I almost typed "Hair on fire". It appears that people at Word on Fire didn't consider Massimo Faggioli's redaction of his reference to Bishop Robert Barron's ministry as adjacent to Trump and Trumpism on the Commonweal site as being sufficient.
From the article on NCR today:
"A media organization led by a prominent U.S. Catholic bishop sent a second letter this month to a national Catholic magazine, threatening again to sue the outlet and one of its contributors over an article that questioned how the bishop and his organization have engaged with former President Donald Trump's political movement."
"...According to the three-page letter, unsigned and dated May 1, Word on Fire said it considers an editor's note that explained Commonweal's decision to retract a paragraph from the April 22 essay, "Will Trumpism Spare Catholicism?," itself to be "clearly malicious" and defamatory."
"Word on Fire not only demanded that the clarification be removed, but also notified Commonweal to consider its letter, which was sent to several members of the magazine's editorial staff, as "a formal notice to preserve all records in anticipation of litigation."
"The Editor's note, with the author's permission, clearly was published with not only a reckless disregard for the truth and the publisher knowing that the statement was false but with what is clearly actual malice for WOF and its leadership," the letter states."
"NCR obtained the April 25 and May 1 letters from a source affiliated with Commonweal, who was not the author nor the editor on the original article. Word on Fire did not respond to multiple requests from NCR seeking comment for this story."
"In both letters, Word on Fire emphasizes its stated identity as a "non-partisan, non-profit, Catholic apostolate," and suggests that any statements insinuating otherwise is intentionally false, defamatory and grounds for legal action.Commonweal had added the note to Faggioli's article after receiving an earlier letter from Word on Fire, unsigned and dated April 25, requesting changes to the essay."
"...Writing about the ideological currents roiling the U.S. Catholic church, Faggioli's essay described what he said were overlaps between Trump's controversial brand of right-wing nationalism and the hardline conservative Catholicism championed by outspoken figures such as Bishop Joseph Strickland, the firebrand prelate who Pope Francis removed from leadership of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas, in November 2023."
"...While both of Word on Fire's letters use phrases from media defamation case law, such as "actual malice" and "reckless disregard for the truth," media law experts said Word on Fire would be hard-pressed to identify a specific harm done to Barron or the organization. "I don't know what the harm here is. They just seem to think it's not nice to hear that about themselves," said Novack, who added that Word on Fire in court would have to provide a provably false assertion of facts to support a defamation claim. Novack said that proving absolutely no "varying" ideological relationship exists between Trumpism and Word on Fire's messaging would be difficult at best. Said Novack, "You'd have to disprove that nothing in the theology of Word on Fire has any resonance with things in the political commitments of the Trump movement. Impossible. So, I don't think this is something that could be subject to being provable, one way or the other."
Some personal comments; it is unclear to me what Word on Fire wanted Commonweal to do, since the redaction was deemed insufficient. It sounded like they considered it inappropriate to even mention that there had been a redaction. It may have to do with the nature of the internet; once something is out there, it is out there. It is impossible to make something go away altogether.
One thought, judging from the pictures of part of the text of their second letter, it doesn't appear that Commonweal communicated with them that there had been a redaction. Of course it was obvious, but maybe they should have written a letter of their own communicating that, and saying that they hadn't intended defamation. I don't know if that would have made any difference.
As media law expert Dan Novack said in the NCR article, "Is it defamatory to be aligned with Donald Trump? If so, that would mean that 35 to 52% of the country is shameful," Novack said. "I think it would be hard for a court to define as a matter of law that anyone who voted for Donald Trump, or has any close thematic relationship with him, to be morally perverse."
Apparently Bishop Barron's organization doesn't want to be associated with political issues. Which is a good thing, but maybe they should have thought about that before they platformed some far-right political figures.
If I were Bishop Barron, I would be more concerned about being associated with the Strickland part of the so-called Strickland-Trump axis, than about the reference to Trump. As far as I know, Bishop Barron is in good standing in the church and is obedient to the pope. Which can't be said of Bishop Strickland.
A somewhat naive thought on my part, would it help for the people involved in this situation to meet in person and talk things out? Maybe not, but at least I don't think it would make things worse.
Yes, yes! They should meet in person: Barron, Foggioli, Commonweal editors. And leave the lawyers at home. If they meet in a tavern, I will personally buy a round for the table.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing that Word on Fire is objecting to be classified as anti-Francis; but can't that be done without sending out a nastygram (now two nastygrams) from a lawyer?
Their concern may have been with being classified as anti-Francis, but what they actually said was that it was defamation to classify them as being aligned with Trump.
DeleteIt does seem to me that real communication hasn't taken place.
I don't think the point of libel suit threats is to find common ground over friendly beers. The point is to quash criticism. The "your redaction and editor's note made everything even worse" response just doubles down on the intimidation tactics.
ReplyDeleteNovack's legal assessment seems on target to me, which makes me wonder why Commonweal didn't just ignore the first letter.
In trying to mollify WoF, the magazine has kept the feud going.
My guess is that WoF is hoping to make points with supporters by picking a fight with a publication that has always been viewed as a flashpoint of liberal Catholicism wholly unsupervised by any clerical authority.
I know C'weal is viewed in some quarters as being a bastion of liberal Catholicism. But reality seems to me to be something else. It is celebrating 100 years of publication. My experience of reading it is that it is rather serious and scholarly. The articles are long and sometimes my eyes glaze over. However much they are not supervised by clerical authority, there does seem to be a line they don't cross, even though they do trend liberal.
Delete(Reminds me that I let my subscription lapse and there is an envelope in my bill box offering me a deal if I resubscribe, which I may.)
I think you are right that they should have just ignored the first letter.
It is perhaps not a coincidence that Bishop Barron is taking part in a conference hosted by the USCCB and moderated by Gloria Purvis. Also taking part are Archbishops McElroy and Flores. The topic is polarization in the church. Bishop Barron has probably decided that partisanship is not a good look. Which is good. What is not good is denying facts, which would be that his organization has taken part in some partisanship in the past. Faggioli's article is an uncomfortable reminder.
Having been a contributor in the past, my sense is that the line they won't cross is denying Catholic dogma. Their main focus is on how Catholicism has shaped modern culture and vice versa. So Faggioli's assertion that there were parallels between Trumpism and WoF seemed pretty much in scope to me.
DeleteRaber still subscribes and reads it cover to cover, but I have lost interest in anything very deep when I retired.
I see that the USCCB event that I mentioned was a webinar, and that it already happened, on May 14. I will have to listen to it.
DeleteI read the Faggioli article (without the WOF paragraph).
ReplyDeleteI can well see how Bishop Barron would not want to be associated with Strickland. Of course, he didn't want to criticize even a disgraced member of the bishop's club. So, he pointed out the obvious that WOF is does not endorse political candidates and threatened legal action.
Stickland imitates Trump in his tactics and use of right-wing media issues. But Stickland does not have the conservative intellectual credentials of Barron. Barron deals with books, seminars, etc. which I doubt have much appeal to the uneducated Catholics that support Trump and Strickland. Barron's media appeal and agenda owes nothing to Trump.
Word on Fire may be funded by some conservative Catholic laity who support Trump but that does not make WOF an advocate for Trump or his issues.
I did not find the article very interesting or enlightening. I don't think Faggioli understands America.
His bio says that he came to the US in 2008, and lives in the Philadelphia area. It appears that he has pretty much worked in colleges or university, also writing in publications of a somewhat academic nature. So he probably understands America from an academic point of view, but not necessarily from a non college educated average worker point of view. I think we all kind of move in our own bubbles.
DeleteI think some antiTrumpers feel that conservatives must publicly disavow Trump and all his works or be assumed to be MAGA fellow travellers. Possibly something like that was at work with Faggioli's characterization of Word on Fire.
DeleteTrumpism is shorthand for a package of issues that are anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion, pro white male centered Christian nationalist, anti-immigration of non-Europeans or Christians, rah-rah American exceptionalism, isolationist, pro-cop, pro-gun, anti-regulatory, pro home schooling, and influenced by fundamentalist notions of biblical prophecy.
An organization that jives with some of these issues is MAGA-suspect by leftist commentators. Judging from comments on mainstream media sites I follow, there are a fair number of people who think that the RCC is itself a hotbed of MAGA Trump lovers.