Crazy? Angry? You decide and I couldn’t care less!

Disturbed at America Magazine

I spent the morning reading not a one, but a TWO-part interview with Bishop McElroy. Oh, joy. I’ll spare you reading the vast majority of it. More of the same, of course: “Pre-eminent bad,” “Over 75% of the U.S. Bishops divisive,” blah, blah, blah. As I was wishing the endless redundant whining would come to an end, I noticed another headline in the side-bar. Believe it or not, seems that J.D. Long-Garcia at America has a bit of a nagging conscience. I have one bit of advice for him: get out now and find a new job!

Anyway, here’s the final snippet from Q&A with Bishop McElroy. All I have to say about it, because I’ve already addressed Bishop McElroy’s hypocritical nature in many pieces, is this: When are you going to comment on the German bishops, Bishop McElroy?!?! Oh, yeah, never.

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/10/08/bishop-melroy-pope-francis-ewtn-241599 

Twice this year—on the trip to Iraq and again in his conversation with Jesuits in Bratislava—Pope Francis expressed his concern over the attacks that are being made against him by EWTN. I know that senior Vatican officials are also greatly concerned about this. I find it difficult to understand why the U.S. bishops do not defend him against such attacks. What do you have to say on this?

In recent years, major figures and programs within EWTN have reflected with ever greater prominence a systematic oppositional tone to many of the major priorities of this pontificate, often accompanied with caricature and scorn. The continual attention to the worldview of Archbishop [Carlos Maria] Viganò, the despicable treatment of the Amazon Synod, the not so subtle efforts to paint Pope Francis as theologically deficient and doctrinally suspect, when amplified by the largest religious media empire in the world, have become a source of disunity and distortion within the life of the church which can no longer be ignored.

It is essential for the leadership of the network to decide whether or not it truly wishes to pursue its mission cum Petro et sub Petro (with Peter and under Peter).

I’m pretty sure that EWTN’s consternation is that they very much want to be “cum Petro et sub Petro.” J.D. Long-Garcia seems he might think that too. If so, he might not be long for America Magazine. Wee too much of a conscience. Must be the Dominican part of his education winning out over his Jesuit part.

I love Pope Francis. But his criticism of EWTN disturbs me as a journalist.

As soon as I saw the photograph, I knew. It had to be the front page.

It was one of the first times I picked the front-page story for the diocesan newspaper where, at the time, I served as editor. I wanted to call attention to a special annual Mass, celebrated for all immigrants.

The photo was of a woman receiving Communion while holding her toddler. I thought the tender moment would connect with all readers and would underscore the dignity of migrants. But I was also prepared for negative feedback—because anytime we covered immigration, we would get an earful.

Probably because how to handle illegal immigration is a prudential judgment, and you can bet the faithful would push back if you tried to declare it a pre-eminent issue.

The morning after the paper was distributed, a long voicemail was waiting for me on my office line. But the complaint was not what I expected. The woman, a religious sister who worked at one of our parishes, was outraged.

How dare we run a photo of a person receiving the Eucharist on the tongue? And on the cover? Is this what we can expect from the archbishop going forward? It’s like Vatican II never happened, she said. What’s next? Will he make priests celebrate all Masses in Latin?

I was baffled. The woman in the photograph clearly had her hands full, with her daughter in her arms; she was not kneeling or wearing a mantilla. The image was identified as being from the annual Mass for all immigrants. Like many Latinos, this woman may also have been in the habit of receiving Communion on the tongue. The picture was not intended as a harbinger (or rejection of) of liturgical reform.

Oh, J.D. you’re so naïve. Honestly, you seem like a good chap who cares about all people. Most at America Magazine and many in the L.A. Archdiocese (I’m assuming this is where it transpired) are ideologues or egomaniacs in it for the celebrity, not for the poor people they claim to care about. I don’t know why this would still baffle you. Not really sure why you felt the need to qualify no mantilla or kneeling. What if she was kneeling, wearing a mantilla and receiving on the tongue? Why should that matter to the plight of the immigrant? You’re falling into the trap.

It was a quick and painful reminder for me of the fraught world of ecclesial commentary and perception, a world where an important factor in the reception of information or critique is the collection of filters one already possesses. What about that photo said anything about me or about the archbishop for whom I worked?

This all came to mind when I read Pope Francis’ recent comments singling out a Catholic television network he described as “having no hesitation in continually speaking ill of the pope.” Many have concluded that the network in question is EWTN, one of the largest religious media networks in the world.

“I personally deserve attacks and insults because I am a sinner, but the church does not deserve them,” the pope said. “They are the work of the devil. I have also said this to some of them.”

Personally, the problem here I have with the pope’s attacks on EWTN is quite plainly stated in the meme that’s been going around as of late: “Truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like to be challenged.” Nobody is attacking “The Church,” but they are very concerned with many of the things Pope Francis has done. Simply saying “He’s the Pope!” isn’t sufficient. We all know there have been bad and even downright evil popes in the past.Why doesn’t the pope feel the need to explain himself to his flock, especially when asked by cardinals and bishops for clarification? If bishops are stating lies, why doesn’t he correct them for their sake?

In addition to its television network, EWTN operates Catholic News Agency and The National Catholic Register. The latter was one of two outlets that published letters by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò accusing Pope Francis and others of covering up sexual abuse by former cardinal Theodore McCarrick and demanding the pope resign. Raymond Arroyo, the host of EWTN’s “The World Over,” interviewed Archbishop Viganò on his program.

Pope Francis did not do much to dispel the accusations in the letter, at least not directly. On Aug. 26, 2018, aboard the papal plane from Dublin, journalists asked him about the letter, which had been released days earlier. “I will not say a single word about this,” Francis said. “I think this statement speaks for itself, and you have sufficient journalistic capacity to draw conclusions.” He expressed his preference that journalists use their “professional maturity” to carry out the task.

Isn’t it fair to ask why he will not speak a word about this?! “Professional maturity?” He is the pope! J.D. is quite right that he hasn’t done much to dispel the accusations. So what are the faithful supposed to do with that?

In addition to its coverage of the Viganò letter, EWTN and its other outlets published criticism of Francis’ motu proprio “Traditionis Custodes,” which restricted the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. As reported by America, Francis said EWTN should “stop speaking badly about me” on his trip from Rome to Baghdad in March.

EWTN is so horrible for stating the obvious? I mean, it’s hardly just them. It’s quite a few bishops and cardinals around the world who are in good standing with the Church, too. And, again, hello?!?!?! What does he say about the German bishops who are contradicting doctrine on a near daily basis these days? I mean, they literally just defied the pope. Are the bishops allowing the Extraordinary Form to continue in their dioceses doing that? Nope. But Germany?  They just completely rejected this: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2021/03/15/0157/00330.html#ing  They didn’t follow the letter of the law and express concern over motu proprio. Nope. They just took a direction from the CDF, which the Pope gave his assent to, and told them to shove it.

And let’s not forget, just this past June, the Pope changed canon law to attach a latae sententiae excommunication to any woman trying to be ordained, and any bishop that would ordain them. What did the German bishops do? https://catholicvote.org/german-catholics-to-bless-same-sex-partnerships/

Francis’ statements do not single out specific coverage, though they could refer to the Viganò letter as well as criticism from Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who has been publicly critical of “Amoris Laetitia” and the pope’s approach to divorced and remarried Catholics. Cardinal Müller appeared on Mr. Arroyo’s program and his criticism can be found on the National Catholic Register website. Mr. Arroyo’s program has also featured Steve Bannon and other frequent papal critics—including, most recently, British journalist Damian Thompson and Catholic University of America professor Chad Pecknold, both of whom criticized the pope’s synodality initiatives on the air.

Does anyone realize that Cardinal Muller was just appointed to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura? Anyone? Bueller? None of the people on EWTN’s programs has ever been condemned by the Vatican.

Since the news of the pope’s criticism broke, the reaction from Catholic media professionals has somewhat surprised me. It wasn’t that long ago, after all, that the Vatican took issue with America. Repeated complaints from the Congregation from the Doctrine for the Faith under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was then elected Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, led to the resignation of Thomas J. Reese, S.J., as editor in chief.

I did not work at America at the time, but many of us in Catholic media believed the removal of Father Reese to be an abuse of power. When the Vatican meddles in Catholic journalism, it undercuts our credibility. In general, it is bad form for international leaders to disparage their critics in the media. (See, for example, Donald J. Trump.)

There’s a difference between journalism and a Catholic periodical promoting heresy. From John Allen as quoted in Commonweal:

Everyone acknowledges that over the last five years, concerns about certain articles published by America on topics as diverse as condoms, gay priests, the 2000 Vatican document Dominus Iesus, and pro-choice Catholic politicians…  https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/what-really-happened-tom-reese

Back to Long-Garcia:

That is why I was disturbed by Pope Francis’ recent comments about EWTN. To be sure, Francis does not seem to be interfering with the inner workings of a Catholic television network. But he is using his influence in an undeniable way. Are some of us letting the comments slide simply because we like this pope so much? As Father Reese recently observed, “Catholics who felt free to disagree with John Paul and Benedict are now condemning critics of Francis for not being loyal to the pope.” Many of my anti-authoritarian Catholic friends have been papists since 2013.

Well, that’s a bit of a truth bomb. What J.D. fails to acknowledge is that the areas of “disagreement” differ greatly. Those who disagreed with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict wanted to do away with doctrine, while those who are greatly worried about Pope Francis cling to it. 

Church history books are replete with the mistakes of our bishops—including bishops of Rome. Is it not naïve to assume popes are beyond reproach? Is it a good idea to try to protect Francis from his critics?

It’s not often I agree with an America writer, but here we are. Wonders never cease! When the faithful under past popes had questions, the Holy Father dealt with them. They didn’t ignore and say “I am not going to answer anyone’s questions.”

The culture of encounter should not have altar rails.

And we’re back to being an America Magazine author. I realize he was trying to draw a literary illustration of a barrier, but he quite clearly doesn’t understand what altar rails are for, so it was an epic fail. The altar rail is literally where heaven and earth meet! Sounds like a darn good place to have the “culture of encounter!”

We’re called to go out and meet everyone, including our most vociferous critics. I take Francis at his word on that, and I think he should be held to the same standard. While criticism can go too far, veering into open partisanship and misinformation, simply calling criticism of the church—no matter how strident it may be—“the work of the devil” is not an avenue for dialogue.

Neither are the thousands of other lovelies Pope Francis has thrown out. I don’t recall personal attacks made by the two previous popes in interviews and off the cuff remarks. I do wish J.D. would stop saying “criticism of the church” (although the small C is actually correct). I’d imagine that most people criticizing Pope Francis don’t feel they are criticizing “the Church.”

I have covered Francis’ papal trips in three different countries and have seen him live out the culture of encounter first hand. During his visit to Independence Hall in Philadelphia, for example, I waited for hours with other photographers in a press area. A videographer with Al Jazeera was next to me. We knew Francis was near once we heard the crowd cheer down the block. When Francis and his popemobile were finally in view, the Holy Father picked up three babies right in front of us and kissed them. It was as if he had met all of these families before. The Vicar of Christ looked at those babies like my father looks at my sons.

After Francis was out of view, I looked over and saw the Al Jazeera journalist with tears in his eyes. “I’m not a Catholic,” he said. “But that man has helped me believe in God.”

Dramatic much? I’d be much more moved if Pope Francis met with Cardinal Zen. Even politicians kiss babies. Anyone remember Matthew 5:46??? “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors, do they not do the same?” As J.D. points out, all popes have their critics. JPII had his and BXVI had his. Guess what? Often times they met with them. For example, JPII met with Arcbhishop Lefebvre and Benedict the XVI met with Bishop Fellay.

I love that about Francis, and as a Catholic, it inspires me. But as a journalist, I cannot let my love of the church or my love of the pope prevent me from reporting the truth. And when it comes to criticism, the leaders of the church are not exempt.

With criticism, we all seem to think it is better to give than to receive. But those of us in the media need to hear from our critics as well. For the pope, of course, it can be complicated. Sometimes it can be hard to discern when criticism of the man himself can be an avenue for undermining the church itself. But as a journalist, I wish the pope found a more fruitful way to engage his critics than characterizing their work as coming “from the devil.”

Don’t we all? One might think it a wee bit hypocritical to preach about the “culture of encounter” while avoiding encounters with cardinals asking questions or who are from countries where the Catholic Church is being persecuted at every turn, but meeting with (gag!) Nancy Pelosi is just fine, even as she promotes killing as many babies as possible.

After I heard the voicemail from the sister, I called her back and left a message. She didn’t get back to me, but I would have liked to know why she disliked the photo so passionately. Before publishing, I had consulted my staff and there was consensus that the image worked. Not for nothing, but the photograph won an award from the Catholic Press Association the following year. But who knows? Maybe she saw something we didn’t. Critics often do.

Let me help you, J.D. You ruined a narrative the sister puts forth on a daily basis. You can’t possibly be allowed to publish a picture that shows any sort of traditional worship as good, even if that’s not necessarily what was going on in the picture. To heck with the immigrant. She’s not nearly as important as the sister’s ideologies.

No doubt, some criticism misses the mark. And some critics seem hell bent on finding division. Still, done charitably, criticism can be transformational. The criticism I receive from my gifted colleagues makes my writing a lot better. The criticism I receive from my wife makes me a much better husband and father. I need to be open to criticism because I’m not perfect. And as he would be the first to tell you—neither is the pope.”

Words and actions are two very different things, aren’t they J.D.?

 

 

 

 

18 thoughts on “Disturbed at America Magazine”

  1. Problem for Bergoglio is Sadly his Decades of coverups of grassi.,pardo.,pulia,Cocopalmeiro, ., hubbard ,Mccarrick Mahoney soto sucunza and Zunchetta wayward pederast clergy . ……Ab vigano and D. Arroyo just.points Out the scandals of Mccarrick. In.china and the usa . . Plus the abuse at Jesuits and Bergoglio run schools for troubled. Youth.in Verona Italy, mendoza and Buenos Aires arg.. And deep river ct. Usa 🇺🇸. BERGOGLIOS
    own NEGLIGENCE IS THE ONLY reason for his troubles. Sincerely Ed Mulrenan

  2. Pingback: TVESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  3. Funny, to see this in my inbox this morning, only yesterday I read the second part of the interview with Bishop McElroy (I haven’t read this first part). After reading the interview, and reading the comment section that followed, I came away with two thoughts. First, never did Bishop McElroy ever mention the word “salvation” (again, I didn’t read the first part, so forgive me if the Bishop spent a lot of time on that, and again forgive me, but I have a feeling he didn’t talk about salvation then either). Tell me I am wrong here, but isn’t salvation the purpose of a Bishop?

    Now the comment section. I am not going to go back to reread the 26 posts, but the phrase “a dead nun” I seem to recall was used more than once from different contributors. As if even mentioning the name Mother Angelica would be some type of support for tradition Catholicism.

    Busy this morning, so I will close out with this simple thought. Not in the interview with Bishop McElroy, nor in any interview with Pope Francis, have I seen mentioned the fact that there is a letter out there signed by scores of theologians that Pope Francis is in serious heresy. Started by 60 signers, I think the total has now doubled. So ignore the Elephant in the room and focus on beating up the memory of “a dead nun”.

  4. Thank you for reading and analyzing the Amerika article so we wouldn’t have too.

    Just read through Robert Royal’s first report from the Synod on Synodality. It’s a wonder they have any bedding material for the Italian livestock with all the strawman arguments put forth by the leaders of this latest event.

    1. tapestrygardenaolcom

      Don’t you love the assumption that we find strawman arguments easily set ablaze? It’s such a juvenile and ineffective approach…and yet they continue to apply it

  5. I used to comment on stories occasionally at America, but at some point they blacklisted me and now my comments are automatically zapped. Oh wells, whatevs. I don’t know how common that is, but keep their censorship in mind when you read a story over there like this one and scroll down to an avalanche of comments along the lines of “Bob McElroy and Pope Francis are right. EWTN is totally out of control. It’s about time that someone is finally calling them out, blah blah blah”

      1. With all due respect, Brother Alexis Bugnolo and Ann Barnhardt disagree with you. Benedict did not validly resign.

        1. His argument wasn’t that NO Catholics believe Pope Francis is not pope. His argument was that the vast majority of Catholics disagree with that (and I would add including Benedict) which is true.

      2. I don’t know about that, Jorge Bergoglio puts out bad vibes and they haven’t sat well with this Catholic (formerly lapsed) from the get go. I’ve considered him a false pope from almost the beginning. Anyone familiar with Christ’s teachings picks up on fact he is a heretic, denying Christ and His teachings

  6. “Over 75% of the U.S. Bishops divisive.” LOL. In other words, “75% of the bishops are united in disagreeing with me. I am the oddball.” Math is hard.

  7. “For example, JPII met with Arcbhishop Lefebvre and Benedict the XVI met with Bishop Fellay.”

    Heck, Pope Benedict even had a long meeting with Hans Küng (who, you know, even rejected papal infallibility) – Küng, who had made a cottage industry for criticizing Benedict during his tenure at the CDF.

  8. So Bishop McElroy is worried about EWTN not being with the Holy Father. Given some of his recent statements, I’m worried Bishop McElroy is not in alignment with Jesus Christ. There is a significant difference between disagreeing with some of Pope Francis’ writings and being disrespectful to the office of the Papacy.

    Bishop McElroy, like many of his fellows, sound like cranky and judgmental toddlers who fail to get their way.

  9. Thank you so much for these great entries, Mom. :^)

    I share them with our faith study group occasionally!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d