Jesuit forced to resign?

[Ahimsa]

An American Jesuit who is a frequent television commentator on Roman Catholic issues resigned yesterday under orders from the Vatican as editor of the Catholic magazine America because he had published articles critical of church positions, several Catholic officials in the United States said.
The order to dismiss the editor, the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, was issued by the Vatican's office of doctrinal enforcement - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - in mid-March when that office was still headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter, said. Soon after, Pope John Paul II died and Cardinal Ratzinger was elected pope, taking the name Benedict XVI.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Ahimsa:

…they were not authorized to speak on the matter…

So why are they speaking? Because they are arrogant and disobedient, hiding behind the Anonymous label afraid to come out in the open.

 

[Axion]

If you are speaking in a position where you are seen as representing the Church, you have to abide by the central church teachings. That’s pretty basic.

 

[cecelia]

Father Reese is always commenting on all matters Catholic on the various cable outlets. I’ve seen him plenty of times. His answers, while nuanced, display anti-Catholic sentiments. America magazine fields articles not always supportive of the Magisterium. I for one am glad that he is resigning, and I hope that his resignation is the beginning of the cleansing of the Church which is needed. Pope Benedict mentioned as such when he said that the “New Evangelization” that we so often talk about may not be what we have in mind; rather than resulting in increased members, the new evangelization may result in a smaller Church with more fervent, orthodox members. So Father Reese and others of his ilk should be put on notice that the Church is no longer going to rely on the soft tolerance of religious dissent. With the spiritual battle that rages all around us, ersatz religious figures do more harm than good.

 

[tcreek1]

This should have happened several years ago. Father Reese has used the magazine *America *to publish views contrary to official Church doctrine from the day he became editor. The magazine had been warned about Fr. Reese’s columns.

Their response was that they published both sides of the issue.
That was absurd. The Truth of Jesus Christ as officially taught by the Catholic Church does not have two sides.

Go Joe!!!

 

[Eden]

:clapping: Hooray!

 

[Philip_P]

tcreek1:

Their response was that they published both sides of the issue. That was absurd. The Truth of Jesus Christ as officially taught by the Catholic Church does not have two sides.

Axiom:

If you are speaking in a position where you are seen as representing the Church, you have to abide by the central church teachings. That’s pretty basic.

Maybe I’m just not following here and there’s more to the story. My understanding, though, is that on issues where there has been some controversy within the Church, America sometimes would publish articles representing both sides of the controversy. Because of this, the editor was forced to resign?

First, is this an accurate statement of the situation? Second, in response to Axiom, I’m not sure that posting both sides of an issue amounts to a contradiction of official Church teaching. If the articles said 'X is official Church teaching" when in fact Y is what the Church teaches, maybe, bu if instead it was “X is official Church teaching, but Y is what some people are saying,” then your point does not hold.

In response to Tccreek, I believe honesty is a Catholic virtue as well. We do not believe something the Vatican says simply because the Vatican said it, but because it is in conformance with the the Traditions of the Church. For instance, if the Church tomorrow were to say that Jesus was not the Son of God, we would not just blindly accept it because the Vatican said so. We would challenge it as being the complete opposite of the Truths held by the Church. On some controversial issues, some people have a difficult time reconciling their understanding of Vatican statements with their understanding of Church Tradition. Are you saying that we should force these people to lie, making them say publically that they believe something when in fact they do not? Surely dialog is necessary. After all, if we truly believe that the Church holds the Truth, why the desire to repress dialog, which can only lead to a fuller understanding of the Truth?

 

[mlchance]

Philip P:

After all, if we truly believe that the Church holds the Truth, why the desire to repress dialog, which can only lead to a fuller understanding of the Truth?

It is not a rule that dialogue leads to fuller understanding. In fact, the opposite can be just as true. Let’s say, purely as a hypothetical, that a reputedly Catholic magazine consistently runs editorials about how the Church needs to “update” her teaching about homosexuality so as to condone monogamous homosexual relationships as morally right and therefore worthy of the sacrament of matrimony.

Is this truly a dialogue that should occur?

No, it isn’t. It serves to give the wrong side of the argument a voice that takes on the appearance of legitimacy. In the process, it gives hope to those who seek to corrupt the Church and sows confusion among the faithful.

Catholic magazines, universities, schools, et cetera, ought teach exactly what the Church teaches. If they cannot do that, they ought to have the decency to stop claiming to be Catholic.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Philip_P]

Catholic magazines, universities, schools, et cetera, ought teach exactly what the Church teaches. If they cannot do that, they ought to have the decency to stop claiming to be Catholic.

But I don’t think a magazine is necessarily “teaching” anything. It’s providing a forum. Should anyone on these CA forums be expelled if they say anything not strictly orthodox? I guess it comes down to how you view a magazine - as a medium for discussion, or for instruction. I lean toward discussion, since we already have things like the Catechism for instruction.

mlchance:

It is not a rule that dialogue leads to fuller understanding. In fact, the opposite can be just as true. Let’s say, purely as a hypothetical, that a reputedly Catholic magazine consistently runs editorials about how the Church needs to “update” her teaching about homosexuality so as to condone monogamous homosexual relationships as morally right and therefore worthy of the sacrament of matrimony. Is this truly a dialogue that should occur?

Yes, it is a dialog that should occur, because if people are still questioning the stance then there still exists confusion and uncertainty about it. True dialog helps clarify positions and thus helps to develop a stronger, more convincing articulation for a position. For instance, look at the issue of women’s ordination. The Vatican said that the matter is closed. You can’t simply declare a disagreement nonexistent by fiat, though. Obviously, a great number of people still find the Church’s position unconvincing. The Church should use criticism as an opportunity to further develop it’s arguments. Simply saying “because I told you so,” doesn’t cut it.

Again, if we truly believe that the Church has the Truth, why are we afraid of dialog? Do we think that the Truth can’t stand on its own? Do we have such little confidence in the Church that we must protect her from hard questions?

 

[toutestgrace]

Philip P:

Again, if we truly believe that the Church has the Truth, why are we afraid of dialog? Do we think that the Truth can’t stand on its own? Do we have such little confidence in the Church that we must protect her from hard questions?

I agree. However, America is never consistent in presenting official Church teaching along with opposing views. A dialogue needs a presentation of both sides. Any responsible Catholic journal should have no problem doing this. (Pssst - they’d have more readers if they did.)

 

[BobCatholic]

Br. Rich SFO:

So why are they speaking? Because they are arrogant and disobedient, hiding behind the Anonymous label afraid to come out in the open.

or a mirror is cracking the whip on them.

same thing.

 

[Philip_P]

toutestgrace:

I agree. However, America is never consistent in presenting official Church teaching along with opposing views. A dialogue needs a presentation of both sides. Any responsible Catholic journal should have no problem doing this. (Pssst - they’d have more readers if they did.)

I don’t read America regularly, so I can’t really respond to this (i.e. if they consistenly presented both sides). As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don’t fully know the situation. However, I suspect that many on these forums are similarly ignorant. What I’m trying to respond to is the belief that if a magazine, university, or other institution is Catholic, it can ONLY speak within the bounds of orthodoxy and can never engage in dialog beyond these bounds. I think that’s a dangerous position that can only weaken the Church.

 

[msproule]

It’s about time!

I find it humorous how Father Reese attempts to pass this off as a decision in accord with a Jesuit practice of maintaining only a 6-7 year job cycle. As if he really wanted to depart from the liberal media spotlight that he seemed to so eagerly share with Father Richard McBrien (currently) of Notre Dame University. I am sure that if Pope Benedict XVI had not been elected, Father Reese would have found a way to make an exception to the supposed Jesuit job cycle rule.

 

[fix]

Philip P:

I don’t read America regularly, so I can’t really respond to this (i.e. if they consistenly presented both sides). As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don’t fully know the situation. However, I suspect that many on these forums are similarly ignorant. What I’m trying to respond to is the belief that if a magazine, university, or other institution is Catholic, it can ONLY speak within the bounds of orthodoxy and can never engage in dialog beyond these bounds. I think that’s a dangerous position that can only weaken the Church.

What do you mine by dialogue? The Church teaches the fullness of truth. If you mean the Church should explain things more, that may be reasonable, but to be honest She explains things very well, the problem is few accept the truth.

Magazines like America are well known to allow positions to be presented that are nothing more than dissent. There is no room for dissent in the faith.

Dialogue should mean asking questions to grow in deeper understanding. We should accept first and try to understand second. Dialogue does not mean saying Church teaching is wrong. Dialogue does not mean claiming orthodoxy, but really pushing error.

I am glad Reese is gone and I hope the next guy is more faithful and honest.

 

[fix]

Philip P:

But I don’t think a magazine is necessarily “teaching” anything. It’s providing a forum.

It should not be a forum for dissent, or leading others astray, or leading others into doubt. A Catholic magazine for public consumption should be loyal to the Church, be edifying and not be a tool of the dissenting left wing.

 

[estesbob]

Philip P:

For instance, look at the issue of women’s ordination. The Vatican said that the matter is closed. You can’t simply declare a disagreement nonexistent by fiat, though. Obviously, a great number of people still find the Church’s position unconvincing. The Church should use criticism as an opportunity to further develop it’s arguments. Simply saying “because I told you so,” doesn’t cut it.

QUOTE]

Depends on the kind of dialogue you want. If a supposedly Catholic magazine takes the side, for instance, that women should be ordained , they are not truly a Cathoilic magazine. The idea that a great number of people dont like the Church’s position on the ordination of women or any other matter of doctrine is totally irelevant. Our Church is not a sports team trying to fnd ways to fill seats.

I think the Church has handled the issue of Ordination of women correctly. They have stated repeatedly that they are not going to overturn 2,000 years of tradition and teachings to accomodate the whims of the realatively (worldwide) few who want to make this change.

The dialogue should be not to give credence to the view opposing a matter of doctrone-it should be a frim affirmation of Church teachings and what it is based on.

 

[Philip_P]

fix:

What do you mine by dialogue? The Church teaches the fullness of truth. If you mean the Church should explain things more, that may be reasonable, but to be honest She explains things very well, the problem is few accept the truth.

No, she does not always explain things very well. Let’s return to the issue of women’s ordination. I know what the Church says, and the reasons puts forth in support of the position, but I find them unconvincing. Now, I’m not about to go around ordaining women, or picketing in front of the Vatican, or anything like that, I simply state that I don’t find the official line very convincing. So when I’m challenged by a non-Catholic to defend this stance, I can’t, because if I myself find the arguments insufficient, how am I supposed to explain this to someone who’s not even Catholic?

This is precisely why dialog is important. The Church puts forward her position. Those who criticize the position put forward their arguments. Now, in true dialog, the object is not to “win,” but to work together (critique, reform, critique, reform) to fashion a better, stronger, and ultimately more defensible articulation of the position.

By quashing any and all dissent, what this does is force criticism outside of the Church. Now instead of constructive dialog, we have destructive fighting, with factions hostile and opposed to each other. The questions aren’t going to stop, but now they’re being used to attack, not to correct or reform. The Church, meanwhile, is forced into a defensive position, adopting a “siege mentality.” This is a bad situation for everyone. Better to keep discussion “in-house,” rather than force schism and foment conflict.

 

[tom.wineman]

About time ! Now the Jesuits should ask him to leave.

 

[fix]

Philip P:

No, she does not always explain things very well. Let’s return to the issue of women’s ordination. I know what the Church says, and the reasons puts forth in support of the position, but I find them unconvincing. Now, I’m not about to go around ordaining women, or picketing in front of the Vatican, or anything like that, I simply state that I don’t find the official line very convincing. So when I’m challenged by a non-Catholic to defend this stance, I can’t, because if I myself find the arguments insufficient, how am I supposed to explain this to someone who’s not even Catholic?

She has made some very good arguments and folks keep agitating for priestesses. The Pope finally had to say to stop discussing it because so many disregarded Her teaching.

In the end, no argument will be accepted by all. The fundamental truth that we must accept is that the Church is the authority, not us.

This is precisely why dialog is important. The Church puts forward her position. Those who criticize the position put forward their arguments. Now, in true dialog, the object is not to “win,” but to work together (critique, reform, critique, reform) to fashion a better, stronger, and ultimately more defensible articulation of the position.

That is not what it is about at all. The average person is not a theologian. They should assent to all her teachings first, then God will give the grace to understand if needed.

By quashing any and all dissent, what this does is force criticism outside of the Church.

No, that is not accurate. Questions are fine. Dissent is wrong. Dissent is saying I am the final authority and the Church is below me.

Now instead of constructive dialog, we have destructive fighting, with factions hostile and opposed to each other. The questions aren’t going to stop, but now they’re being used to attack, not to correct or reform. The Church, meanwhile, is forced into a defensive position, adopting a “siege mentality.” This is a bad situation for everyone. Better to keep discussion “in-house,” rather than force schism and foment conflict.

Again, the opposite is true. The years of not disciplining the rebellious has led many into error and darkness. Discussion to grow deeper in the truth is great. Dissenting is not from the holy Spirit. It is from the human spirit or the evil spirit. Cheerful obedience will lead one to holiness much faster than dissent ever will.

 

[MiddleBear]

I say good riddance to the dissenters.

The dissenters are (unfortunately) shown non-Catholics in the secular media as examples of what the Catholics Church is about. How many never enter the Church due to misconceptions spouted in the Media?

The dissenters also lead many in-iformed (un-catechized) Catholics away from ever learning authoritative Church teaching. For example, many (millions) baby boomers have ‘fallen away’ due to the dissent to Humanae Vitae. But to a major extent they were never taught the Catholic faith in the first place, so they many not have really fallen away. They were misled by ambigious dissent passed off as valid teaching.

The Church is very clear regarding why the Chuch can not (does not have the authority) have ordained priestess’s. One can go back and read the Church Councils starting with Nicea.
Read the pertainent documents from Council of Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II and post counciliar documents (Pope Paul VI and John PAul II). The reasoning is very clear. However one need faith! And faith is a gift. Be open to receiving the gift!