CruxNow - faithful to the magisterium?

[commenter]

Would this apply to an independent news source that reports on Catholic issues but does not purport to be Catholic itself (assuming such an entity even exists)?

It depends on what kinds of “news”. Some websites are heavily theological. They strongly imply, without actually stating, that they are Catholic sources. I made reference to Pascendi, because prior
portions of that Encyclical are often quoted by websites that themselves ignore sections 52, 53, or nearby sections. The whole Encyclical is important.

 

[EXdrinker]

By definition, these sources are not faithful to the Magisterium. Catholics setting up a religious media without approval of their Ordinary are in defiance of Pascendi (Pope St Pius X), Vatican 2, the Code of Canon Law, and other things.

Thank you for providing the sources that led you to conclude, “By definition, these sources are not faithful to the Magisterium. Catholics setting up a religious media without approval of their Ordinary are in defiance of Pascendi (Pope St Pius X), Vatican 2, the Code of Canon Law, and other things.”

I certainly do not see your conclusion following from those sources. Do you know of any discussions anywhere that you can point to that discuss these sources and their relation to modern catholic apostolates? This seems a great leap to get to your conclusion. I am just wondering how you got there.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m certainly no fan of the NCReporter, but I’ve been reading John Allen’s articles for many years. I think it’s to his credit as a reporter that I simply cannot tell where his biases lie. He presents facts and often great insight into what those facts mean without being a cheerleader for any particular side. That to me is the mark of a great journalist.

 

[Wampa]

Based on my following of John Allen’s work for more than a decade, as well as reading his painstakingly even-handed book about Opus Dei, I consider him one of the most well-rounded and fair-minded Catholic journalists out there. As Joe said, I can’t tell where his biases lie, which is the mark of an excellent journalist.

Where does John Allen stand on Church teaching? I can’t tell, and that’s a good thing, given his profession.

 

[poche]

There are a lot of publications that call themselves Catholic but really aren’t. I think it would be wise to use a Catholic Catechism filter at all times

 

[HomeschoolDad]

commenter:

By definition, these sources are not faithful to the Magisterium. Catholics setting up a religious media without approval of their Ordinary are in defiance of Pascendi (Pope St Pius X), Vatican 2, the Code of Canon Law, and other things.

Thank you for providing the sources that led you to conclude, “By definition, these sources are not faithful to the Magisterium. Catholics setting up a religious media without approval of their Ordinary are in defiance of Pascendi (Pope St Pius X), Vatican 2, the Code of Canon Law, and other things.”

I certainly do not see your conclusion following from those sources. Do you know of any discussions anywhere that you can point to that discuss these sources and their relation to modern catholic apostolates? This seems a great leap to get to your conclusion. I am just wondering how you got there.

I have read all of these source documents (the relevant portions) and I don’t see it either. At any rate, an independent newspaper or website that reports on the Catholic Church — as opposed to “reports for” the Catholic Church — does not seem to fall under even a stricter interpretation of Pascendi, let alone the other sources. It would have been unusual, 100+ years ago, for a newspaper to exist that was dedicated to reportage on the Catholic Church, yet was not under her auspices, but that would not be so unusual anymore. As I noted elsewhere on this thread, Stars and Stripes reports on the US military and is widely read by military personnel, but it is entirely independent of the military. Similar, the newspaper The Hill reports on the US Congress, but is not part of it.

I find myself in the curious position of being an unreconstructed traditionalist (yet, as traditionalists go, I am pretty liberal) almost defending the role of the National Catholic Reporter. Well, all I can say, “it is what it is”, and I would just like to see them obey their bishop and drop the word “Catholic” from their masthead, just as Michael Voris — a man who never fails to elicit strong opinions from all quarters — did when he renamed his website “Church Militant”.

 

[EXdrinker]

I find myself in the curious position of being an unreconstructed traditionalist (yet, as traditionalists go, I am pretty liberal) almost defending the role of the National Catholic Reporter . Well, all I can say, “it is what it is”, and I would just like to see them obey their bishop and drop the word “Catholic” from their masthead, just as Michael Voris — a man who never fails to elicit strong opinions from all quarters — did when he renamed his website “Church Militant”.

Exactly. The faithful respond to the bishop’s authority even if they do not believe the bishop to be a good son of the church. The bishop has authority over the faithful to use or not use the term catholic in their name. The faithful respond to the bishop when he has authority. The response by Michael Voris to not hold on to the real catholic tv title essentially gave strong evidence that he is fathful to the church.

 

[commenter]

At any rate, an independent newspaper or website that reports on the Catholic Church — as opposed to “reports for ” the Catholic Church — does not seem to fall under even a stricter interpretation of Pascendi , let alone the other sources

What specific media sources, in your opinion, would be prohibited by the documents cited, and should not be supported by Catholics? Cite magazines or websites.

 

[commenter]

I find myself in the curious position of being an unreconstructed traditionalist (yet, as traditionalists go, I am pretty liberal) almost defending the role of the National Catholic Reporter . Well, all I can say, “it is what it is”, and I would just like to see them obey their bishop and drop the word “Catholic” from their masthead

It’s not at all curious. The NCR, Call to Action, Catholics for Choice, are not the opposite of CM, 1P5, Rorate. Their position regarding the bishops is mostly the same.

The bishop did ask NCR to drop the word Catholic from their title, but prior to that he withdrew permission for them to publish, at all, regardless of their title. In the 1960s it was unusual to publish without permission, but now it’s fairly common. A lot of other things are more common than in the 1960s. That doesn’t make them right, in 2020.

 

[commenter]

The bishop has authority over the faithful to use or not use the term catholic in their name.

Read the citation from Canon Law. That’s not what it says. Countless media apostolates that are not run by a Diocese, do not have the word Catholic in their name, but Maintain relationship with their bishop. That’s consistent with Canon Law. Other websites imply they are Catholic, offer theological interpretation as if they were Catholic, use Catholic terminology in fundraising, in effect speak for the Church and Catholic Tradition, are referred to as Catholic, but refuse relationship with their Ordinary. Thus they are prohibited in the eyes of Pope St Pius X, V2, or Canon Law.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

At any rate, an independent newspaper or website that reports on the Catholic Church — as opposed to “reports for ” the Catholic Church — does not seem to fall under even a stricter interpretation of Pascendi , let alone the other sources

What specific media sources, in your opinion, would be prohibited by the documents cited, and should not be supported by Catholics? Cite magazines or websites.

A magazine or website that purports to speak in support of the Catholic Church, to teach Catholic theology, to engage in Catholic apologetics, or to promote Catholic faith and devotions, does indeed need to have a relationship with the local bishop. A media source that does not do these things, but rather reports on Catholic matters, would not be a “Catholic media source” per se. They might run columns or advertisements by various Catholic entities, but they could run a disclaimer saying that these do not necessarily reflect the opinion of their magazine or website.

I’m not sure such an entity exists at present. Very broadly speaking, a secular or quasi-secular magazine such as National Review, Chronicles, Commonweal, or First Things, would be the closest thing. Not to sound Clintonesque, but it depends upon what the meaning of the phrase “Catholic media source” is.

 

[EXdrinker]

EXdrinker:

The bishop has authority over the faithful to use or not use the term catholic in their name.

Read the citation from Canon Law. That’s not what it says. Countless media apostolates that are not run by a Diocese, do not have the word Catholic in their name, but Maintain relationship with their bishop. That’s consistent with Canon Law. Other websites imply they are Catholic, offer theological interpretation as if they were Catholic, use Catholic terminology in fundraising, in effect speak for the Church and Catholic Tradition, are referred to as Catholic, but refuse relationship with their Ordinary. Thus they are prohibited in the eyes of Pope St Pius X, V2, or Canon Law

Code of Canon Law, Book 3, title 4:
Can. 823 §1. “In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals.”

In the estimation of Real Catholic TV, the bishop had the authority to identify who can use the term “catholic” in their name. Whether or not that is technically correct I think most faithful catholics would believe this should be the case.

The wording in Canon Law seems to say that the bishop has the right and duty to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith and morals of the faithful through social communication. He also has the right and duty to condemn writings which harm faith and good morals. He may even have some right to have the items to be published sent to him first, before being published. He does not seem to have the right to be consulted or even be a part of every apostolate. I bet Church Militant would give his emminence as much time as he wanted for a one on one interview about anything that they have published there so that he could identify what is harmful to faith and good morals.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The wording in Canon Law seems to say that the bishop has the right and duty to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith and morals of the faithful through social communication. He also has the right and duty to condemn writings which harm faith and good morals

This is at of the crux of the matter. Thanks for highlighting this.

I bet Church Militant would give his emminence as much time as he wanted for a one on one interview about anything that they have published there so that he could identify what is harmful to faith and good morals.

No doubt. I have every confidence that all the Archbishop of Detroit would have to do, is to make such a request, and Voris would immediately honor it. Such an interview would make for interesting viewing.

 

[tafan2]

Where does John Allen stand on Church teaching? I can’t tell, and that’s a good thing, given his profession.

I do not recall reading anything that Mr Allen has written as to calling in question his adherence to Church teaching.

 

[Wampa]

I do not recall reading anything that Mr Allen has written as to calling in question his adherence to Church teaching.

Me, either! If he harbors any dissenting thoughts (I’m not suggesting he does), he vigorously keeps them out of his reporting.

 

[tafan2]

Perhaps I read too much into your previous statement. I should have been more clear, from reading Mr Allen, it seems clear to me that he is faithful to the magisterium.

 

[redimerfortitudo]

I’ve looked at many news sites on both sides. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the NCReporter is anything but Catholic - this was evident to me even when I was still Deist/agnostic & seeking. I see that many people here like to defend crux on the basis of John Allen…and him alone. Quite frankly, i don’t understand this. Crux is much more than just John Allen. There are many other people writing on there - even if he is in charge over there, that doesn’t mean everyone there will be like him.

I’ve been looking at Crux since the priest scandal summer of shame & the whole Amazon Synod thing. I agree with you guys that there is hardly anything “theology” in their writing…I would say there is hardly any Faith in their writing. Reporting & Faith isn’t something you can just separate…especially in a “catholic” news source. This is just an extension of the individualism & privatization of the faith… Crux very much feels secular, like it were still part of the Boston Globe. This is not a strength - it is a weakness.

I’m not going to speak for John Allen, but I have noticed a consistent pattern in Crux. No, it is not explicit in promoting heterodoxy like a site such as National Catholic Reporter, U.S. Catholic, or (sometimes) American magazine often do. Crux is MUCH more subtle. Crux doesn’t push anything on you explicitly, but rather they work by what they push to the front AND WHAT THEY DON’T.

Take the recent confusion over whether the Final Document of the Amazon Synod was magisterial or not. Crux reported what Czerny said but failed to report what the Baldessari or Bruni said about how to interpret the final document - implicitly favoring the more liberal position.

Take this example from today (March 21st 2020). I can’t post links so look it up yourself. It is titled
“Advocate says quest for female deacons not over, despite silence in pope’s Amazon document” by Christopher White.

Look at the title of the article - claiming Pope Francis was silent on female deaconesses. I read Querida Amazonia, Pope Francis clearly said we need to stop working ourselves up over power dynamics (female empowerment through ordination) and that women should look to a role more suited to their feminine spirituality, ala the Blessed Mother. Was he silent because he didn’t explicitly refer to women deacons? No, you don’t need to explicitly mention something to obviously be referring to something. What else would he have been talking about?

The whole article itself is basically giving a platform to an advocate for women deacons, giving her a stage onto which give her arguments to try and convince people for why there should be women deacons. Notice, they don’t present the converse side. They don’t present someone on the opposite side of the issue to either rebut or give their arguments for why we should maintain current Church teaching.

Crux is subtle, but I am very hesitant to consider them faithful to the Magisterium.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I’ve looked at many news sites on both sides. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the NCReporter is anything but Catholic - this was evident to me even when I was still Deist/agnostic & seeking. I see that many people here like to defend crux on the basis of John Allen…and him alone. Quite frankly, i don’t understand this. Crux is much more than just John Allen. There are many other people writing on there - even if he is in charge over there, that doesn’t mean everyone there will be like him…
I’m not going to speak for John Allen, but I have noticed a consistent pattern in Crux. No, it is not explicit in promoting heterodoxy like a site such as National Catholic Reporter, U.S. Catholic, or (sometimes) American magazine often do. Crux is MUCH more subtle. Crux doesn’t push anything on you explicitly, but rather they work by what they push to the front AND WHAT THEY DON’T.

Take the recent confusion over whether the Final Document of the Amazon Synod was magisterial or not. Crux reported what Czerny said but failed to report what the Baldessari or Bruni said about how to interpret the final document - implicitly favoring the more liberal position.

Take this example from today (March 21st 2020). I can’t post links so look it up yourself. It is titled
“Advocate says quest for female deacons not over, despite silence in pope’s Amazon document” by Christopher White.

Look at the title of the article - claiming Pope Francis was silent on female deaconesses. I read Querida Amazonia, Pope Francis clearly said we need to stop working ourselves up over power dynamics (female empowerment through ordination) and that women should look to a role more suited to their feminine spirituality, ala the Blessed Mother. Was he silent because he didn’t explicitly refer to women deacons? No, you don’t need to explicitly mention something to obviously be referring to something. What else would he have been talking about?

The whole article itself is basically giving a platform to an advocate for women deacons… Notice, they don’t present the converse side. They don’t present someone on the opposite side of the issue to either rebut or give their arguments for why we should maintain current Church teaching.

Crux is subtle, but I am very hesitant to consider them faithful to the Magisterium.

This is exactly what I was getting at. Not all Catholic journalism has to be The Wanderer — in fact, I wouldn’t even want it to be, and I find very little to dislike about The Wanderer aside from those looooong, involved, complicated articles, more reminiscent of serious European or Latin American newspapers, have they never heard of the “inverted pyramid” format for news stories? — but I like to know whether a news source is supportive of the magisterium, or even “just neutral”. I could live with “just neutral” if it were, as I have brought out above, an independent news source that reports on the Catholic Church. But in journalism, emphasis means a lot.