So, what constitutes “fairness”?
That’s a fair question!
(I couldn’t resist.) Seriously, though, in a *secular *paper, I think that fairness means seeking out those with different views (however many “sides” there are to a story) and accurately portraying their positions so that readers can make up their minds. Also, when plain facts are relevent, they should be clearly reported.
In a *Catholic *context, I think that fairness is a little different, as reporters are covering, in many cases, aspects of the Truth as taught by Our Lord and His Church. Therefore, views that deviate from the Truth cannot be held to be equally valid – one is true, all others are false. So, a Catholic reporter should clearly state the relevant authoritative Church teaching and examples of its application, while acknowledging, if necessary, that some within the Church dissent. I also would consider it useful for the reporter to provide a rebuttal to heretical arguments, given by an authority (Catechism, papal document, etc.). After all, the purpose of a Catholic paper is to explain the beautiful teachings of our Church to Her people, and to evangelize to those who are not yet Catholic. A Catholic paper is not just another local paper!
By “promotes heresy”, do you mean that the Reporter (1) recommended that people go out and become heretics; or (2) reported on stories that involved heretical ideas?
I mean the latter leading to the former, namely, that the *Reporter *conveys by its fawning coverage of heretical groups and ideas (without credible rebuttal), and its editorial positions, that heresy is as valid as Truth, which therefore may lead those who read it to themselves embrace heresy, to become heretics.
Is it really heresy? I view most Reporter pieces, like the US Catholic’s former editor ran that publication, to have an open theological debate on all subjects, no matter how touchy to present the diversity of opinion in church theological circles. Otherwise you are not giving a valid discussion of the issues, which then hurts the entire institution.
Sure, there are some subjects that are open to debate. As an example, just pulled out of my muddled-mommy mind: is it moral for the Church to promote or condone the use of condoms to slow the spread of AIDS, or must the Church insist on abstinence outside of marriage alone? There are theologians and bishops who have come down on both sides of this, and the pope or other Church authority (to my knowledge) has not made a firm statement on it, so it can thus be debated fairly in Catholic publications.
However, “debate on all subjects” is *not *acceptable because the popes have declared some subjects closed. For example, Pope John Paul II declared that the Church *cannot *ordain women as priests, and thus closed the subject, yet many “Catholic” publications continue to debate the issue and promote ordination as if that had never happened! Such debate does nothing to help the Church, but only ferments discord, keeps people away from the Church, and keeps us from fighting the spiritual battles that really matter.
Sometimes, I think that such debates are not a sign of healthy theological discussion, but immaturity. I’m sure Fr. Dan, who came into my junior high classroom each week to answer our questions about the Faith, is having a chuckle in Heaven now to see me arguing against debate on women’s ordination, as I was that annoying girl who tried to turn every class on any topic into a forum for how “unfair” it is for the Church to deny women ordination. But, thanks be to God, Fr. Dan put up with me and I was able to outgrow my old views and submit myself to the Church!
