho, is how hard it is to read: the tiny sans serif typeface and the pale blue quotations strain my eyes.
Mark Proska,
Yes, you are confused, and it’s really not that confusing. We note that the pope is “in the dock” because of the scandal. Jody Bottum’s article says we are thereby “arraigning” the pope. The problem with this is not that he has chosen a legal metaphor to go with ours; the problem is that his metaphor and the sentence in which it appears mislead the reader about the content of the editorial.
Sean Hannaway,
Was C.S. Lewis being sacrilegious when he titled one of his books “God in the Dock”? Would it be safe for someone who saw the cover of that book to assume that it was an indictment of God? I think you are too easily offended. You write that Bottum “was saying that both sides of the spectrum are using the abuse crisis as a tool to promote agendas that have nothing to do with the crisis itself.” Yes, that’s exactly the problem. He provides no evidence that we’ve done this, and there’s no such evidence to be found — unless you believe that recommending clear expressions of penitence for sex abuse and efforts to cover it up counts as promoting an agenda “that has nothing to do with the crisis itself.”
But Matthew, that takes us back to my very first comment. You (the editors) more than arraigned the pope, you more than put him in the dock, you found him guilty of negligence. I don’t recall you even holding a trial. To say that Mr. Bottum has overstated the case, or misrepresented your editorial position, seems patently false.
Mark Proska –
There are two kinds of negligence — criminal negligence and the ordinary kind. The metaphor is anot about criminal negligence, and that’s why “in the dock” is a metaphor.
Remarkable that so many literate people here can mis-read a headline. Wilful or invincible ignorance?
David Gibson –
Vincible and invincible ignorance — that great old scholastic distinction is so useful.
It seems to me that the whole brouhaha about the Pope can be described in those terms: was his ignorance of what was going on vincible or invincible? Was it his fault that he didn’t know/realize the extent of the abuse? And if he had reason to suspect what was going on but was in denial, is being in denial vincible or invincible ignorance?
That the pope can be infallible in a very narrowly prescribed set of circumstances is accepted by most Catholics. This definition is a cause for a great deal of skepticism for many such as I.
That any given pope is NOT indefectible is borne out by daily and historical observation.
His defectibility is the cause for being “in the dock” under these circumstances and most likely for some in the future, as it very well should be.
Bottum has probably been reading the comboxes as well.
Journalism instructors talk of the inverted pyramid — get your message out in the first paragraph, for it’s the only one most will read. Laurie Goodstein got out the message that Benedict had turned a blind eye while Fr Murphy raped 200 boys. Commonweal waited until the second paragraph to say: ‘Much of the pope’s good work in this regard is now likely to be brushed aside as the HISTORY of his own NEGLIGENCE IN HANDLING AN ABUSIVE PRIEST when he was archbishop of Munich thirty years ago comes to light. It should not be surprising that then-Archbishop Ratzinger accepted an offending priest from another diocese, placed him in therapy, and IMMEDIATELY REASSINGED HIM TO ANOTHER PARISH WHERE HE ABUSED MORE CHILDREN. BURYING RATHER THAN CONFRONTING THE PROBLEM OF ABUSIVE PRIESTS is what nearly every bishop did at the time.’ Now you accuse First Things of distortion: ‘Neither that editorial nor anything else we’ve published called for the pope to be arraigned, even metaphorically. Is it possible for a reader to mistake our headline as a call to “[Put] Benedict in the Dock”? If so, simply going on to read the editorial (or even just the first sentence) would certainly correct that impression.’ The words I capitalize above would rather confirm the impression, at least for readers who read only the first two paragraphs — the majority of readers.
@ Matthew Boudway — actually, Lewis didn’t give that title to the book. It came out after his death, and its original title was”Undeceptions.” I have a copy of it as “Undeceptions.” However, I do think the title it has does show what people mean, without any of the implications that Bottum wants to place on Commonweal’s use of the phrase.
Ann—
I’m not taking issue with the phrase “in the dock” as a metaphor (though I think its use was most unfortunate). I’m pointing out the inconsistency (some might say hypocrisy) of someone using the phrase “in the dock”, then finding fault when someone else uses the word “arraign”, particularly when the editorial in question clearly reaches the verdict that the Holy Father is guilty.
Remarkable that so many literate people here can mis-read a headline.
Also remarkable: no one had any trouble understanding the headline until now. As widely referenced and commented on as that editorial was, everyone understood the headline to mean “[Our thoughts on] Benedict['s being] in the Dock,” rather than “Benedict [Belongs] in the Dock[, and We Hereby Put Him There].” Isn’t it funny that so much confusion has surfaced so suddenly? My apologies to all those whose distress was amplified by my attempt to clarify facts.
Matthew
I am the one who is easily offended? Did I take and admitted “half a sentence” and write a 250 word screed attacking the author for gross distortions and mischaracterizations?
I simply noted what my reaction was when I read the headline, and yes I do think this is different than the CS Lewis example. I don’t think God was being pilloried in the press when he wrote that. This publication calls itself Catholic. I simply thought is was disrespectful to refer to the Holy Father under the circumstances.
As to your last point, are you seriously telling me that nowhere in any Commonweal editorial article or blog entry by a contributer will I find any suggestion that the nature and governance of the Church was a cause for abuse and that changing it will better prevent it? I don’t know if I have enough time to find even half of those.
Sean, do not trouble yourself any further! The search you propose to undertake would do nothing to counter what I noted above, i.e., that our editorial was seriously mischaracterized. I am sorry to hear you detected disrespect in our editorial, and it’s good of you to bring this to our attention after allowing it to trouble you for these many weeks.
Incidentally, I think your definition of “screed” is perhaps not quite in line with standard usage. You might want to check that out.
I am certian beyond doubt that when BXVI recites the Confiteor the “what I have failed to do”
is empahazied when his hand hits the breast. As it should. As it should for all.
What is “theological reform”?
The reference from Joseph Bottum is amazing.
This is from First Things who must live whith this sterling analysis of the clergy sex abuse crisis:
“Nonetheless, because I care about the Legion and because I was outraged by what I suspected was a gross injustice, I decided to go through endless pages of testimony, counter–testimony, legal documents, and other materials related to the Berry/Renner attack on Fr. Maciel…. They report nothing substantively new in the allegations themselves; the only new thing is that the Vatican has again considered the charges and found them without merit. A cardinal in whom I have unbounded confidence and who has been involved in the case tells me that the charges are “pure invention, without the slightest foundation.”
That the Pope consistently and strongly supports Fr. Maciel and the Legion is only evidence that he has been duped—or, the reader is invited to infer, that he is party to a cover–up.
I can only say why, after a scrupulous examination of the claims and counterclaims, I have arrived at moral certainty that the charges are false and malicious… On that basis, I believe the charges against Fr. Maciel and the Legion are false and malicious and should be given no credence whatsoever.”
Good work, First Things. Good journalism integrity.
First Things’ ability to even handly report on the clergy sex abuse is non existent. First Things needs to acknowledge its reporting was wrong and Berry’s reporting was correct.
For attackignthe journailsitc credibilty of Berry and Renner, it owes an apology.
After that I’ll give First Things and Joseph Bottum some journalistic credit.
Ed Gleason, we are going to beat our breasts in 2011 when the new translation of the Roman Missal comes out demanding that we do so. But not before. Sorry if you meant this metaphorically! :)
Joe–
It’s true that First Things was way wrong on Fr. Maciel, and it is understandable why a reader might look askance at their future judgments in this regard.
However, I do not believe Mr. Bottum wrote those words, nor was he editor in chief when they were written. And First Things did not provide a forum for Father Maciel to publish his views AFTER it became known he was guilty.
Hmmm
screed
–noun
1.a long discourse or essay, esp. a diatribe.
2.an informal letter, account, or other piece of writing.
200 plus words to characterize 17 (4 of which are quoted)
I wonder if the upset is more due to the lack of ink – jeeze he didn’t even bother to print the magazine’s name
But you know, maybe you’re right. It wasn’t very long.
Ah, I have it!
hissy fit
-noun
Informal – a childish temper tantrum
That’s the ticket – a 250 word hissy fit
” I simply thought is was disrespectful to refer to the Holy Father under the circumstances.”
Sean –
The question of disrespedt of Church officials comes up occasionally here. I think it needs a bit of airing because it seems that some people find it unjustified, except in extreme circumstances. I also think that undue respect seems to be a marker of conservatives.
It seems to me that when an office is worthy of respect and the holder of that office acts unworthily in it that it is he/she who disrespects the office, not the critics of the office-holder. Consider the Pope. I find that few if any of the posters here, most of whom I would classify as liberals, have called for eliminating the papal office. Oddly, with all of the criticism of individual popes you’ll find here, we mostly seem to think that the office needs to be preserved and the holders sometimes need to reform or go.
Do you think that we should hold back criticisms of a holder of such an office simply because of the importance of the office? If so, why?
Ann
Did I say criticism was offensive? There is a difference between criticism and disrespect. For example, you don’t need to create the image that the pope is a criminal standing in a cage, or refer to the Holy See as “Bennie and the Red Hats” (another moniker that’s been used here more than once) to make your point.
Hey Sean,
You should shut the hell up while you still have some fragment of credibility left.
If you can’t express yourself respectfully to Mollie O’Reilly, it’s clear you have no respect for your fellow human being. Your fellow human being is made in the image of God. If you are contemptuous of the image of God, how fatuous is it to demand respect for his Vicar on Earth?
Isn’t there some law court where you could be PAID to make an ass of yourself?
“This publication calls itself Catholic.”
In tandem with Ann’s comment above, which I think gets at an important point, I’d like to comment on another theme which surfaces now and then in discussions about Commonweal, namely that the “Catholicism” of the publication is suspect whenever the writers and editors do not hew closely to whatever the current leadership of the Church wants them to say (which is usually uncritical acceptance of whatever they are doing at the time).
The problem is two-fold, istm. First, Catholicism is a Church, not a sect. There is a rich variety available within it, and this manifests itself sometimes in uproar rather than perfect harmony. Churches tolerate much more diversity than sects can. To rail against this is to refuse the example of history. This is simply how Catholic faith looks this side of the eschaton.
My second point is that it takes more than obedience to be Catholic. It requires adherence to the truth, obedience to conscience, a solid grasp of the Gospel, docility to the promptings of the Spirit, and love for the whole Body of Christ–head and members (to name a few). The very fact that there are multiple starting points for fidelity to all these Catholic virtues assures that there will be differences in perspective. But this is all part of being Catholic. Commonweal is MORE Catholic than most diocesan newspapers, for example, precisely BECAUSE it reports from more than one perspective and does not take the hierarchy’s perspective as the only justifiable point of view.
Now THAT (Felapton) is closer to what most people would call a “screed.”
The subject of disrespect to church officials, and whether or not anyone who comments on this blog has ever been guilty of it, is actually not relevant to this post. Nor did I intend to challenge anyone to try to make a case that — if you cock your head and squint hard enough and ignore the accepted meaning of words and phrases — the sentence quoted above might, on some other planet, be all right. The change-the-subject game is getting awfully tiresome, and to play the bad-faith argumentation and obfuscation game on THIS post is particularly ridiculous. Give it a rest.
“Is it possible for a reader to mistake our headline as a call to “[Put] Benedict in the Dock.”
No, it is not possible for a reader to mistake your headline as a call to “[Put] Benedict in the Dock” due to the context of paragraph 2.
Mollie,
Sentences come in paragraphs and paragraphs come in articles, books, essays or whatever. The article was about how an atmosphere of anti-Catholicism has developed that is beyond what is normal and legitimate criticism. You can’t understand the sentence without its context, and in the context of the story, it seems to me he was focusing on, a liberal catholic magazine that used imagery equating the pope to a criminal on trial, and not (in a mere 13 words) give a precis of the entire editorial that the headline was attached to. In fact, the article is littered with individual quotes that reflect what the author sees as evidence of an atmosphere that has developed without bothering to discuss the details of where the quote came from.
The point he was making was about the headline, not the editorial – call it squinting and misreading – but I think it makes more sense than calling it a distortion or misrepresentation.
Sean, I am happy to see you have managed to exercise a little more control over your tone and vocabulary. You’ve still got a problem, though, with your argument, which is the simple fact that Bottum did “give a precis of the entire editorial that the headline was attached to” — albeit a brief and nonspecific one — and it happened to be entirely inaccurate. The context doesn’t change that, nor does counting the words he used. So, once again, I thank you for your input and I stand by what I wrote. Please move along now.
“It’s true that First Things was way wrong on Fr. Maciel, and it is understandable why a reader might look askance at their future judgments in this regard.
However, I do not believe Mr. Bottum wrote those words, nor was he editor in chief when they were written. And First Things did not provide a forum for Father Maciel to publish his views AFTER it became known he was guilty.”
No, Fr. Neuhaus wrote those words in First Things.
The quoted words do indicate that First Things has a logn tracj record of beign incapable of distinguishing the difference between constructive criticism and ant-catholic rhetoric. Bottum’s oponions deserve summay dismissal for that reason.
First Things has not disowned the egregious factual errors in its publication nor the defamation of the reporters it wrongly criticized. Bottum should begin the process of clearing the record by forthrigtly admitting First Things contributed to the cover up (albeit unwittingly) and beginning a discussion on how to distingush legitimate criticism of the church, regardless of motivation, and anti catholic rhetoric.
Some posters here seem to struggle with this concept as well.
Nancy–
Rereading that 2nd paragraph again, I agree it is bad, very bad. Not only does it jump to the conclusion that the Pope is negligent, it casually states that it “should not be surprising” that Ratzinger behaved badly. One would like to think that your average Joe would give the Archbishop Joseph the benefit of the doubt. All the more I think we have the right to expect a Catholic publication to want allegations made against the Pope to prove untrue, while at the same time considering the evidence judiciously. For the love of God, in the same dang paragraph the editors acknowledge that the evidence is still coming to light. So why the rush to harsh judgment? Is it so unfair to conclude from reading this paragraph that the editors want to believe that Ratzinger is guilty? Where does that caste of mind come from?
Joe–I agree with you on one thing: I would love to see First Things have a discussion on the difference between legitimate criticism of the Church and anti-Catholic rhetoric.
Mark, your confusion is just not catching on. Your objection is noted. I invite you to stop rereading.
In fact, I’ll close comments now, to make it easier for everyone to resist further parsing. Enjoy the weekend.