According to this article from NCR,
"On their return, Catholic News Agency announced to the world that "several" bishops, who remain anonymous, told them that the pope was quite upset, even angry, with Jesuit Fr. James Martin, who has a noted ministry to the Catholic LGBT community. The object of the pope's concern, said the anonymous several bishops, was the way Martin was characterizing his celebrated meeting with the pope last September. They also said that his Jesuit superiors had called him to task about his ministry and that the pope had actually given him a "talking to."'
It should be noted that CNA, an affiliate of EWTN, is distinct from CNS, Catholic News Service, the official news service of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
"The tale took a remarkable turn, however, when Archbishop John Wester of Santa Fe, New Mexico, decided to go public to refute the CNA account.
"Our meeting with the Pope lasted almost two hours and forty-five minutes, so it is difficult for anyone to remember with precision anything that was said," he wrote. "However, the general tone of the Pope's responses to issues raised with him was never angry, nor do I remember the Pope saying or implying that he was unhappy with Father Martin or his ministry."
"He also said that while Martin and his ministry were discussed, it was not the pope who raised it but rather some bishops."
"Following Wester's Feb. 21 account, Bishop Steven Biegler of Cheyenne, Wyoming, stepped up to say publicly that Wester's response "accurately describes the tone and substance of the short dialogue regarding Fr. James Martin."
"Martin himself, thanking Wester on social media, said he's never had a "talking to" and "never heard anything negative from Jesuit superiors."
Deacon Greg Kandra has this to say about anonymous news sources:
"There appears to be a lot of he said/he said going on here. But something that can’t be overlooked is the way the CNA story used anonymous sources for its reporting.
A common reference point for basic journalism is the Associated Press, whose stylebook and guidelines remain, for many in the business, the gold standard for fair and accurate reporting.
Under AP’s rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if:
-
The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report.
-
The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.
-
The source is reliable, and in a position to have accurate information.
Reporters who intend to use material from anonymous sources must get approval from their news manager before sending the story to the desk. The manager is responsible for vetting the material and making sure it meets AP guidelines. The manager must know the identity of the source, and is obligated, like the reporter, to keep the source’s identity confidential. Only after they are assured that the source material has been vetted should editors allow it to be transmitted.
"You can read more here. "For what it's worth, I follow Father Martin's Facebook page, and have never seen that he contradicts Church teaching in any respect. More of his material seems to be about Jesuit spirituality rather than LGBT issues.
It makes me sad to say this: there are any number of American dioceses where I wouldn't want to serve, because of attitudes like those of these anonymous bishops.
ReplyDeleteThank God for Chicago and Cardinal Cupich.
Calumny and detraction are still considered sins as far as I know. I don't know what the "anonymous sources" hope to accomplish by stunts like this.
DeleteSomewhere, however incompletely, the unnamed character assassins must remember hearing at the seminary that the end, no matter how noble (overthrowing that damn Jesuit) never justifies an evil means.
DeleteOf course, the courageous "several" relied on the other bishops, in a spirit of brotherly solidarity, not to rat them out. I am edified that a couple did.
The American bishops could show some real leadership by spending another retreat, like they did at Mundelein last year, reflecting on, and repenting for, homophobia in the church. They should appoint Fr. Martin the retreat master.
ReplyDeleteThe NCR article linked above also linked a First Things piece by JD Flynn which took Father Martin to task for??? it was unclear what. The main point seemed to be that we shouldn't define people by their appetites. I wasn't aware that we were. Apparently Mr. Flynn got the memo that "intrinsically disordered " wasn't PC anymore. But that's what he was really getting at. Because we all know heterosexuals don't have any disordered appetites.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read the First Things piece, but I'm pretty familiar with the idea, as it's cribbed from any number of magisterial pronouncements of the Benedict era: LGBTQs (or, as the church used to, and perhaps still does, insist on referring to them, persons with a homosexual inclination) are more than just their sexuality. Ok - those of us who are heterosexual don't go around proclaiming our identity as "Heteros", so why should they call themselves gays (goes the argument)?
DeleteThat line of thought sort of glosses over the complication that nobody is discriminated against for being hetero, whereas every letter (plus more) in "LGBTQ" stands for a class of persons who are discriminated against, demeaned, bullied, hated, beaten, killed et al.
Yes, Jim. But I would nuance a little bit your comment that we heteros don't go around proclaiming what we are. Many of us do in several ways, by the cars we drive and the facial hair we sport, and many hetero women dress to emphasize assets that appeal to hetero males. Look at advertising (although some of it has become quite woke lately, but only lately). It must be galling to LGBTQs to see how casually heteros strut their stuff without even thinking of what they are strutting, whereas they did likewise, they'd be bounced.
DeleteIt is interesting that people have borrowed the terms "cis" and "trans" from organic chemistry to refer to sexual orientation. Originally they referred to stereoisomers, molecules with the same formula which have different rotations in three- dimensional space.
DeleteInteresting. "Cis" was the one that puzzled me.
DeleteRelative to gay, I was always amused by the term "straight" to refer to heterosexual. As if there's anything straight about anybody's sexuality.
Off this topic, but pertaining to the discussion previously about Communion under both species; this morning at Mass Father read the recommendation from the archdiocese that we suspend Communion from the common cup, and also refrain from physically touching one another at the sign of peace due to concern about the corona virus. So it settles what is hopefully a temporary problem.
ReplyDeleteBut it also makes me think of a childhood memory of one of us complaining, "Mom, he drank out of my glass!" And her reply, "Well, none of us are poison." I hope we can go back to not being poison once the crisis passes.
Our priest said feel free to abstain. He needs to take a harder stance on the hand-holding, but he won't. A lot of fumbling at the Our Father and Peace. Harder to control is the donut buffet and kids hang over and poke at, and the cheek-by-jowl seating at the fish fry.
DeleteI guess we are reassured by the great work Mike Pence has been doing under the inspiration of The Don. Fish fry Friday, as usual. No mention today of cups and the rather elaborate kiss of peace that is common at all Masses here. Pancake breakfast by the KC, as usual. And I have three tickets for Emmet Cahill, who will croon in Trinity Hall on the 10th.
DeletePastor preached at all Masses, on the prevalence of pornography. He was against it.
I'd appreciate it if someone would explain the avidity with which priests talk about porn. I understand that it commodifies sex and erodes the human dignity of sex workers. But the animated way that priests write about the porn "epidemic" in my Award-Winning Diocesan Magazine talk as if it is destroying the fabric of Western civilization and list all the porn-related sins people should be confessing is kinda creepy.
DeleteJean, maybe they do over-react about porn. But actually I've never heard it mentioned in a homily here. I have read that one side effect of a porn habit is that it mutes a man's attraction to and ability to be satisfied with a real live woman, because she can't measure up to the photoshopped and air brushed perfection (or distortion) of the images he sees. But I doubt if that is what disturbs the clergy who obsess about porn.
DeleteToday's was the first mention of porn from the pulpit I have heard. Ever. The bulletin has a bunch of Web links that purport to explain the addictive power of porn (the brain actually does change) and provide help for breaking the habit. They look pretty legit. I don't know what set him off, but he said twice he wasn't pointing fingers at anyone, so there must be someone or something on his mind. He did say it is not "something harmless that everybody does," and I got the feeling someone told him it is.
DeleteHe said he would mention the word only once (and he did) because even the word offends some people. He never said the word "sin."
He did talk about objectification and how that spills over. He didn't quite say that objectifiers are more likely to torture prisoners at Gitmo or beat up asylum -seekers. But if I were a Republican with a guilty conscience, that's what I might have heard in what he did say.
I have heard only one Sunday homily on abortion in 30 years, by the way. I've heard more on sexual abuse by priests and bishops and on rape in general.
The stuff I hear out of the clergy all seems to imply that it's bad because people like it a lot. I discussed it with The Boy when he and his buddies were looking at some mildly racy pictures on the computer one day--they might have been 12--and asked them how they'd feel if they had to get up early in the morning and prance around in their underwear while a bunch of old ladies took pictures of them. They were horrified.
DeleteBTW, has everyone heard the latest, Pete Buttigieg dropped out. Interesting development...
ReplyDeleteYeah, I remember when the Ds had 28 candidates and y'all were picking favorites. If there are five on our March 17 ballot, I will consider it a plethora. I don't see Klobuchar or Warren lasting past Super Tuesday.
DeleteMy brother predicts Hillary will ride.in like.Joan of Arc after Super Tuesday. I think he's off on that one. Emerging three-way between Bernie, Bloomberg, Biden.
DeleteCan't see any one of those three winning without assistance of pandemic and recession.
I hope your bro is wrong about Hillary. That's all we need!
DeleteI don't see Bloomberg making much headway. He waited too late to start.
Bernie and Bloomberg have the most money. And that's what I think it's coming down to.
DeleteBernie, Biden, Bloomberg. Bs rule!
DeleteI hope Jean's brother is all wrong. I can't see the D "establishment" (which I guess is Tom Perez at his most grandiose) wanting to go through that again.
Yeah, money counts, but it's not everything. All the advertising in the world isn't going to make people like what they don't like.
DeleteJean,
DeleteAt this point, pandemic and a recession are highly likely. Probably more likely than one person (Trump, Bernie, Biden, or Bloomberg) winning.
Buttigieg is reportedly mulling endorsing Biden. This would seem to be natural as both Buttigieg and Biden appeal to "I'm all right, Jack" Democrats. As a pro-Bernieite, I suppose I should still consider a plan B. In other words, if not a progressive like Sanders or Warren, then who? I would prefer Klobuchar. Biden looks doddering. Bloomberg is a Wall Street scumbag.
DeleteToo bad there isn't a general election thread that floats to the top of the blog page. Seems like we are always pulled off topic by that news.
DeleteI'm not sure it matters who is pres in the short-term as long as it isn't Trump. In the next four years, we need someone who will restore our alliances abroad and our protective regs and programs, and reverse tax break insanity. All candidates seem eager to do that much.
We also need a concerted effort to discredit Trumpism and all its works. Revoking Limbaugh's Presidental Medal of Freedom would be a nice start.
"...discredit Trumpism and all its works." Believe me I can feel that impulse. But we have only to think of Mitch McConnell and Trump trying to discredit everything Obama did, to see how time-wasting and divisive that strategy could be. We need to live forward.
DeleteLooks like a Stop Bernie scenario is now coming to pass. Now Klobuchar is reported to be pulling out and endorsing Biden. She was my choice among the corporate Democrats. Sorry I jinxed her. Looks like we are closer to avoiding the evil of becoming another Sweden. We can probably still avoid the metric system and dollar coins, too.
DeleteOdds on Klobuchar angling for VP spot. You heard from me first!
DeleteNYT ans NPR are reporting Klobuchar is dropping out and endorsing Joe, mmm, Joe..,mmm Oh, yeah, Joe Biden. Tom Perez had to go out and change his pants again, he is so happy.
ReplyDeletePete and Amy gave up with early votes already cast in Texas. I know of one vote for each of them, and that's two voters who get bupkis for their efforts. That is a price Americans are being positively encouaged to pay for convenience.
I read about that just now. I feel sorry for the early voters whose candidates bailed out. But the handwriting was on the wall anyway, neither Pete nor Amy were going to make it through.
DeleteTom, you said a while back that the parties have got to regain some control. It seems to me like that is what the Democratic party is doing now. I don't see it as a bad thing.
It isn't just the early voters. I expect that, for those precincts that use paper ballots, the ballots already are printed with Buttigieg's and Klobuchar's (and maybe Steyer's) name on them already. This certainly will result in votes being cast for those candidates which otherwise could have gone to candidates still in the race.
DeleteOne pundit noted that, in California, where Sanders has a decisive lead already, the other candidates all are clustered around 15%. 15% is the threshold that must be met to be awarded delegates. So votes for candidates who have suspended their campaigns could further imperil the chances of non-Sanders candidates of getting any delegates at all. California by itself is something like 20% of all the delegates nationwide that can be elected; if Sanders gets most or all of them, that would seem to be a decisive victory.
The Democratic Party lost control because of the "obscene" amount of money it takes to run for office. Only billionaires, those funded by billionaires, and Bernie can afford the run for office.
ReplyDeleteOf course all those of use who paid for Bernie are not going to be happy with the Democratic party if they succeed again in denying him the nomination. However the young people will still be around, and growing stronger and stronger, and eventually will defeat the Democratic establishment. Actually in 2016 they thought they would have to wait through eight years of Hilary anyway.
Young people have a way of turning into Republicans and sell-outs, Jack.
DeleteJean, these kids don't have a chance of becoming financially comfortable enough to become Repubs or maybe even corporate-friendly democrats. Of course, my brain still has pre-digital age organization so I don't know what to predict.
DeleteI got one of these kids who was raised with good socialist, pro-labor values. And what happens is that their overlords hold them in thrall to their sh*tty jobs until they start spouting the capitalist mantras. I told The Boy the next time he comes over here telling me why the minimum wage is bad, I will send him to a cult detox program. Now I know why we die. We want to.
DeleteI voted for early in California for Pete. I knew he didn't have a chance, but I wanted him to have a good showing out here on the Left Coast anyway.
ReplyDeleteNow I'm all in for Biden. I'll vote for BS if I have to, but I'll hold my nose and get drunk thereafter. A vote for Bernie = 4 more years of The Orange Schmuck.
I don't see that the party is getting control of anything. It's polls, money and What Happened with the South Carolina Black Vote that seem to be the factors thinning the herd.
ReplyDeleteI expect Steyer, Pete, and Amy will still be on the Michigan ballot March 10. I also predict voter turnout will start tanking once it's down to Bernie, Bloomberg, and Uncle Joe.
I'm putting my bet on a geezer who's had a heart attack and praised Castro's war on illiteracy and infant mortality. Jesus! I agree with him about Castro, but this is no time to invoke failed communist revolutions. Why did he have to bring up Castro? Why not talk about FDR and LBJ? You can get this and his trip to the USSR are going to be featured in anti-Bernie ads. What a dunce.
Bloomberg twitter: "Fidel Castro left a dark legacy of forced labor camps, religious repression, widesptead poverty, firing squads, and the murder of thousands of his own people. But sure, Bernie, let's talk about his literacy program."
DeleteI am in a particularly foul mood about the Democratic "establishment" today partly because the "moderates" (like MB) are reinforcing all the talking points The Don has used and will use against Bernie, if Bernie gets the nomination, already. It must be fun to run against someone when you can use his friends' quotes against him and don't have to make up slurs of your own.
ReplyDeleteBut that is only partly. The other reason I am sour is that I am in receipt of the stooooopidist fund-raising fake poll I've ever gotten from either party, and the cover letter is signed by Tom Perez. You know the deal: "Important Democratic survey, we need YOUR opinion, bunch of multiple choice questions, and, oh, by the way, send some money when you return it." It's SOP from both parties and any high school sophomore class could imitate it to raise money for a sock hop. But when it's done correctly, the person filling it out end up approving what the party intends to do anyway. This one from Mr. Perez has no hint at what the party intends to do anyway because, I firmly believe, the Democratic "establishment" has no idea of what it should do. Anyway, I am insulted because the standard insult to the recipient's intelligence is too dumb to be read.