S
Soutane
Guest
USCCB Official Disputes Cardinal George’s Criticism of Sr. Keehan and CHA
Commentary by Deal Hudson
June 23, 2010 (InsideCatholic.com) - Last week, when the USCCB meeting in St. Petersburg coincided with the Catholic Health Association summit in Denver, the Catholic News Agency (CNA) ran several stories based on the testimonies of bishops attending the meeting.
One of these stories got a great deal of attention. In it, Cardinal George castigated Sr. Keehan and the CHA for attempting to set up a “parallel magisterium” by defying the bishops’ opposition to the recent health care legislation.
That same day, John Allen, from the National Catholic Reporter, interviewed Cardinal George on the issue. The Cardinal effectively corroborated what CNA had reported based upon the testimony of others who had attended the USCCB meeting.
Allen quoted Cardinal George as saying, “The dispute with the CHA involves a core ecclesiological principle about the nature of the Church itself, one that has to concern the bishops – namely, ‘Who speaks for the Church on faith and morals?”’
“The bishops have to protect their role in governing the Church,” the cardinal said.
Yesterday, Helen Osman, Secretary of Communications for the USCCB disputed the CNA report – but not Allen’s from NCR – on the USCCB media blog:
It appears that [the] Catholic News Agency would benefit from a similar strategy. To put it plain and simple, the quotes they attribute to Cardinal Francis George in their story (also posted on EWTN) are just wrong. I was in the room, as a member of the USCCB staff, for the presentation. And the official audio file that recorded the session for USCCB archives confirms my memory.
While the cardinal did present a sequence of events to the bishops, he never used the phrase “so-called Catholic,” accused the Catholic Health Association of creating a “parallel magisterium,” or said the meeting of the three bishops with Sr. Keehan had “frustrating results.” And that’s just three examples. Not to mention that the reporting of the events is just plain wrong: for an example, the Stupak Amendment was not defeated in the Senate in December 2009, as the article states
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10062302.html
Commentary by Deal Hudson
June 23, 2010 (InsideCatholic.com) - Last week, when the USCCB meeting in St. Petersburg coincided with the Catholic Health Association summit in Denver, the Catholic News Agency (CNA) ran several stories based on the testimonies of bishops attending the meeting.
One of these stories got a great deal of attention. In it, Cardinal George castigated Sr. Keehan and the CHA for attempting to set up a “parallel magisterium” by defying the bishops’ opposition to the recent health care legislation.
That same day, John Allen, from the National Catholic Reporter, interviewed Cardinal George on the issue. The Cardinal effectively corroborated what CNA had reported based upon the testimony of others who had attended the USCCB meeting.
Allen quoted Cardinal George as saying, “The dispute with the CHA involves a core ecclesiological principle about the nature of the Church itself, one that has to concern the bishops – namely, ‘Who speaks for the Church on faith and morals?”’
“The bishops have to protect their role in governing the Church,” the cardinal said.
Yesterday, Helen Osman, Secretary of Communications for the USCCB disputed the CNA report – but not Allen’s from NCR – on the USCCB media blog:
It appears that [the] Catholic News Agency would benefit from a similar strategy. To put it plain and simple, the quotes they attribute to Cardinal Francis George in their story (also posted on EWTN) are just wrong. I was in the room, as a member of the USCCB staff, for the presentation. And the official audio file that recorded the session for USCCB archives confirms my memory.
While the cardinal did present a sequence of events to the bishops, he never used the phrase “so-called Catholic,” accused the Catholic Health Association of creating a “parallel magisterium,” or said the meeting of the three bishops with Sr. Keehan had “frustrating results.” And that’s just three examples. Not to mention that the reporting of the events is just plain wrong: for an example, the Stupak Amendment was not defeated in the Senate in December 2009, as the article states
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10062302.html