It seems reasonable as a first step to stop letting people give eulogies at St Patrick's Cathedral. People might complain because everyone wants the eulogy at the church (before or after the Mass), but if you're having your loved one's funeral at a historically significant church like that I feel like you should expect some restrictions you might not get at a smaller church.
Also who the heck talks about their dead husband's sperm during his own funeral? Ew.
For every 99 eulogies that go fine, the 1 that goes absolutely off the rails outweighs all the others. And I sincerely doubt the ratio is that favorable for eulogies.
Parishes should implement a no eulogy policy regardless of families’ complaints.
I don’t think it matters if the eulogy is fine or not. The rubrics for funerals doesn’t allow for one so we shouldn’t do it!
It’s a massive pressure on family members to come up with fitting words in the throes of grief, especially if it’s a sudden death or a complicated relationship, and then deliver it with little experience of public speaking in a highly emotionally charged moment… even accomplished public speakers would find it difficult, let alone the average Joe or Jane.
Eulogies can be given after at a wake, or burial or the vigil before the funeral… pick which works best.
Eulogies at Mass often are a source of embarrassment to those attending and to the faith of the Church. Many times included in eulogies are statements declaring the deceased as now being "angels," "verbal bulls" of canonization, inside jokes, crude comments and drawn out, often overwrought statements that take away from the purpose the funeral Mass.
The prayers might pray for the dead but those are often superseded by eulogies containing the things mentioned above and much more.
While the Church allows eulogies at funeral Masses just because something is allowed doesn't mean it is prudent or helpful.
The mercy meal, the wake Service or the graveside Service (after the prayers) offer time to give a eulogy.
Stop letting the funeral Mass be a platform for something it is not meant to be; contradiction of Church teaching, heartfelt but often inane comments, and sometimes downright embarrassing words that should only be shared in the immediate family.
Often, these eulogies do more to harm the memory of the deceased than honor them.
While Ed may disagree, as he has a tendency to do, I believe your commentary on the controversial St Pats NY funeral and TD’s reaction is a home run. I appreciate you took the time to check in with a few members of the NY Archdiocese's presbytery and others for comments. Thank you for pulling it all together and sharing with us. God Bless.
JD is one journalist who won't balk and is careful to not commit any errors. The Pillar, in general, refuses to be left on base when they can put together a strong offense by battling the fouls generated and wild pitches thrown at them. The whole team really works to put together a complete game even though they are never given an unearned run. As the pitch tempo increases and the number of pitches increases, I don't expect them to retire willingly.
Very true, which goes to show that the most important influence he has is with his flock. As it stands, he is not influencing the general public but the faithful in the Archdiocese are being spiritually abused. A strong stand against these ongoing shenanigans (think, Out at St. Paul’s constant drumbeat of violations) would bolster their faith in the Church.
Great column JD! Very on target describing Cardinal Dolan. He avoids confrontation & controversy above all else.
Do I think Dolan is at all heterodox or that he doesn't believe the fullness of the Catholic faith? No way. He's a loyal and faithful son of the Church. But that's part of the problem. He's a loyal son of American Catholicism as it existed in 1965 or 1995....when it was nice & easy & largely socially acceptable to be Catholic & practice the fullness of Catholicism in this country.
In many ways he's a Catholic from a different era...from his youth pre-Vatican II....when everybody he knew in St Louis was a believing Catholic if they were Irish or Italian or Polish or Slovak, etc....the same way it was in Milwaukee or Chicago or Cleveland or Pittsburgh or Cincinnati or Boston or New York or Philadelphia or Baltimore....that Catholicism & inherent Catholic culture in those cities and most everywhere else simply doesn't exist anymore
He's most comfortable having a beer at a ballgame or slapping backs at a parish fish fry. He's not the shepherd we need for this post-Christian, largely atheist & secular society which is hostile to so much of the Catholic Faith.
Cardinals wear red because they are supposed to be willing to shed their blood to defend the Faith...but one wouldn't be surprised if Cardinal Dolan, when faced with such a threat, would instead try to make friends with his attackers, crack jokes, and make arguments for why they shouldn't really want to hurt him.
Hopefully he at least has the courage & backbone to support a strong candidate who will defend traditional & orthodox Catholicism in the next conclave....his goal shouldn't be to just get along with all the innovators and instruments of rupture which Francis has tried to stack the college of cardinals with over the past 10 years.
It might have saved his soul. Barring a person from reception of sacraments is a disciplinary tool and medicine to get wayward children to think about their evil actions. It should happen frequently, but rarely does because the hierarchy is more concerned with image and politics than saving souls.
It also would've been a shot in the arm for the faithful, who -- looking to their shepherd for guidance -- are now left confused and scandalized, wondering why they should absorb the hits that he should have set the example in taking.
Read "Torture and Eucharist" by William Cavanaugh about how the bishops of Chile denied murderers the Eucharist during the Pinochet regime to see how this might play out. Publicly, Cuomo might win support, but the faithful will benefit to see how we protect Our Lord against sacrilege.
I live in the Cleveland Diocese and thank God- we have a courageous bishop ( Malesic) who has stood up against the Trans movement and said / no Catholic school will encourage false pronouns or hide things from parents. He took much criticism for his stance, but his concern is for the children of his dioceses! Thank you Bishop Malesic!
I'm in the archdiocese of NY, and my husband used to be an employee of the archdiocese.
I've been at lots of very important events in the cathedral, related to my husband's employment... when he worked for the NYU chapel (this was decades ago, well before Dolan was the bishop).
So. One wonders. How one books the cathedral for -anything-. A wedding. A funeral. A baptism. ANYTHING.
Because this seems... shoddy.
This is the 2nd LARGEST CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE IN THE USA. THE CATHEDRAL.
You let just anybody call up and do a funeral? Really? You want us to believe that one?
I don't want to insult any particular faith traditions, but it takes a certain amount of credulity to think that one can do this. This sounds like somebody requires a certain amount of "pull", because if you are going to make the case that any Catholic person who died in the general vicinity would have a funeral at the cathedral, I would like the records on that.
I was thinking the same thing when the archdiocese (and now Cardinal Dolan) was putting out statements that seemed to imply that just any Joe Catholic (or maybe you don't even have to be Catholic) could just go and get a funeral scheduled at St. Patrick's Cathedral, one of the most famous and busiest Catholic churches in the United States, no questions asked. Do they really expect us to believe this?
There is something about their explanations that doesn't add up for me. Maybe it was just gross incompetence, but I am still not ruling the out the possibility that someone in the Cathedral, either staff or clergy or both, pulled some strings to facilitate this whole circus knowing more before the funeral happened than the archdiocese is letting on.
They probably wanted to appear "open minded" and were just very naive in thinking this wouldn't get out of control like it did. Its reflective of the culture in New York and Manhattan especially. It shouldn't be surprising that something like this could happen occasionally. Doesn't mean it should, but it doesn't surprise me at all.
Wasn't it mentioned somewhere else here on The Pillar that the priest who presided at the liturgy is a Maryknoll Missioner, who after finishing in leadership in his community, was given a job on the staff at St Patrick's?
Also, from the Pillar's earlier reporting, Father James Martin had been invited to preach the funeral but he could not because he was out of town. I believe some church authorities are not being forthright.
I am struck by the contrast between Cardinal Dolan and Bishop Jan Hendriks, bishop of the Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam who said in your inspiring interview “...we have to accept that we are a sign of contradiction.”
You know, much as I admire Cardinal Dolan – who is in possession of a wonderfully affable personality, and an ability to be friendly to all – he has been strangely silent in the last few years, especially as the controversy regarding the care of homosexuals Has been highlighted by the pope. This is an excellent article and highlights the egg shells the more traditional cardinals of the church find themselves walking on these days
“I say to the people, ‘What are you all looking at Daddy here for?... I don’t have much clout, some fat, Irish, balding bishop, talking about defending the Church?... people are going to say ‘Ho Hum!”
Except that he is morally bound and sacramentally equipped to defend the Church. This kind of attitude makes me really sad. What self proclaimed “daddy” expects his children to defend themselves while he sits back and watches them duke it out with the enemy tooth and nail. Fathers lead by example.
And, items like excommunication, or whether someone must be publicly prohibited from receiving Communion are very much the kind of ecclesial matters the laity have a right to expect their pastors to lead on. If the question had been "Archbishop, what's the best strategy to promote a strong challenger in the next election", he would have had a much better reason to say "that's really not my remit"
(and either way, if I never hear a bishop call himself Daddy again, it will be too soon)
Hmmmm. Ostrich mentality??? Seems so familiar…. Like a certain civilian former priest of whom we’re still waiting for copies of who knew what and when. So sad but it seems like nothing new under the sun. I keep praying for the church and her priests but the duck and cover routine is getting so hard to stomach. Lord let your just roll.
If I was Cardinal Dolan, I too would be smiling and affable and desperately trying to move the topic of conversation on to the weather or baseball or anything. Especially if the local media had been doing some Googling and discovered some of my embarrassing clergy.
St Patrick's has the privilege and burden of being one of the most famous Catholic churches on earth. Anything scandalous within its walls will be spread over the world's media. The toe curling funerals I have attended (sometimes of my own relatives) in very ordinary local parish churches mercifully don't get the same attention. But they deserve serious consideration.
The problems typically fall under three headings (the list of possible disasters is too long to write):
1. Deceased is non Catholic.
2. Deceased is lapsed/non believing Catholic (er, how do we interpret Canon 1176 and 1177?). Better preach Universal Salvation All Round, even if it clashes with some of the ideas in the service book. And most of the congregation will be clueless as to the prayers, actions and hymns.
3. Choice of music is beyond appalling. Folks, reverence, dignity and decorum are probably lost concepts. But one or two people at a funeral may actually believe in God, even if the priest and his Bishop don't.
Unfortunately, in 2014 a local funeral in an ordinary parish church did get local media attention. Headings 1 and 3 apply. The deceased was non Catholic. But the relatives had admired English Martyrs' unusual Italianate architecture and picked it as the venue. They could easily have picked at least three local Anglican churches who would have been legally obliged to do the funeral.
And, as the deceased was a garbage collector, he got that great old English non-hymn, " My old man's a dustman". The local newspaper gave the funeral most of a page and it's still out there on the Internet.
Good analysis, but it appears virtually every person making a critical comment about Cardinal Dolan was granted anonymity. It kind of begs the question of whether you sought a balance of comments, or just spoke to people whose views of the Cardinal are already familiar to you. In any case, I'd be more impressed and inclined to listen if they took some responsibility for their comments by being named.
Pope Francis had some kind words a month ago for the "vaticanistas," journalists accredited to the Holy See: "The beauty of your work around Peter is that of founding it on the solid rock of responsibility in truth, not on the fragile sands of gossip and ideological interpretations; that lies in not hiding reality and its miseries, not sugarcoating the tensions but at the same time not making unnecessary noise, rather striving to capture the essential, in the light of the nature of the Church. How much good this does to the People of God, to the simplest people, to the Church herself, who still has some way to go to communicate better: with witness, before words."
I am sure you and Ed strive for this, and again it's a good analysis, but in general I think journalism today has gone overboard in granting anonymity to sources.
Father, this is a good question, and one I've thought about a lot.
First of all, any journalist asks trust of his readers, and I certainly do: I hope it is believed that I would not simply call people with one point of view, but I appreciate that an analysis like this depends on that trust. In truth, I just started calling around to see what people thought, and a theme or two emerged.
As to the use of anonymous sources, again, I've thought about that a lot. The Church is a human society (in addition to its divine character), and is a society in which both Pope Francis and Vatican Council II say that journalism has an important role to play. But as a human society, the scales are tipped in the Church towards those who have the power. This is because of the Church's divinely instituted hierarchical constitution, which is a very good thing. But it means that there is no separation of powers, and those who are usually most well informed -- the clerical class -- are also the most vulnerable to retaliation if they speak out in ways which displease their superiors. As it happens, there is also no freedom of information act in Holy Mother Church, and no whistleblower protection. And I suspect we both know clerics who have faced kinds of hard or soft retaliation for speaking out critically regarding their bishops' governance. Journalism aims to treat everyone on the same playing field -- and in light of the "state of the scales" in the Church, we are comfortable extending some more anonymity to clerics and others than might be the case in other societies. There are legitimate criticisms to that approach, and limits to it. These things are weighing exercises and judgment calls. But in our view, we can balance the scales a bit, as we cover the Church, by allowing for the reality that clerics who speak out can face real consequences, and that information is not free and open in the life of the Church.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Certainly the larger a diocese is, the more difficult it can be to provide direct feedback to the Bishop. I do recall Cardinal George lamenting, in a visit home to Yakima, that the Chancery in Chicago had 900 employees and it was extremely difficult to get to know people well. Anonymity wouldn't help much here. We know each other too well.
The problem with conciliatory bishops is that they leave their pastors to face the brunt of the conflict. I openly advocate for better inclusivity for gay Catholics, and there’s no question for me that this liturgy was sacrilegious. What a terrible position to have put the celebrant in. One more thing I learned from Cardinal George: coming out swinging protects the other guys.
BRILLIANT :) "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."
Obviously I have no knowledge of what went on, but given the heirarchy's actions and goals in recent years, my guess would be that the good Cardinal and staff were trying to do "outreach" to the LGBT community "in the spirit of Pope Francis" and probably thought/hoped everything would go unnoticed or, at least, blow over quickly.
It seems reasonable as a first step to stop letting people give eulogies at St Patrick's Cathedral. People might complain because everyone wants the eulogy at the church (before or after the Mass), but if you're having your loved one's funeral at a historically significant church like that I feel like you should expect some restrictions you might not get at a smaller church.
Also who the heck talks about their dead husband's sperm during his own funeral? Ew.
For every 99 eulogies that go fine, the 1 that goes absolutely off the rails outweighs all the others. And I sincerely doubt the ratio is that favorable for eulogies.
Parishes should implement a no eulogy policy regardless of families’ complaints.
I don’t think it matters if the eulogy is fine or not. The rubrics for funerals doesn’t allow for one so we shouldn’t do it!
It’s a massive pressure on family members to come up with fitting words in the throes of grief, especially if it’s a sudden death or a complicated relationship, and then deliver it with little experience of public speaking in a highly emotionally charged moment… even accomplished public speakers would find it difficult, let alone the average Joe or Jane.
Eulogies can be given after at a wake, or burial or the vigil before the funeral… pick which works best.
Eulogies at Mass often are a source of embarrassment to those attending and to the faith of the Church. Many times included in eulogies are statements declaring the deceased as now being "angels," "verbal bulls" of canonization, inside jokes, crude comments and drawn out, often overwrought statements that take away from the purpose the funeral Mass.
The prayers might pray for the dead but those are often superseded by eulogies containing the things mentioned above and much more.
While the Church allows eulogies at funeral Masses just because something is allowed doesn't mean it is prudent or helpful.
The mercy meal, the wake Service or the graveside Service (after the prayers) offer time to give a eulogy.
Stop letting the funeral Mass be a platform for something it is not meant to be; contradiction of Church teaching, heartfelt but often inane comments, and sometimes downright embarrassing words that should only be shared in the immediate family.
Often, these eulogies do more to harm the memory of the deceased than honor them.
“Does that mean he checks his swing? Yeah, he does. And this stuff matters to a lot of people.”
-And the strikes pile up. How long until the game is called because the players are unwilling to do their duty and play?
While Ed may disagree, as he has a tendency to do, I believe your commentary on the controversial St Pats NY funeral and TD’s reaction is a home run. I appreciate you took the time to check in with a few members of the NY Archdiocese's presbytery and others for comments. Thank you for pulling it all together and sharing with us. God Bless.
JD is one journalist who won't balk and is careful to not commit any errors. The Pillar, in general, refuses to be left on base when they can put together a strong offense by battling the fouls generated and wild pitches thrown at them. The whole team really works to put together a complete game even though they are never given an unearned run. As the pitch tempo increases and the number of pitches increases, I don't expect them to retire willingly.
They got a real Murderers' Row lineup at The Pillar.
I don’t think any cardinal will have much influence in New York City anymore. There are probably more “Nones” now than ever before.
Very true, which goes to show that the most important influence he has is with his flock. As it stands, he is not influencing the general public but the faithful in the Archdiocese are being spiritually abused. A strong stand against these ongoing shenanigans (think, Out at St. Paul’s constant drumbeat of violations) would bolster their faith in the Church.
In hindsight, it was a mistake for Cardinals to act as politicians.
Great column JD! Very on target describing Cardinal Dolan. He avoids confrontation & controversy above all else.
Do I think Dolan is at all heterodox or that he doesn't believe the fullness of the Catholic faith? No way. He's a loyal and faithful son of the Church. But that's part of the problem. He's a loyal son of American Catholicism as it existed in 1965 or 1995....when it was nice & easy & largely socially acceptable to be Catholic & practice the fullness of Catholicism in this country.
In many ways he's a Catholic from a different era...from his youth pre-Vatican II....when everybody he knew in St Louis was a believing Catholic if they were Irish or Italian or Polish or Slovak, etc....the same way it was in Milwaukee or Chicago or Cleveland or Pittsburgh or Cincinnati or Boston or New York or Philadelphia or Baltimore....that Catholicism & inherent Catholic culture in those cities and most everywhere else simply doesn't exist anymore
He's most comfortable having a beer at a ballgame or slapping backs at a parish fish fry. He's not the shepherd we need for this post-Christian, largely atheist & secular society which is hostile to so much of the Catholic Faith.
Cardinals wear red because they are supposed to be willing to shed their blood to defend the Faith...but one wouldn't be surprised if Cardinal Dolan, when faced with such a threat, would instead try to make friends with his attackers, crack jokes, and make arguments for why they shouldn't really want to hurt him.
Hopefully he at least has the courage & backbone to support a strong candidate who will defend traditional & orthodox Catholicism in the next conclave....his goal shouldn't be to just get along with all the innovators and instruments of rupture which Francis has tried to stack the college of cardinals with over the past 10 years.
But Dolan is completely correct that imposing some type of section on Cuomo would have accomplished nothing. At least in practical terms.
It might have saved his soul. Barring a person from reception of sacraments is a disciplinary tool and medicine to get wayward children to think about their evil actions. It should happen frequently, but rarely does because the hierarchy is more concerned with image and politics than saving souls.
It also would've been a shot in the arm for the faithful, who -- looking to their shepherd for guidance -- are now left confused and scandalized, wondering why they should absorb the hits that he should have set the example in taking.
Read "Torture and Eucharist" by William Cavanaugh about how the bishops of Chile denied murderers the Eucharist during the Pinochet regime to see how this might play out. Publicly, Cuomo might win support, but the faithful will benefit to see how we protect Our Lord against sacrilege.
I live in the Cleveland Diocese and thank God- we have a courageous bishop ( Malesic) who has stood up against the Trans movement and said / no Catholic school will encourage false pronouns or hide things from parents. He took much criticism for his stance, but his concern is for the children of his dioceses! Thank you Bishop Malesic!
I'm in the archdiocese of NY, and my husband used to be an employee of the archdiocese.
I've been at lots of very important events in the cathedral, related to my husband's employment... when he worked for the NYU chapel (this was decades ago, well before Dolan was the bishop).
So. One wonders. How one books the cathedral for -anything-. A wedding. A funeral. A baptism. ANYTHING.
Because this seems... shoddy.
This is the 2nd LARGEST CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE IN THE USA. THE CATHEDRAL.
You let just anybody call up and do a funeral? Really? You want us to believe that one?
I don't want to insult any particular faith traditions, but it takes a certain amount of credulity to think that one can do this. This sounds like somebody requires a certain amount of "pull", because if you are going to make the case that any Catholic person who died in the general vicinity would have a funeral at the cathedral, I would like the records on that.
I was thinking the same thing when the archdiocese (and now Cardinal Dolan) was putting out statements that seemed to imply that just any Joe Catholic (or maybe you don't even have to be Catholic) could just go and get a funeral scheduled at St. Patrick's Cathedral, one of the most famous and busiest Catholic churches in the United States, no questions asked. Do they really expect us to believe this?
There is something about their explanations that doesn't add up for me. Maybe it was just gross incompetence, but I am still not ruling the out the possibility that someone in the Cathedral, either staff or clergy or both, pulled some strings to facilitate this whole circus knowing more before the funeral happened than the archdiocese is letting on.
They probably wanted to appear "open minded" and were just very naive in thinking this wouldn't get out of control like it did. Its reflective of the culture in New York and Manhattan especially. It shouldn't be surprising that something like this could happen occasionally. Doesn't mean it should, but it doesn't surprise me at all.
Wasn't it mentioned somewhere else here on The Pillar that the priest who presided at the liturgy is a Maryknoll Missioner, who after finishing in leadership in his community, was given a job on the staff at St Patrick's?
Also, from the Pillar's earlier reporting, Father James Martin had been invited to preach the funeral but he could not because he was out of town. I believe some church authorities are not being forthright.
I am struck by the contrast between Cardinal Dolan and Bishop Jan Hendriks, bishop of the Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam who said in your inspiring interview “...we have to accept that we are a sign of contradiction.”
You know, much as I admire Cardinal Dolan – who is in possession of a wonderfully affable personality, and an ability to be friendly to all – he has been strangely silent in the last few years, especially as the controversy regarding the care of homosexuals Has been highlighted by the pope. This is an excellent article and highlights the egg shells the more traditional cardinals of the church find themselves walking on these days
“I say to the people, ‘What are you all looking at Daddy here for?... I don’t have much clout, some fat, Irish, balding bishop, talking about defending the Church?... people are going to say ‘Ho Hum!”
Except that he is morally bound and sacramentally equipped to defend the Church. This kind of attitude makes me really sad. What self proclaimed “daddy” expects his children to defend themselves while he sits back and watches them duke it out with the enemy tooth and nail. Fathers lead by example.
And, items like excommunication, or whether someone must be publicly prohibited from receiving Communion are very much the kind of ecclesial matters the laity have a right to expect their pastors to lead on. If the question had been "Archbishop, what's the best strategy to promote a strong challenger in the next election", he would have had a much better reason to say "that's really not my remit"
(and either way, if I never hear a bishop call himself Daddy again, it will be too soon)
Hmmmm. Ostrich mentality??? Seems so familiar…. Like a certain civilian former priest of whom we’re still waiting for copies of who knew what and when. So sad but it seems like nothing new under the sun. I keep praying for the church and her priests but the duck and cover routine is getting so hard to stomach. Lord let your just roll.
Archbishop John J. Hughes, pray for us all.
Talking about being coy.
At the start the article states:
"the Feb. 15 funeral of LGBT activist Cecilia Gentili".
You need to reach past the half way point of the article before you get to the "big reveal".
Ok, perhaps everyone knows by now, but still...
If I was Cardinal Dolan, I too would be smiling and affable and desperately trying to move the topic of conversation on to the weather or baseball or anything. Especially if the local media had been doing some Googling and discovered some of my embarrassing clergy.
https://onepeterfive.com/church-militant-exposing-the-new-york-archdioceses-gay-mafia/
St Patrick's has the privilege and burden of being one of the most famous Catholic churches on earth. Anything scandalous within its walls will be spread over the world's media. The toe curling funerals I have attended (sometimes of my own relatives) in very ordinary local parish churches mercifully don't get the same attention. But they deserve serious consideration.
The problems typically fall under three headings (the list of possible disasters is too long to write):
1. Deceased is non Catholic.
2. Deceased is lapsed/non believing Catholic (er, how do we interpret Canon 1176 and 1177?). Better preach Universal Salvation All Round, even if it clashes with some of the ideas in the service book. And most of the congregation will be clueless as to the prayers, actions and hymns.
3. Choice of music is beyond appalling. Folks, reverence, dignity and decorum are probably lost concepts. But one or two people at a funeral may actually believe in God, even if the priest and his Bishop don't.
Unfortunately, in 2014 a local funeral in an ordinary parish church did get local media attention. Headings 1 and 3 apply. The deceased was non Catholic. But the relatives had admired English Martyrs' unusual Italianate architecture and picked it as the venue. They could easily have picked at least three local Anglican churches who would have been legally obliged to do the funeral.
And, as the deceased was a garbage collector, he got that great old English non-hymn, " My old man's a dustman". The local newspaper gave the funeral most of a page and it's still out there on the Internet.
https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/hundreds-mourners-attend-funeral-cyclist-6834452
https://youtu.be/Y7GeZ3YmONw?si=zYPf3U-qrz1v_i47
Good analysis, but it appears virtually every person making a critical comment about Cardinal Dolan was granted anonymity. It kind of begs the question of whether you sought a balance of comments, or just spoke to people whose views of the Cardinal are already familiar to you. In any case, I'd be more impressed and inclined to listen if they took some responsibility for their comments by being named.
Pope Francis had some kind words a month ago for the "vaticanistas," journalists accredited to the Holy See: "The beauty of your work around Peter is that of founding it on the solid rock of responsibility in truth, not on the fragile sands of gossip and ideological interpretations; that lies in not hiding reality and its miseries, not sugarcoating the tensions but at the same time not making unnecessary noise, rather striving to capture the essential, in the light of the nature of the Church. How much good this does to the People of God, to the simplest people, to the Church herself, who still has some way to go to communicate better: with witness, before words."
I am sure you and Ed strive for this, and again it's a good analysis, but in general I think journalism today has gone overboard in granting anonymity to sources.
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2024/01/22/240122a.html
Father, this is a good question, and one I've thought about a lot.
First of all, any journalist asks trust of his readers, and I certainly do: I hope it is believed that I would not simply call people with one point of view, but I appreciate that an analysis like this depends on that trust. In truth, I just started calling around to see what people thought, and a theme or two emerged.
As to the use of anonymous sources, again, I've thought about that a lot. The Church is a human society (in addition to its divine character), and is a society in which both Pope Francis and Vatican Council II say that journalism has an important role to play. But as a human society, the scales are tipped in the Church towards those who have the power. This is because of the Church's divinely instituted hierarchical constitution, which is a very good thing. But it means that there is no separation of powers, and those who are usually most well informed -- the clerical class -- are also the most vulnerable to retaliation if they speak out in ways which displease their superiors. As it happens, there is also no freedom of information act in Holy Mother Church, and no whistleblower protection. And I suspect we both know clerics who have faced kinds of hard or soft retaliation for speaking out critically regarding their bishops' governance. Journalism aims to treat everyone on the same playing field -- and in light of the "state of the scales" in the Church, we are comfortable extending some more anonymity to clerics and others than might be the case in other societies. There are legitimate criticisms to that approach, and limits to it. These things are weighing exercises and judgment calls. But in our view, we can balance the scales a bit, as we cover the Church, by allowing for the reality that clerics who speak out can face real consequences, and that information is not free and open in the life of the Church.
Thanks for raising the question.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Certainly the larger a diocese is, the more difficult it can be to provide direct feedback to the Bishop. I do recall Cardinal George lamenting, in a visit home to Yakima, that the Chancery in Chicago had 900 employees and it was extremely difficult to get to know people well. Anonymity wouldn't help much here. We know each other too well.
Blessings,
R.
Bravo.
It’s all about the money. How much filthy lucre did this group pay Saint Patrick’s (to look the other way) for the funeral?
It may well be about the money. But, given the LGBTQetc influence inside the archdiocese, maybe money was hardly necessary.
https://onepeterfive.com/church-militant-exposing-the-new-york-archdioceses-gay-mafia/
Money doesn’t discriminate when it comes to greed. The abomination of desolation was caused by the hierarchy looking the other way for a big payday.
The problem with conciliatory bishops is that they leave their pastors to face the brunt of the conflict. I openly advocate for better inclusivity for gay Catholics, and there’s no question for me that this liturgy was sacrilegious. What a terrible position to have put the celebrant in. One more thing I learned from Cardinal George: coming out swinging protects the other guys.
Dolan isn't a wartime consigliere.
BRILLIANT :) "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."
Obviously I have no knowledge of what went on, but given the heirarchy's actions and goals in recent years, my guess would be that the good Cardinal and staff were trying to do "outreach" to the LGBT community "in the spirit of Pope Francis" and probably thought/hoped everything would go unnoticed or, at least, blow over quickly.
Guess we all know where we stand now.....
Very few of the current bishops are prepared for the fight that we are currently in. They are weak and used to being liked.