How Catholic Is the New York Times?
Usually the New York Times' coverage of religion gives orthodox Catholics heartburn. This piece by former editor and current columnist Bill Keller seems to be doing the same for our more progressive brothers and sisters in the faith. The column is pegged to a new book by Bill Donohue of the oft-combative Catholic League, in which Mr. Donohue suggests that Catholic dissenters simply leave the church. Mr. Keller endorses the call:
Much as I wish I could encourage the discontented, the Catholics of open minds and open hearts, to stay put and fight the good fight, this is a lost cause. Donohue is right. Summon your fortitude, and just go. If you are not getting the spiritual sustenance you need, if you are uneasy being part of an institution out of step with your conscience — then go. The restive nuns who are planning a field trip to Rome for a bit of dialogue? Be assured, unless you plan to grovel, no one will be listening. Sisters, just go. Bill Donohue will hold the door for you.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Oct '11
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
Perhaps it is similarly time for the discontented, the Times readers of open minds and open hearts, to summon their fortitude, and just cancel their subscriptions. I used to read the Times, but haven't in 3 or 4 years and haven't looked back since.
Jan '11
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
Bill McGurn:
If you are not getting the spiritual sustenance you need, if you are uneasy being part of an institution out of step with your conscience — then go.
The church is out of step with your conscience? Doesn't work that way. Get your damned conscience in step with the church.
And what the heck is spiritual sustenance? If you want psychological soothing and comfort, buy a dog. God isn't here to soothe you.
The Bible passage is "Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening." It isn't "Be quiet, Lord, for your servant is speaking."
Jun '10
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
Heretics are welcome to stay. They might see the light; miracles happen. But heretics that teach heresy to others are the real problem. They're welcome to leave the Church, like yesterday. Come back when you hit bottom.
Dec '10
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
I am a reformational protestant...but I understand what a big deal it is to ask a Catholic to leave the Church....does the New York Times?
Aug '10
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
So any woman who spent years allowing herself to be identified as a nun, while perhaps not believing--and often not imparting-- the Catholic creed, should now be assumed to be a woman who brought honor to the Church at great sacrifice because......Why?And if she chooses to cease making this "sacrifice", instead of staying and holding her peace, you Catholics should support her for the rest of her life ? He's kidding. Right?
Jun '12
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
I've often felt this in my heart. That those who don't agree with the church on abortion and euthenasia should just leave. But then I remember all of my past (and current) differences with the church on other issues, and realize that my feet would be walking out that door also. So stay in the Church my erring bretheren. I'll see to helping you with your splinter as soon as I remove my plank. But I do agree that persons in positions of authority in the Church need to be careful about not representing the person's beliefs as the Church's position.
Feb '11
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
Bill McGurn -- You start by equating the disgust many orthodox Catholics feel for the NYT's coverage of Catholic issues with the reaction of "progressive" Catholics to Keller's article, but the comments section doesn't reflect that at all. In fact, most of the comments I read seemed to be of the, "About time someone said this!" variety, and the rest seemed to take great satisfaction in the fact that Donohue is divorced, misunderstanding Catholic teaching * on divorce and marriage (surprise surprise).
* The Church teaches that divorce has no validity regarding the sacrament of marriage, and that divorced people cannot remarry. She does not forbid people divorcing per se.
Keller's final line, about the Church offering $$$ to heretic nuns for the "honor" they brought to the Church with their lives of service, is perhaps my favorite of the whole piece. I think these heretic nuns have more in common with sexual predator priests than Keller would like to admit -- both types have failed to live up to their vows, and like the rest of us, need the reconciliation offered by Christ in the sacraments.
May '10
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
The Church is more than a creed. It's a family. Like many orthodox Catholics, my gut reaction is "good riddance." But, however much they pain us and offend our Pater Familias, we should hate to see anyone leave.
KC Mulville
If you want psychological soothing and comfort, buy a dog. God isn't here to soothe you.
"Grant us Your peace."
It's not a reference to international relations. But you're right: Christianity is a relationship, not a salve.
Jan '11
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
You're right, of course, but we don't want them to leave. We want them to change.
If the church teaches something you don't like, the burden is on you to change your mind - not on the church. This isn't politics or consumer products. The customer isn't always right.
Kellar says that if you don't believe what the church does, rest assured that you're right and that the church owes it to you to change its theology to satisfy you. He's urging you to tell the church: here's my attitude, take it or leave it. Further, if the church doesn't change itself to please you, they've failed you. He says that to indulge your pride.
We're not going to walk away from anyone, and forgiveness is always available. But if you demand that we change the church to satisfy you, then God isn't your object of worship.
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
Mama Toad, I was not going by the comments by Times readers. That may be a reasonable measure of liberal reaction, but for liberal Catholic reaction is more honest to turn to liberal Catholic sources, such as this post on Commonweal, and some of the reaction to it.
I'm with Mr. Keller and Mr. Donohue in this very sense: if someone sees an irreconcilable clash between what he or she believes and what the Catholic church professes as truth, it surely does not make sense to try to pretend that you assent to something you do not. On the other hand, for most people, disagreement isn't that fundamental, or at least on fundamental dividing points, and I'm not one for purges: I do think it's better to have people remain in the church rather than break completely, on the grounds that the former provides more grounds for hope that they can come around. That said, it's no excuse to cut corners and let conflicts we know are real slide: I believe the church is at its best, and helps more people, when it clarifies what exactly she stands for -- and what she does not.
Nov '10
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
What Keller doesn't understand is that he is basically talking about old people. Old people who have, moreover, made a senile fetish of their youthful avant-gardisms. Every week brings some fresh outrage and a threat to lead a laity that would bring the bishops to their knees. (Their opposition to the new translation of the liturgy proved a particularly damp squib.) But the generation that likes to wrap itself in "the spirit of Vatican II" has seen its bold future come largely to naught, and their perpetual anger is inversely proportional to their relevance. For they leave in their wake few spiritual children, but much collateral damage --their chief legacy being a generation or so whose faith has been irreparably damaged by appalling catechesis. Their habitual "prophetic stance" has often meant causal alliance with people and ideas inimical to the Christian project per se. By comparison, everything predicted by Humanae Vitae --that deeply prophetic document, that they so deeply despise-- has come to pass. Still, these people are going nowhere (this side of the grave), for they need the Church --else, to whom would their outrage go?
Aug '10
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
I now have to read this Humanae Vitae.
Feb '11
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
Here's a link in case you would like it!
Aug '10
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
Re: # 13Thank you, Mama Toad.
Aug '10
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
If you actively protest the leadership of the Catholic church, then you're a protestant by definition, no? Submitting to the authority of Rome is the whole point of being Roman Catholic, isn't it?
I've never understood why Catholics who disagree with the church think it's so vital to remain Catholic.
Do they believe they won't get to Heaven if they attend a different church, but not if they actively defy their own Pope? It makes no sense.
But then, I'm not catholic...
Jun '10
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
Misthiocracy: .....I've never understood why Catholics who disagree with the church think it's so vital to remain Catholic.
Do they believe they won't get to Heaven if they attend a different church, but not if they actively defy their own Pope? It makes no sense.
But then, I'm not catholic...
There's a beauty and majesty to it that's hard to duplicate.
May '11
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
KC Mulville
Bill McGurn:
If you are not getting the spiritual sustenance you need, if you are uneasy being part of an institution out of step with your conscience — then go.
The church is out of step with your conscience? Doesn't work that way. Get your damned conscience in step with the church.
And what the heck is spiritual sustenance? If you want psychological soothing and comfort, buy a dog. God isn't here to soothe you.
The Bible passage is "Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening." It isn't "Be quiet, Lord, for your servant is speaking." · 7 hours ago
KC comes to bat and hits a home run!
Mar '11
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
Misthiocracy:
I've never understood why Catholics who disagree with the church think it's so vital to remain Catholic.
For several reasons. Liberals see themselves as the owners of a long history of western progress, so they want to own those western institutions. They took over Harvard and the Ivies rather than start their own schools, for instance. The Church is one of those institutions, so they want to "evolve it". They want to keep the Catholic "culture".. the beautiful churches, the social programs, etc. The Catholic "brand" is a powerful one and they're reluctant to give it up. And like all crusading liberals, they want to "improve" the church by remaking it in their image. Except that by doing so, it won't be Catholic anymore. Whether they admit it or not, the ultimate result of their actions would be to turn the Church into a Catholic-flavored Unitarian Universalist church. You get that churchy vibe without any real religious commitment.
Jun '12
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
Pilli
KC Mulville
Bill McGurn:
If you are not getting the spiritual sustenance you need, if you are uneasy being part of an institution out of step with your conscience — then go.
The church is out of step with your conscience? Doesn't work that way. Get your damned conscience in step with the church.
And what the heck is spiritual sustenance? If you want psychological soothing and comfort, buy a dog. God isn't here to soothe you.
The Bible passage is "Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening." It isn't "Be quiet, Lord, for your servant is speaking." · 7 hours ago
KC comes to bat and hits a home run! · 41 minutes ago
I believe God meets us where we are, and places us where we can draw closer to him. For some that's The Catholic Church, for others Baptists, still others a storefront church.
Apr '11
Re: How Catholic Is the New York Times?
Um, what?