Bishop confirms National Catholic Reporter is not a 'Catholic' publication [CWN]

[Alan55]

I’m a reader of NCR online and find it to be very informative about issues that matter. Somewhere in the Church there needs to be someone who confronts wrongdoing and wrong thinking, who reports both sides of issues. The Vatican and the bishops don’t always appreciate NCR’s slant on things, but I think it’s important for there to be a free press that is not concerned only with advancing the party line. If Bishop Finn has done sketchy things with regard to responding to clergy abuse, he deserves to be criticized.

 

[adrift]

I think you meant to say NCR rather than Bishops. It fits better.

It does fit the truth better but I think he meant what he wrote.

 

[fnr]

The truth always divides. The issue is not simply about “dialogue”. The issue is claiming to be Catholic while rejecting His Church. Not really consistent with Truth or charity.

Sorry fix, but the notion that the NCR and those who read or support it are rejecting the Church doesn’t fly. We are all the Church. Our faith is not a propositional checklist. It’s about a relationship with Jesus Christ, centered in the Eucharist.

Is it better for those who have a difficult time accepting some church teachings to consider themselves anathema? Or perhaps lie to the world about what they really believe (despite God knowing their truths)? Is there any value to someone who humbly prays to be able to be a better Catholic, despite being unable to accept its views on any number of hot-button social issues? Should such people stop attending Mass or accepting the Eucharist? Should they not confess their struggles to their priest? Baptize their children? I dare say that there are people whose faith is on fire, with a true zeal for holiness, who may not understand or who have difficulty accepting certain Catholic teachings?

“We are one body,” right? Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (his second letter there) and 2 Corinthians (his fourth letter there) following a large part of the church at Corinth flouting basic Christian practices. He had spent a long time there, in one of the cosmopolitan centers of the pagan world, with a temple to Aphrodite encouraging sexual intimacy with “temple prostitutes.” Members of the church at Corinth, as we read, divided rich and poor, engaged in illicit sexual relationships, ate butchered meat sacrificed at pagan temples, sued one another in pagan courts, and abused the agape feast (the Eucharist described in 1 Cor 11). Yet, for years of his own life, he poured heart and soul into bringing them around. And as 1 Clement (ca. 80-140 AD) shows, that church continued to have difficulties after Paul’s death, but the Bishop of Rome did not give up his pastoral care there.

Yes, we need to attend to the teachings of the bishops. Yes, we need to conform our lives as closely to Christ as we are able. But I think there is value in prayerfully struggling with the Church’s teachings, and bringing those thoughts and fears to a priest, a friend, a fellow Catholic, etc.

 

[fix]

Sorry fix, but the notion that the NCR and those who read or support it are rejecting the Church doesn’t fly. We are all the Church. Our faith is not a propositional checklist. It’s about a relationship with Jesus Christ, centered in the Eucharist.

Is it better for those who have a difficult time accepting some church teachings to consider themselves anathema? Or perhaps lie to the world about what they really believe (despite God knowing their truths)? Is there any value to someone who humbly prays to be able to be a better Catholic, despite being unable to accept its views on any number of hot-button social issues? Should such people stop attending Mass or accepting the Eucharist? Should they not confess their struggles to their priest? Baptize their children? I dare say that there are people whose faith is on fire, with a true zeal for holiness, who may not understand or who have difficulty accepting certain Catholic teachings?

“We are one body,” right? Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (his second letter there) and 2 Corinthians (his fourth letter there) following a large part of the church at Corinth flouting basic Christian practices. He had spent a long time there, in one of the cosmopolitan centers of the pagan world, with a temple to Aphrodite encouraging sexual intimacy with “temple prostitutes.” Members of the church at Corinth, as we read, divided rich and poor, engaged in illicit sexual relationships, ate butchered meat sacrificed at pagan temples, sued one another in pagan courts, and abused the agape feast (the Eucharist described in 1 Cor 11). Yet, for years of his own life, he poured heart and soul into bringing them around. And as 1 Clement (ca. 80-140 AD) shows, that church continued to have difficulties after Paul’s death, but the Bishop of Rome did not give up his pastoral care there.

Yes, we need to attend to the teachings of the bishops. Yes, we need to conform our lives as closely to Christ as we are able. But I think there is value in prayerfully struggling with the Church’s teachings, and bringing those thoughts and fears to a priest, a friend, a fellow Catholic, etc.

It is one thing to struggle. It is another thing to reject the authority of Christ through His Church. We are not talking about struggle but open dissent and rejection of Church authority.

Now, we cannot point to individual persons but in general it is disingenuous for us to claim fidelity to Christ while rejecting His authority. He said he who hears you hears Me. He who rejects you rejects Me.

The “checklist” you mention is not merely an ideology we accept or not but His very word.

 

[fix]

Yes, we need to attend to the teachings of the bishops. Yes, we need to conform our lives as closely to Christ as we are able. But I think there is value in prayerfully struggling with the Church’s teachings, and bringing those thoughts and fears to a priest, a friend, a fellow Catholic, etc.

Great, bring those issues to a priest not to the pages of a dissenting paper that is a scandal.

 

[BackToTheRock]

As a former very liberal Protestant who converted to Catholicism I subscribed to the NCR for years during my Merton/Chittester etc. years. But the closer I moved to fully accepting the truth about the authority of the Church the less I appreciated that publication. They just seem to be concerned with trying to slam the hierarchy any way possible. If the Pope woke up one day and singlehandedly negotiated world peace, found a cure for AIDS, fed every hungry person in the world but swatted a fly in the process the NCR would have a headline screaming POPE ATTACKS WILDLIFE!! This would be followed by posts at the online edition by readers stating that this is a continuation of the policies that led to the Inquisition, that keeps women from being ordained, and an example of why they no longer attend Mass.

By the way - the 'likes" on the Reporter Facebook page: 7,521. The Register Facebook page: 24,632

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m a reader of NCR online and find it to be very informative about issues that matter. Somewhere in the Church there needs to be someone who confronts wrongdoing and wrong thinking, who reports both sides of issues. The Vatican and the bishops don’t always appreciate NCR’s slant on things,…

Yeah, no kidding. This is so understated it’s comical. Let’s see: If you constantly declared, in public, that your boss was authoritarian, power-hungry, and obsolete, and that the employees really have all the answers, not those in charge, would you expect the people in authority to “appreciate your slant on things?” lol.

This is a highly inflammatory publication. Every issue. Even within the rare issue which contains no high level of controversy (or extremist slant toward an otherwise factual/neutral event or topic), the Comments section is, in decency terms, X-rated. There is a great irony in all their blather about how supposedly only those not in ecceliastical authority have “charity,” and “know the Jesus of the Gospels.” while at the same time the commenters pour forth hateful words, fluently. And dare to oppose them, if another commenter: they will draw and quarter you in equally contemptuous terms.

The editorial staff, as well as the commenting contributors, have no use for hierarchy. They say that most frankly; there’s no subtlety or apology about it. They want a democratic church, and have in fact used those terms. They cannot stand the thought of other people defining moral doctrine. There is almost nothing in that publication which supports any recognizable Catholicism.

They support:
homosexual marriages
open homosexuals in the priesthood
the LGBT agenda (“out, proud and active”)
contraception
female ordination
heterodox interpretations of scripture, including The Real Presence
cohabitation

They denounce:
orthodoxy in general (that one they become apoplectic about)
traditional liturgies and devotional practices of any kind (rosaries, lighting candles, various prayer practices, whatever)
ecclesial authority in general
male authority in particular

It’s not a matter of preferences, in tha above two categories. No, this is a black and white world to them. You’re with them, or you are to be condemned to the guillotine. They’re activist revolutionaries, right out of the French Revolution.

 

[OxygenMan]

Yeah, no kidding. This is so understated it’s comical. Let’s see: If you constantly declared, in public, that your boss was authoritarian, power-hungry, and obsolete, and that the employees really have all the answers, not those in charge, would you expect the people in authority to “appreciate your slant on things?” lol.

This is a highly inflammatory publication. Every issue. Even within the rare issue which contains no high level of controversy (or extremist slant toward an otherwise factual/neutral event or topic), the Comments section is, in decency terms, X-rated. There is a great irony in all their blather about how supposedly only those not in ecceliastical authority have “charity,” and “know the Jesus of the Gospels.” while at the same time the commenters pour forth hateful words, fluently. And dare to oppose them, if another commenter: they will draw and quarter you in equally contemptuous terms.

The editorial staff, as well as the commenting contributors, have no use for hierarchy. They say that most frankly; there’s no subtlety or apology about it. They want a democratic church, and have in fact used those terms. They cannot stand the thought of other people defining moral doctrine. There is almost nothing in that publication which supports any recognizable Catholicism.

They support:
homosexual marriages
open homosexuals in the priesthood
the LGBT agenda (“out, proud and active”)
contraception
female ordination
heterodox interpretations of scripture, including The Real Presence
cohabitation

They denounce:
orthodoxy in general (that one they become apoplectic about)
traditional liturgies and devotional practices of any kind (rosaries, lighting candles, various prayer practices, whatever)
ecclesial authority in general
male authority in particular

It’s not a matter of preferences, in tha above two categories. No, this is a black and white world to them. You’re with them, or you are to be condemned to the guillotine. They’re activist revolutionaries, right out of the French Revolution.

Why don’t they just leave the Church?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Why don’t they just leave the Church?

LOL, They keep “threatening to.”

 

[manygift1spirit]

Why don’t they just leave the Church?

This is the question asked so often about grave dissenters.

The best answer is simply the supernatural one. Where the fullness of truth subsists, there the Evil One’s crosshairs are most firmly fixed. If this publication were to become explicitly non-Catholic, they would soddenly lose a great deal of relevance…they would be just one of a myriad dime-a-dozen modernist organizations. By staying Catholic, at least nominally in their minds, they think they wield the most influence by bringing their worldview inside Ground Zero of their opposition, to undermine it. Think of it. It is one thing to say externally “I think the Church is wrong”. But it is quite more effective to (in their minds) actually correct (sic) the Church, to come around to their worldview. Thus they can use the authoritative weight of the Church to injure itself. At least that is the intention.

There is a (perhaps apocryphal) story of a popular catholic woman who was a grave dissenter on similar issues. A reporter asked her why she didn’t just leave to another religious organization. She replied “this is where the copiers are”. She perceived (probably rightly) that she would be more effective getting her message out if she could change the Church from within, than simply criticizing it from without. But that is a big “if”; her ecclesiology was clearly faulty, as is the Reporter’s and its ilk’s.

 

[Elizabeth502]

She perceived (probably rightly) that she would be more effective getting her message out if she could change the Church from within, than simply criticizing it from without.

The problem with your suggestion is that a true change-agent stays tries to stay in some kind of basic harmony with the organization. These are not change-agents. These are saboteurs whose speech/ideology is destructive. They are, again, radical revolutionaries when it comes to Catholicism: the structure of its governance, the nature of its doctrine, the practice of its worship, and its very language. People who are this iconoclastic tend to get nowhere with “reform,” and end up in the alienated place they have chosen for themselves.

Given their own words, they don’t even want reform. They want an entirely new church, built in their image.

 

[nishkalank]

The National Catholic Reporter has been in existence with all anti-catholic views and articles for the last many years. It sounds strange that the Bishop found its poisonous views and doctrines now only. I would suggest the Bishop finds the number and name of priests and religious supporting them from behind and take suitable action against them. Also a case can be filed in the court against using the word catholic as it is very misguiding. A few people cannot publish venom against Catholic Church questioning all catholic teachings and its working and claim to be catholic
Let not american catholics be FOOLEd by the N.C.R.

 

[BackToTheRock]

The National Catholic Reporter has been in existence with all anti-catholic views and articles for the last many years. It sounds strange that the Bishop found its poisonous views and doctrines now only.

The battles over the HHS mandate have pushed us into an age when our leaders are now stepping up to the plate to publicly state who we are as Catholics and what we believe. “Tolerance” has been the order of the day in most religious bodies except for Fundamentalist protestant Churches. Personally, I don’t think a prevailing spirit of “tolerance” has gotten the Christian Church much but declining numbers and a society with tolerance for everything but us. This is a pretty exciting time to be Catholic; for the first time in many decades we’re seeing a sleeping giant wake up.

I would suggest the Bishop finds the number and name of priests and religious supporting them from behind and take suitable action against them. Also a case can be filed in the court against using the word catholic as it is very misguiding. . . . .

I certainly understand the sentiment about filing what would amount to a copyright claim around the term “Catholic” which has been tossed around very loosely since the late 60’s. However, I think it would become a costly and timely diversion from the central court issue which at this time is the HHS mandate.

 

[pnewton]

Sorry fix, but the notion that the NCR and those who read or support it are rejecting the Church doesn’t fly. We are all the Church.

Not according to Holy Scripture. St. Paul warned in Acts that wolves would come in among the sheep. Jesus said the same thing in Matthew 7:15. Worst of all, many that cry out “Lord, Lord” will be told to depart; the Jesus never knew them.

No, we are not all the Church. NCR is setting itself up by its defiance as anticatholic and should be viewed in the same light as other anticatholic organization that claim to minister to Catholics. Unfortunately, we are also told that such wolves will draw away many. Therefore, it is vital that we resist such un-Christlike defiance against the very body of Christ so that the damage they do will be minimum.

Do they serve a purpose? The New Testament does not promote freedom of the press, but it does warn us against gossip. The Catechism teaches us that everyone does not have the right to know everything. Calmuny is a sin. To a journalist, calmuny is a lifestyle, at least usually. True Catholic news agencies would have no problem with conforming to Catholic morality. True Catholic news agencies would have not problem with oversight by the Catholic Church. Such organizations should be proud to wear the name “Catholic.” NCR is a usurper of an undeserved honor.

 

[BroomWagon]

Not sure if NCR should be used as short for National Catholic Reporter since those are the initials of the accepted National Catholic Reporter.

 

[Elizabeth502]

NCR is setting itself up by its defiance as anticatholic and should be viewed in the same light as other anticatholic organization that claim to minister to Catholics. Unfortunately, we are also told that such wolves will draw away many. Therefore, it is vital that we resist such un-Christlike defiance against the very body of Christ so that the damage they do will be minimum.

Agreed.

Calmuny is a sin. To a journalist, calmuny is a lifestyle, at least usually. True Catholic news agencies would have no problem with conforming to Catholic morality.

(emphasizing a point I made earlier about all the NCR’s claims to “charity.” It would be difficult to find a publication less charitable, although I’m sure there are some.) With regard to this, they have not even examined how their tone alienates. With regard to the first paragraph, above, it would appear that the people they intend to draw are similarly not those of charity, but rather those of destructive anger. I have read exactly one constructive suggestion in all the years I have been wincing while reading NCR. That was one actually within the last year, I think, but I believe that was just a quote from a religious rather than an editorial from them.

I do notice that some on their staff (literally, on the margins) appear to be Catholics of good will. A few of them model a very different tone (positive, peaceful, uniting), but they are not “regulars” in the sense of being weekly columnists or anything like that. These few will very occasionally right a reflective & non-belligerent article, which sometimes accords with Catholic theology (sometimes not). One “marignal” columnist wrote something in the last couple of years about how the Church must view homosexual behavior to be moral. (Again, that fits in with the theological and social agenda of this rag.)

The rest of the time, and for the most part, the publication promotes war, in warrior language.

True Catholic news agencies would have not problem with oversight by the Catholic Church.

If they were truly Catholic, yes. The NCR stakeholders seem to have what psychiatrists have always referred to as “an authority problem.”

 

[BroomWagon]

Not sure if NCR should be used as short for National Catholic Reporter since those are the initials of the accepted National Catholic Reporter.

WHOOPS, NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER!

ncregister.com/

Accepted.

The two are easy to confuse per initials but of course, not by message.

 

[manygift1spirit]

The problem with your suggestion is that a true change-agent stays tries to stay in some kind of basic harmony with the organization. These are not change-agents. These are saboteurs whose speech/ideology is destructive. They are, again, radical revolutionaries when it comes to Catholicism: the structure of its governance, the nature of its doctrine, the practice of its worship, and its very language. People who are this iconoclastic tend to get nowhere with “reform,” and end up in the alienated place they have chosen for themselves.

Given their own words, they don’t even want reform. They want an entirely new church, built in their image.

Hmm perhaps I wasn’t clear, but you actually are saying the same thing. Dissenters ideally want to be inside the object of their dissent rather than outside it, as changing it into their own image is a bigger victory (to them) than just bringing it down. We agree completely, sorry for the ambiguity.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Hey, no problem.
You get extra points for a lovable religion description.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Satan can confuse by sending outsiders within.