Calls on US Bishops to Reform (CNS) * Part 2* Many parishes "force feed" subscriptions to the diocesan newspaper upon their parishioners

[thereseozi]

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09121406.html

WASHINGTON, DC, December 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - CNS’ cavalier attitude toward orthodoxy is not confined to its recent treatment of the life issue alone. Some other examples, just to name a few:

In 2005, CNS issued a glowing review of the movie “Brokeback Mountain” and rated the homosexual propaganda piece as suitable for a “limited adult audience.” Following the backlash of outraged readers, CNS eventually changed the rating to “morally offensive,” but the fawning assessment of the film as “a serious contemplation on loneliness and connection” remains unchanged to this very day, however.

In August 2008, a CNS feature article on the origins of the Bible offered the erroneous claim that, “The Catholic version of the Bible is actually a library of books specifically chosen to reflect Catholic teaching.” When confronted with the fact that the First Vatican Council specifically condemned this error, and that Vatican II reiterated the long held Catholic teaching that the books of Sacred Scripture are canonical for the solitary reason that they have God as their Author, Mr. Spence personally dismissed out of hand any suggestion of offering a correction.

…

 

[JaMc]

One error - CNS does not rate the films, the USCCB Office of Film and Broadcasting does. CNS simply reports the rating. So, it was not CNS who changed the rating to “O”, it was the Office of Film and Broadcasting.

Whatever problems there may be with CNS, inaccurate reporting like that does not help Lifesite News present its case.

 

[Joe_5859]

One error - CNS does not rate the films, the USCCB Office of Film and Broadcasting does. CNS simply reports the rating. So, it was not CNS who changed the rating to “O”, it was the Office of Film and Broadcasting.

Whatever problems there may be with CNS, inaccurate reporting like that does not help Lifesite News present its case.

Unfortunately, that’s par for the course for LSN. I applaud their dedication to life and their desire for orthodoxy, but they tend to make these kinds of mistakes quite often in my experience.

I’m still scratching my head to figure out why they tacked on the subtitle “Many parishes ‘force feed’ subscriptions to the diocesan newspaper upon their parishioners”. It just irks me that they can’t seem to stop themselves from framing things in the worst possible language. Of course, we can’t say that “Many parishes offer a subscription to the diocesan newspaper to every parishioner because it serves to keep each and every Catholic of the parish in touch with what the bishop is doing and what major (and wonderful) diocesan events are available.” We have to tell people they are being “force fed” because, obviously, no one likes the thought that someone is trying to force something on them.

 

[ChadS]

The LSN implication is that CNS’ claim that it is financially self-supporting is erroneous. I’m sure diocesan newspapers pay CNS for the newsfeed, but would this really be any different than the local paper getting feeds from Reuters or the AP? I mean diocesan newspapers are run with a minimal staff and for them to get news of interest to the local Catholic they will have to go somewhere for it. The money that comes from the parishes to the diocesan newspapers isn’t poured directly into CNS coffers either.

While our parish doesn’t have “forced” subscriptions to the Catholic paper we do have free-will offerings each month to support the papers our parish gets. I suppose if you were so inclined you could have your name removed from getting the Catholic paper if CNS bothered you so much.

Maybe it’s just me by LSN’s article seems like it would hurt the local paper far more than it would CNS. I’m sure CNS gets paid whether the news they provide is read by one person or 10,000 people, however the local Catholic paper will certainly feel it if only one person reads their paper.

ChadS

 

[Joe_5859]

Maybe it’s just me by LSN’s article seems like it would hurt the local paper far more than it would CNS. I’m sure CNS gets paid whether the news they provide is read by one person or 10,000 people, however the local Catholic paper will certainly feel it if only one person reads their paper.

That’s my main problem, too. Since there isn’t much someone can do with regards to CNS, they advocate turning one’s attention to what they can do, which is to turn on their diocesan newspaper. This will have zero impact on CNS, but it could certainly hurt many already struggling diocesan newspapers.

It seems like a call to take it out on an innocent bystander.

Not that there aren’t any poor quality diocesan newspapers. There probably are. But I don’t think CNS has anything to do with it.

 

[ChadS]

That’s my main problem, too. Since there isn’t much someone can do with regards to CNS, they advocate turning one’s attention to what they can do, which is to turn on their diocesan newspaper. This will have zero impact on CNS, but it could certainly hurt many already struggling diocesan newspapers.

It seems like a call to take it out on an innocent bystander.

Not that there aren’t any poor quality diocesan newspapers. There probably are. But I don’t think CNS has anything to do with it.

I’m not sure how much of my paper is made up of CNS feeds. I don’t think it’s much maybe the 2nd and 3rd page have Catholic interest stories from around the globe. The rest of the paper is typically made up of local interest stories about pastor transfers, school and church functions, the Bishop’s column, scripture reflections, etc.

You’re right the only people that will get hurt will be the local paper. Perhaps the local papers need to check out what they take from CNS more closely. I don’t know if this is truly the case, but I’m sure they could run certain articles and reject most.

As for that review that angered so many of Brokeback Mountain, I think I read that in OSV and not the diocesan paper.

ChadS

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

In August 2008, a CNS feature article on the origins of the Bible offered the erroneous claim that, “The Catholic version of the Bible is actually a library of books specifically chosen to reflect Catholic teaching.” When confronted with the fact that the First Vatican Council specifically condemned this error, and that Vatican II reiterated the long held Catholic teaching that the books of Sacred Scripture are canonical for the solitary reason that they have God as their Author, Mr. Spence personally dismissed out of hand any suggestion of offering a correction.

Technically speaking, one of the easiest ways to determine whether a book was Scriptural or not would be if it accurately reflected Catholic teaching. Yes the primary source of their canonicity is being inspired by God but when disputes arose as to the canon how orthodox the books were was definitely one of the tests.

I’m also curious about who exactly this “call to reform” is coming from. Archbishop Burke made a comment yet the author seems to quote no one else other than her own opinion.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m not sure how much of my paper is made up of CNS feeds. I don’t think it’s much maybe the 2nd and 3rd page have Catholic interest stories from around the globe. The rest of the paper is typically made up of local interest stories about pastor transfers, school and church functions, the Bishop’s column, scripture reflections, etc.

You’re right the only people that will get hurt will be the local paper. Perhaps the local papers need to check out what they take from CNS more closely. I don’t know if this is truly the case, but I’m sure they could run certain articles and reject most.

As for that review that angered so many of Brokeback Mountain, I think I read that in OSV and not the diocesan paper.

ChadS

Yes, in my diocesan paper, they usually have one or two CNS “blurbs” on the front page left column, and then two pages towards the back for those national and international interest stories. They sure don’t publish anything by Kmiec, and they definitely didn’t publish the review of Brokeback Mountain. I’ve never noticed any CNS story they’ve used to be questionable.

The main point of the LSN article (that CNS could use some reform) is probably a valid point. But the way they go about making the point seems a bit off kilter.

 

[Father_of_9]

When my family and I lived in a former diocese in Iowa in the 1990’s, if I remember correctly, every household received a copy of the weekly diocesan newspaper. There were always appeals to the people asking them to pay for their “subscription”, but even if they didn’t pay, they would still receive the paper. What was bad were the frequent articles and columns that were contrary to official Church teaching on topics like abortion, homosexuality, contraception, etc. I hope that they have improved their newspaper, especially in light of the many scandals that were reported and prosecuted after we moved away.