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

It’s Not About the Media

After watching the endless whining of James Martin, SJ and others about the invasion of privacy of priests doing ghastly things against their vows, while ignoring the ghastly things themselves, I’ve regained some of my composure and would like to point out the irony given some of the things that he’s said in the past.

First of all, my dad made it very clear to his kids that we shouldn’t do things in private that we wouldn’t want made public and if we did, the consequences were all ours. So right he was. Our consequences weren’t the fault of others but of our own stupidity, and I’m sure most of us have suffered with consequences of some kind at some point in our lives. Consequences are just amazing life lessons.

So, when I see the likes of Fr. Martin, SJ pointing fingers at JD Flynn and Ed Condon of The Pillar, I am reminded how awful he is at being a “father.” No wonder why he doesn’t use that title all that much. I don’t remember James Martin, SJ throwing a conniption fit when the Boston Globe exercised their legal rights to do investigative reporting. I guess that would have been a little too much even for the Martin devotees to take so he went with it. He should have applied the same wisdom with Flynn and Condon but he did not. In fact, he gave the Boston Globe a big old wet kiss here on page 16 of this:

Also, it’s important to distinguish between attacks on the church and critiques of it. When The Boston Globe ran its extensive series of articles on the sexual abuse crisis in the early 2000s, for example, Cardinal Bernard Law, then archbishop of Boston, said he “called down the power of God on the Boston media…particularly The Globe.” But although The National Catholic Reporter ran a remarkable series of articles on abuse in the 1990s, and some of the pieces that ran in The Globe were unfair, their coverage overall was not only fair; but it is in large part because of The Globe that the church in the United States was forced to confront the abuse crisis. The church both deserved criticism and benefited by it.  

And this one is even more hypocritical  (my emphasis and snarky comments interspersed):

But to blame the messenger for this current wave of stories about sexual abuse is, I believe, to miss the point. (Which you have apparently missed yourself.) For instance, a friend of mine told me that at the Chrism Mass, her local bishop told the congregation to cancel their subscriptions to The New York Times, which he called “the enemy.” Besides the fact that a Mass is not the time for a critique of your local newspaper, this overlooks a critical dynamic about the service the media has provided for a church that needed to address a grave problem, but wasn’t doing enough. (And based on the Flynn/Condon data scrape, there is a grave problem again. I’m sure we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg at this point.)

To wit: Without the coverage by The Boston Globe in 2002 of the sexual abuse by priests, the Catholic Church in United States would not have confronted the scourge of sexual abuse on a nationwide basis and instituted mandatory guidelines.

Why do I say this? Because years before, in 1985, The National Catholic Reporter reported and editorialized on abuse cases about a notorious Louisiana priest.  In great and numbing detail.

What was the response? Well, in 1992, after many closed-door meetings with experts in the intervening years, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted a series of guidelines on dealing with abuse. These, however, were not binding on the bishops, but voluntary.

But this was nothing along the lines of what happened as a result of the dogged reporting from the Globe (and other media outlets) that began in earnest in early 2002. That is, there was nothing like the extraordinary meeting of American bishops, convened in Dallas in 2002 that produced the “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People,” which set forth the nationwide “zero tolerance” policy for abusers.  There was no mandatory institution of “safe practices” for every single church institution (parishes, schools, retreat centers) across the country, no mandatory training programs for all priests, deacons and church employees.  And there was certainly no creation of the Office for the Protection of Children and Young People at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. None of that happened after the 1985 case.  But it did after 2002.

What helped to move the church from “voluntary” to “mandatory” was the full-bore coverage of the mainstream media–harsh most of the time, wrong sometimes, motivated by anti-Catholicm very occasionally–but needed by a church that, at least until that point, seemed unwilling to confront fully the widespread nature of the abuse, (Just like you unwilling to overlook your pet sins. Honestly, priests breaking continence, their vows, etc. BRING. ON. THE. INFO. I’m not opposed to know who’s using Tinder if that gets them to stop and removes priests who cannot control themselves.) the systemic structures that caused it and the seriousness of the damage done to children and their families by these crimes.

The Catholic Church in this country has come far from where it was in 2002. Its extensive training programs and draconian guidelines can be taken as models for other institutions that deal with children and young people. That doesn’t mean that local churches elsewhere do not still need to address abuse (as we’re seeing in Ireland and Germany), nor that the U.S. church has “finished” addressing these crimes. As long as the possibility for abuse exists, or one victim is still suffering from past abuses, we will not be “finished” with this problem. (As long as the likes of you point fingers at the messengers, we’ll never be finished.)

Nor is it surprising that the media are now focused on the news from Ireland and Germany, or even on the Vatican’s response to individual cases in the past.  It is not simply the question of sexual abuse, which occurs in every institution that deals with children.  (And occurs most often in families.)  Rather it is, as Paul Moses, a Catholic who has worked in the secular press, pointed out on dotCommonweal, a question of whether past cover-ups have occurred. Covering coverups is what the media does, no matter what the institution. “When a scandal of this proportion is uncovered,” Moses writes, “journalists will naturally want to see how far it goes–the basis for the latest round of stories.”

Every single bishop I know wants to end sexual abuse. (Really? Every single one? Have you met McCarrick and his cronies? It was a farce when you said this back then and it still is, thus the Catholic Media of today.) They have met with victims whose lives have been destroyed, and they are justly horrified. But for every bishop of my acquaintance, there are as many religion reporters of my acquaintance called “anti-Catholic” by those very same clerics. (You, perhaps? You can’t take it when sunlight hits your friends and, from your reaction to all of this including the “spy” moniker you’ve tried to paste on Flynn and Condon, their lives are about to get a whole lot brighter.) Reporters work diligently to get the story right, particularly on such an explosive topic, sometimes after being unable to get church officials even to return their phone calls. (Uh, you mean like Cardinal Tobin? You know, the guy who didn’t want to meet off the record with The Pillar and forced their hand?) Sometimes I wish that I could bring both parties together to discuss how the media deals with the church and the church with the media.

There’s another reason not to blame the media: it probably doesn’t work in the long run. Blaming the media in these situations, for better or worse, comes off as an excuse; it makes people wonder why so much time is devoted to finding holes in a story when so little was expended in decades past to combat abuse; you never know what digging that the media might be doing that will make your objections seem irrelevant; and, as the saying goes, “Don’t pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel.”  For every objection you have they will have a team of reporters to respond.  Object and correct, but don’t blame.  But, more fundamentally, targeting the media ignores the way the media actually helped the Catholic church in this country. (You should take your own advice, because what you point out as lame is exactly what you’re doing.)

So why is Flynn and Condon’s investigative reporting any different? It’s not. Msgr. Burrill and every person using Grindr all checked the same agreement box. The data was purchased by a data collection agency and then was obtained by Flynn and Condon. All as completely legal and ethical as putting out an 800 number to get news tips on abusive priests and investigating their private lives, paying for court documents, police records, etc. The difference? Grindr is a homosexual hookup app.  Never mind that The Pillar also has heterosexual hookup app data, too. We must only be incensed because the priest busted was homosexual.

As I’ve said many times in the last week, James Martin, SJ should be darn thankful, although he won’t be, that this was all brought to light. How many more priests might actually give a second thought to not breaking their vows and rules of continency if they know there’s a chance they will be caught? Msgr. Burrill has now been put into an embarrassing position. Sad for him, of course, but one that might urge him to true repentance instead of being allowed to stay on the path of perdition. Getting caught is hardly the worst thing he might have been facing. Of course, hell is not something Fr. Martin pays much attention to, but those of us that do are thankful on behalf of Msgr. Burrill.

As for James Marin, SJ, he’s gonna do him. He’ll always complain when his peeps get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. It’s to be expected. Note he didn’t mention the LA Times reporting on the Jesuits. If you are Jesuit or homosexual, you will be protected by him no matter how bad it gets. When he looks like a fool, as he does now, he’ll simply go into whataboutisms as a last gasp to look credible. Sadly, he’s about to code there.

Martin was right. It’s not about the media. For him, it’s about his friends who are likely to be busted.

13 thoughts on “It’s Not About the Media”

  1. Edward J Mulrenan

    Bpt ct. Newspaper the post in Ct broke this story as well. Bishop Eagan who.ousted Prter in Fall river mass. straightened out Bpt. Ct diocese…. To.be fair to ab Law EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE PREDATORS CLERGY WERE IN HIS PREDECESSORS Cushing and Medeiros regime..Law began to take PREDATORS out of mass parishes and put them in Halfway houses. . .SADLY Bergoglio encourages Martin and coddled and promotes PREDATORS like Grassi ,Cocopalmeiro, zanchetta, Mahoney and Mccarrick. That is the problem in arg. The VATICAN and the usa.

  2. Why are they surprised that when the hierarchy failed to clean things up – after 2002 and McCarrick in 2018 – that the laity are going to do it for them?

    I am thankful to the Pillar for their fantastic reporting – keeping things fair and not being “gotcha” about the story. On twitter today I was in a small exchange where the other person tried to defend Grindr – like it was no big deal a priest was using it. I am another Mad Mom and do not want to see McCarrick 2.0 every few years causing more victims, more lawsuits and more flight from the Church.

  3. Good piece, OMM. Flynn and Condon are doing a tremendous service to the Church. No faithful Catholic including them, take any sort of pleasure in exposing clerical misbehavior. But it’s tragic that the gay mafia has such enormous clout within the Church, and only a segment of the laity knows or has a problem with that and has any interest in cleaning house. So-called “LGBT pride” masses abound, while a one-off TLM at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. are shut down by Wilton Gregory with no excuse other than such an event being inconsistent with the “spirit” of Traditionis Custodes. The boys hooking up on Grindr and cruising gay bars are valued and powerful members of the Catholic clergy while the French nuns who run a soup kitchen for the homeless and hungry in one of San Francisco’s worst neighborhoods are de-facto bad Catholics since they’re in the pews every Sunday at the same TLM as me. We’re living in an upside down world. Pope Benedict lamented “so much filth” (exact quote) in the Church. Now we’re in an era in which the problem isn’t the filth. No, the real problem is heteronormative busybodies like Flynn and Condon who find the filth unacceptable and worthy of exposure. But unless and until these networks are exposed and uprooted, the Church will continue to suffer from multiple crises (abuse, scandal, lack of vocations, apostasy, etc.). I was reading a bit about Msgr Burrill and his previous jobs before getting the USCCB general secretary gig. I happen to know a priest who once held one of Burrill’s earlier jobs some years before Burrill had it. That priest also identifies as same-sex-attracted. Is it a coincidence that two gays once held the same job? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. Is there a network making sure that fellow gays are placed in certain influential jobs? In our hearts, I think we know the answer to that…

  4. From Phil Lawler’s post this week: “So now Pillar, with the help of an anonymous information-broker, has upped the ante. We still do not know that influential clerics are active homosexuals. But we do know that phone calls to gay hookup sites have come from the offices of the US bishops’ conference and of the [non-public areas of the] Holy See. There is a problem here that must be addressed, and it’s not a problem of journalistic ethics.”

    That pretty much sums up my thoughts in the matter.

  5. Pingback: THVRSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  6. My first reaction to Martin’s response was that he, along with his buddy Fr. Reese, are worried that their Grindr information was also obtained, and don’t want that outed. They make a good living arguing for sodomy and sodomites, while people assume they are faithful to their vows. I’m willing to bet that the bishops are in the same boat.

  7. Great article! I think you really get the point across well. Thank you very much for writing it.

    It really needed to be said.

  8. Pingback: FRIDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  9. No Christian especially Catholic priests and laity should be using Grindr at all. There is only one reason to be using it and it goes completely against Catholic teaching and natural law. Do people think that Pillar was wrong in exposing this information? Tough. Homosexuality in the priestly ranks needs to be rooted and flooded out of the Church and perhaps this exposure will be a road to that end.

    Am I an homophobic? No I’m not. Homosexual acts are depraved sins against nature and God. I can be called homophobic until the cows come home but I don’t care. People have used the term homophobic so often that it means nothing to me because I know I am not. It’s like calling someone a racist. It’s overused and now means nothing. People would be surprised to know if they voted for Obama because he was black and was making history that their vote was based on racism. They voted for him because of his race and the color of his skin and not on qualifications of which he had none. That’s racism whether they know it or not.

    A practicing homosexual is not something to be proud of especially as a priest with such a prominent status with the USCCB. It’s hypocrisy of the worse kind. Oh…and Fr. Martin? He’s a phony through and through.

  10. Just gonna point out that you say this in your “About” section regarding your desire for your blogging to remain private and unknown to your social circles for fear of suffering some sort of ostracization.

    “Why anonymous? She remains anonymous because her husband and children would like plausible deniability. Since she has to live with them, she will remain so. She also wishes not be ejected from her social circles by those who struggle to understand her outstanding sarcasm and witty banter.”

    But then you say this in agreement with your father about how he taught you to only do things (like blogging) in private that you want made public:

    “First of all, my dad made it very clear to his kids that we shouldn’t do things in private that we wouldn’t want made public and if we did, the consequences were all ours. So right he was.”

    I’m sure you are able to rationalize this dichotomy to yourself but it certainly bears the appearance of a dissonance.

    1. I for one sees no dichotomy in what she does and what she’s said. OMM has made her name only, unknown to keep herself and children from being cancelled by the idiots out there who think they so much better than the rest of us who speak the truth the ‘woke’ no longer recognize.

      She’s never made secret what she is, how she believes and how she sees the world that has gone topsy tervy. She’s never made secret her Catholicism. She’s never made secret what her weaknesses are or her strengths as a sinner that we all are. Everything she has said and done on this blog is above board.

      The only hidden thing is her name because people no longer seem to believe we each have our own beliefs and that if someone who doesn’t believe as you should be cancelled or worse. If someday her identity is made known, I believe she is more than ready to suffer the consequences. That is what being a Catholic is suppose to be ready to do for speaking the truth.

      1. I was going to reply but Bob nailed it and, quite frankly, I knew somebody was going to point out being anonymous when I wrote the piece because “you should/shouldn’t be x,y or z” all tantamount to shame is a reoccuring theme with some. Bob is right. There is no dichotomy. I’m not ashamed of my actions in blogging even though I miss things in editing and my spelling/grammar can be atrocious. I guess there’s that. I simply do not wish to hamper my effectiveness in my blogging nor my personal life. Simple as that. If I was in the same room at Fr. Martin, Crdl. Cupich, etc. I would very much say the same things I say here.

Leave a Reply

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

%d