On Right Wing Catholic Media

 Gene Palumbo would like to call our attention to two articles on the Commonweal site by Paul Moses dealing with the role that right wing Catholic media has played.  As always, Paul Moses has some well thought out commentary.  I will link both articles, which are worth reading in their entirety; and will post some excerpts after the break. 

The first article, from January 7, is  The One Missing Fact | Commonweal Magazine. It deals with how EWTN misreported the letter by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano calling for the resignation of Pope Frances over the allegations against Theodore McCarrick. From the article:

"... in reporting one of the biggest stories to hit the Catholic Church in recent years, EWTN, which says it is the largest religion-news organization in the world, was neither reliable, nor accurate, nor trustworthy. Its coverage of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s bold call for Pope Francis to resign his office willfully ignored the gaps and contradictions in his claims (except to explain them away), promoted his credibility, and slanted the narrative against the pope.

"...The network’s most visible figure, newscaster and Fox News commentator Raymond Arroyo, led the way in arguing for Viganò’s credibility and keeping the focus where the archbishop wanted it: on Francis and those American bishops who supported him. In breaking the Viganò story on August 25, National Catholic Register Rome correspondent Edward Pentin wrote:

“What is certain,” Viganò writes in his testimony, “is that Pope Benedict imposed the above canonical sanctions on McCarrick and that they were communicated to him by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Pietro Sambi.” 

 

"The Register has independently confirmed that the allegations against McCarrick were certainly known to Benedict, and the Pope Emeritus remembers instructing Cardinal Bertone to impose measures but cannot recall their exact nature. "

"At first read, it looks like enterprising journalism for Pentin to be able to confirm that important fact while reporting a breaking story. But it reminds me of a quip I once heard from the late Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist Murray Kempton: “An investigative reporter is someone who leaves out one key fact.” I took him to mean the missing fact that would lead readers to the gray areas of a story, the ambiguities that soften outrage, Kempton’s specialty."

"Six days later, Pentin used a blog post to report, in the fifteenth paragraph of a twenty-three-paragraph article, what the key fact was. From “a reliable source close to Benedict” he had gleaned this:

"As mentioned in the Register’s initial report on the testimony on Aug. 25, the Pope Emeritus was “unable to remember very well” how the matter was handled, according to the source. As far as Benedict could recall, the source said the instruction was essentially that McCarrick should keep a “low profile.” There was “no formal decree, just a private request.”

"Request. That’s a world of difference from the “canonical sanctions” that, according to Viganò, Pope Francis had removed in an act of “sinful conduct,” in which he “associated himself in doing evil with someone he knew to be deeply corrupt,” and was “abdicating the mandate which Christ gave to Peter.”

The second article by Paul Moses appeared on January 8; Piety, Populism, and ‘Patriots’ | Commonweal Magazine, concerning the role of right wing Catholic media in the Capitol Riots. From the article:

"....taken together, LifeSiteNews and Church Militant garnered nearly 10 million visits to their alt-right “news” websites during the last three months of 2020—a pair of powerful platforms that helped spread bogus election-conspiracy claims to a huge Catholic audience."

"Along with other far-right websites that cater to Catholics, they pulled out the stops for President Donald Trump, even as he incited his followers to storm the Capitol on January 6. In the midst of the violence, their coverage was promotional; Church Militant went so far as to use Catholic imagery to glorify the rioters. Afterward, there were no apologies."

"For the most part, these supposedly Catholic websites haven’t received the scrutiny they deserve. Targeted at Catholics, a swing vote, they serve up a potent mix of traditional piety and populist politics. According to data gathered by SimilarWeb analytics, LifeSiteNews in particular is among the most visited in the “competitive landscape” of faith and belief websites. Bishops have been reluctant to criticize such sites—whether because of their influence, the bitterness that the sites apply to perceived enemies, or the hope that they’ll go away. News media don’t pay much attention to their influence either, with some exceptions."

"But their boosterish coverage of Trump’s attempt to subvert the presidential election should heighten alarm about what they are up to. And, it should be noted, they do have their champions in the Catholic hierarchy. In particular, they’ve showcased a certain former Vatican ambassador to the United States who treats the unproven election fraud claims as an article of faith."

Taken together, the articles present some pretty damning evidence of the role played by right wing Catholic media, not to mention Archbishop Vigano, in our present travails. An examination of conscience is long overdue.