New York Times religion reporter Neela Banerjee profiled Frances Kissling who is stepping down as president of Catholics for a Free Choice. The group, which she has been with for almost 30 years, supports abortion and artificial contraception. The Roman Catholic Church has different doctrines.
The headline — “Backing Abortion Rights While Keeping the Faith” — leaves a bit to be desired. As the article points out, Kissling believes she’s keeping the faith. But Catholics who support church teachings on the sanctity of life would certainly disagree. The headline shouldn’t take sides. Imagine if it said “Backing Abortion Rights While Losing the Faith.” At my newspaper we’re not allowed to say we don’t write the headlines since we can disapprove them. But I don’t know how that goes at the Times.
Most articles where the hook is someone leaving a leadership position are a bit fawning for my taste. I remember when Kate Michelman left NARAL Pro-Choice America least year and The Washington Post ran multiple tributes. I’m all for speaking well of the dead, but why must these pieces be so puffy while the subjects are still walking and talking?
Having said that, I actually thought Banerjee’s article was well-balanced and nicely written. Consider how she begins:
Frances Kissling has been called the “philosopher of the pro-choice movement” by her friends and an “abortion queen” by her critics.
But the name Ms. Kissling wears most defiantly, to the consternation of many religious believers, is Roman Catholic. For 25 years, as president of Catholics for a Free Choice, she has angered the church hierarchy and conservative Catholics by criticizing fundamental teachings on sex.
“I’m so Catholic, I can’t get away from it,” said Ms. Kissling, who was once in a convent. “How I construct concepts of life, of justice, it all comes out of being Catholic.”
Catholics for a Free Choice is a group with more political sway than Heathens for a Free Choice because people expect Catholics who emphasize their religion to support church teachings against abortion. A point of debate between Catholics who support church teachings on abortion and those who oppose them is whether it’s accurate for Kissling and her group to claim church affiliation.
Banerjee notes that the group is not well-known among lay Catholics and that it is supported mostly by large secular foundations. Here’s how she sets up the debate in the church surrounding the group:
On Wednesday, Ms. Kissling, 63, will step down from her post, relinquishing her role as one of the most vocal of the so-called bad Catholics, those who manage to accommodate the opposing sentiments of love for the church and anger at much of its doctrine.
“The constant refrain in this office is, ‘Are we really Catholic?’” Ms. Kissling said here in a recent interview. “I know with every ounce of my being that you don’t have to agree with the positions of the church on issues of abortion and contraception to be Catholic.”
Many Catholics passionately disagree. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued statements challenging the right of Catholics for a Free Choice to call itself Catholic. Critics dismiss Ms. Kissling’s organization as a mouthpiece for bigger, secular abortion rights groups and a front for anti-Catholic bigotry.
So far we have Kissling saying that she’s so Catholic, she can’t get away from it, that she constructs concepts of life and justice out of being Catholic and that she doesn’t have to agree with the church about abortion in order to be Catholic. Later on we get other tidbits about Kissling. She is “unequivocal” in her distaste for the church hierarchy.
Yet she left the convent because she disagreed with church teachings on divorce and birth control. That was before she ran an abortion clinic in Pelham, New York. Then there’s this:
“There are days when I think I can’t be a Catholic and that I want to go join a community where I am welcomed, honored, where I can join a parish,” she said. “But in the end, I don’t want to be a Methodist. I’m a member of the greatest religion in the world.”
I love how much religion was included in this profile but I was surprised by the lack of substance in two parts. Considering Kissling’s lack of support for the church and some of its teachings, I wish the article had mentioned her reasons for wanting to stay in the church.
Further, I’m sure both Kissling and her critics in the church have reasons for their positions about whether she is Catholic. Beyond “I know with every ounce in my being that I’m Catholic,” that is. But substantive arguments aren’t mentioned. In the very last paragraph we learn that Kissling isn’t even a member of a parish. That would seem to support the church’s position. But what’s the response of Kissling and her cohorts?
I think it’s an important question to answer because it shows the very real and contentious limits of allowing people to self-identify. This goes double for groups and individuals who claim an affiliation with organizations they disagree with on key issues.
 | Posted at 12:23 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (50) |
March 1, 2007, at 1:02 am
If she’s baptised into the church, she’s Catholic until the Church boots her, whether she disagrees with them or what have you.
March 1, 2007, at 3:15 am
Actually, there is a de facto excommunication for people who have/supply abortions.
March 1, 2007, at 6:35 am
That is, of course, assuming that she knew it was an excommunicable offense. And given her direct involvement with the issue, I’d say she most certainly did/does.
March 1, 2007, at 6:37 am
So if the pope says you’re a bad Catholic…
And your bishop says you are a bad Catholic …
And you disagree, saying you can believe whatever you want…
Does that make you a Baptist? The question is whether her status as a Catholic is something that, for a newspaper, is a fact claim or not. If Jerry Falwell says he is an Episcopal priest, is that a factual statement or not?
March 1, 2007, at 6:38 am
Oh, and if she says there is a priest in an alternative parish that still claims her … isn’t that congregationalism?
March 1, 2007, at 7:08 am
Surely we all understand that “Catholic” is both a cultural tag and a convictional one? After all, the phenomena is well understood in other communions (see “cradle orthodox”) and religions (Islam). In a cultural sense one can be at once both a dissenter and “keeping the faith” (itself an ambiguous term) with no claim of belief.
Trying to put her in or out of the Church, i.e. to disallow her cultural identity, is really quite a Protestant thing to do.
March 1, 2007, at 7:28 am
This isn’t any great mystery: Kissling “stays in the church” because if she left she would be just another pro-choice advocate among thousands — no one would pay attention to her and she couldn’t head an organization. It’s kind of like Rosemarie Daly’s response as to why she “stayed in the church”: “that’s where the Xerox machines are.”
March 1, 2007, at 7:29 am
Harris: I would assume she has every right to claim that she’s a cultural Catholic, sure. I don’t think any of us would take that away from her, nor do I think any of us take joy in the fact that she has unfortunately placed herself in dire straits.
But one can still be “out” of the Church in spite of one’s heritage/perceived self-identity, per canon law.
March 1, 2007, at 7:31 am
We had the dubious honour of having this lady over in Portugal recently. She came with the mission of proving that you could be catholic and pro-choice, because of the referendum we had last month on the legalization of abortion in the first 10 weeks.
She was invited to speak to a parliamentary commission! Fantastic for a country that claims a strict seperation between church and state.
Notably, the only people, during the campaign, who made a point of ranting about their catholicity were on the pro-choice side. All Catholics on the pro-life side were told that this was not a religious issue, and whenever the clergy spoke out, all hell would break out. How dare the church try to influence it’s poor ignorant faithful!
The common refrain is “Jesus would not condemn women who have an abortion”. Would Jesus have quit his ministry to run an abortion clinic?
March 1, 2007, at 9:02 am
The Church has traditionally laid down a three-pronged “test” for Catholicity: to be Catholic you must submit yourself to the three-fold office of the Church in Teaching, Governing, and Sanctifying (The Church has assumed these roles from Jesus, who was Priest [Sanctifying], Prophet [Teaching], and King [Governing]).
1. We submit to her solemn teachings in her Teaching role.
2. We are under no ecclesial interdict or censure in her Governing role.
3. We have received the sacraments appropriate to our state in life in her Sanctifying role.
Kissling clearly fails #1 and probably #2.
March 1, 2007, at 9:19 am
Only God can say. However, given that she devoted her life to vicious highly politicized attacks on the Body of Christ, fostering at best disunity and at worst outright hatred, all the while accepting millions of dollars from anti-life and anti-family extremist organizations for her efforts, there’s little empirical basis for describing her as a Catholic. Certainly this article offers no basis for that claim.
March 1, 2007, at 10:01 am
“In late 2004, she published an article in her group’s magazine, Conscience, titled “How to Think About the Fetus.†She said that while the fetus might not be a person, it was part of the continuum of humanity. She wrote that the fetus “is not nothing,†and that women who consider abortion know that.”
I think she’s a little deeper than most of the posters here realize.
The issue is not as black and white as it seems.
March 1, 2007, at 10:26 am
“There are days when I think I can’t be a Catholic and that I want to go join a community where I am welcomed, honored, where I can join a parish,†she said. “But in the end, I don’t want to be a Methodist. I’m a member of the greatest religion in the world.â€
Nice slap at the Methodists. I’ll be sure to tell my in-laws that they’ve settled for the rookie league of Christianity. No wonder Ms. Kissling is so popular.
March 1, 2007, at 11:16 am
Why does Ms. Kissling think it comes down to a choice between being Catholic and being Methodist? (And by the way, how do the Methodists feel as being identified solely on the basis of pro-choice?)
If I were to be hanged in the morning, I think I’d want someone deciding if I should live or die to be a little bit firmer on the issue of whether or not I was human. “Well, hmm, you’re not nothing, right enough; just let me ponder for a bit on where exactly you fit on the continuum of humanity, okay? Oh, the execution went ahead whilst I was pondering the plea for clemency, you tell me? Never mind so - obviously no need for me to make a decision on the matter.”
March 1, 2007, at 12:16 pm
AS USUAL- extremely important, relevant data and info that should be in such a story is again skipped over by a MSM piece.
For example, it was not some pope, bishop, theologian or medieval saint who equated re-marriage after divorce with adultery, but Jesus Christ in the Gospels.
Also, the Ford Foundation is notorious among Catholics for not only funding secular causes, but for being particularly active in funding anti-Catholic causes.
And it is never mentioned in the MSM media that the Playboy Foundation has been one of the prime financial “angels” for Kissling’s group.
Needless to say, it is obvious that people like Kissling only keep the label Catholic because they know they will become useless as anti-Catholic agitators if they become Methodist.
March 1, 2007, at 1:34 pm
Actually, one is not baptized into the Church but into Jesus Christ. That’s why other Christians who have been validly baptized in the Name of the Trinity are not re-baptized when they enter in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Kissling can prattle all she wants. If she isn’t joined to a Catholic community she is for all purposes a dead-end Catholic. Living a Catholic life apart from the historical Catholic community is an oxymoron.
The woman is to be pitied for her self-delusions.
March 1, 2007, at 2:15 pm
She’s on her way to Hell, whether or not she thinks the concept of Gehenna is fictional.
March 1, 2007, at 2:20 pm
The purpose of this blog is not to discuss whether or not Kissling is Roman Catholic or not.
The purpose of this blog is to discuss how mainstream media handles religious issues. IN this case, we’re discussing how reporters should handle self-identification when it’s contested — as well as other journalism issues mentioned in the post above.
Please keep comments on topic.
Further, please remember to substantiate claims. Don’t just say what you think — but why you think it and on what basis, please.
March 1, 2007, at 2:35 pm
This discussion, however, is illuminating about how difficult an issue this is to describe and is a cautionary tale for avoiding the morass. Is it really the journalist’s job to question someone’s self-identification.
Mollie, do you really believe it would have been appropriate in this kind of article to launch into a “she isn’t really a Catholic even though she says she is” analysis? Who are you going to rely on to make that argument, pro-life groups? Unless you can get the Pope for a sit-down, it seems like an impossible task.
March 1, 2007, at 2:43 pm
Michael,
Banerjee already launched into the analysis — but I’m just wanting more information. The number of words and reportage devoted to the issue was more than I’ve seen in any other article on Kissler.
And I thought it was great — but I wanted more from Kissling.
I wanted to know why she stayed in a church — what she liked about it (instead of all the stuff she doesn’t like) or why she felt compelled to stay.
I already knew most of the back and forth that was provided — but I think in the same number of words we could have gotten a bit more substance to both sides’ arguments — particularly Kisslers.
In a sense, the whole point of the article was whether or not she’s really Catholic. And Banerjee far exceeded all previous efforts on that front (to begin with — she actually engaged the debate).
But I never really got a feel for Kissling’s side. Perhaps Banerjee dug and all Kissling had were her deep feelings and vague references. Fact is, I think that’s probable.
But if not, I think it’s something of a disservice to Kissling to make her seem like she doesn’t have much of a case for claiming Catholicism.
March 1, 2007, at 2:44 pm
Why do reporters say she’s Catholic? Maybe because they like to confuse the issue.
Why does
QuislingKissling say she’s a Catholic? As I have said before about others: you can’t be a subversive traitor if you leave.March 1, 2007, at 2:45 pm
Michael, I think that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is relevant here.
To quote “The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,”
March 1, 2007, at 2:54 pm
Mollie, now I understand. RNS had a story of Kissling around the same time. It wasn’t much more illuminating on the whole “why I am a Catholic” question.
March 1, 2007, at 3:22 pm
For Immeidate Release:
General Benedict Arnold, hero of the Battle of Saratoga, former Military Govenor of Philadelphia, and Commander of the American Military Garrison at West Point formed “American Patriots for a Royalist Government” today.
Speaking from his house in London, still wearing his American Uniform, General Arnold said ” I know with every ounce of my being that you don’t have to agree with the positions of the Continental Congress on issues of Independence and Republican Government to be a Patriotic American.â€
When asked why he did not renounce his Comission in the Army of the United States “I’m so American, I can’t get away from it. How I construct concepts of life, of justice, it all comes out of being a Patriotic American. There are days when I think I can’t be an American soldier anymore and that I want to go join an Army where I am welcomed, honored, where I can join a Regement.” He said. “But in the end, I don’t want to be an Englishman. I’m a citizen of the greatest nation in the world.â€
(Of course General Arnold had more intelectual honesty than that in real life. He knew that intelectual positions had to be carried forward into concrete action, and he did join the British Army and accept a comission from the King.)
March 1, 2007, at 4:11 pm
I liked the description of Kissling’s office:
That’s more revealing than anything Kissling says.
March 1, 2007, at 5:43 pm
The purpose of this blog is to discuss how mainstream media handles religious issues. IN this case, we’re discussing how reporters should handle self-identification when it’s contested — as well as other journalism issues mentioned in the post above.
Frances Kissling was the executive director of a non-commercial corporation which has a mailing list with about 5,000 people on it and whose active ‘membership’ has consisted largely of Kissling herself and her fax machine. What is curious about the story is that the newspapers would think she merited attention at all.
March 1, 2007, at 6:03 pm
I think journalists are often called upon to make decisions about self-identification when it comes to religion reporting. The obvious examples are Messianic Jews - are they Jews or aren’t they? If you write a story about them and label them Jews, you’ll likely hear from other Jews - Orthdoox, Conservative, even Reform - who are furious about that designation. Yet what’s the alternative? Saying they aren’t Jews because other Jews say they aren’t?
“Catholic” is another tricky term - there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of groups that identify themselves as Catholic who aren’t in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Do you have to be in communion with him in order to be Catholic?
In this instance, I would have liked to see the reporter try to flesh out Kissling’s views a little more, so Kissling herself could make that call. Is she Catholic in the way that, say, the Society of St. Pius V is Catholic? If not - if she still considers herself in communion with Rome - how does she reconcile that with her public activity?
March 1, 2007, at 6:04 pm
Francis Kissling is excommunicated from the Catholic church. The excommunication is automatic (latae sententiae) under the Code of Canon Law. Francis Kissling’s denials make no difference, she is not a “catholic” in good standing, in fact the opposite.
March 1, 2007, at 7:29 pm
The purpose of this blog is to discuss how mainstream media handles religious issues. IN this case, we’re discussing how reporters should handle self-identification when it’s contested — as well as other journalism issues mentioned in the post above.
Well how do they handle it in other areas of life?
I mean can a reporter call someone “a lawyer” if they don’t have a JD and never joined a bar association?
Just because someone buys a an old uniform, slaps some stars on it and and proclaims themselves “General of the Unorganized Militia of the United States” the Press (ususally) knows better than to say they are a real military officer.
Nobody (outside of the most diehard Kos Kids) calls Al Gore “the real President”.
Calling Ms.Kissling a CHRISTIAN is one thing… it really isn’t our place to say who does and does not sincerely follow the teachings of Jesus Christ according to the dictates of their conscinece. We have to give her the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with her claiming to be a Christian. That’s between her and God, and He doesn’t normally answer his phone before deadline.
But calling her a CATHOLIC though is a very different affair. The Catholic Church is an organized body with certian rules, laws, and membership requirements. No it does not have a membership list that one can easily Google up, but as has been pointed out here several times according to Cannon Law one can not do the things Kissinlg does and advocates and still remain a Catholic.
If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. If it has four legs, fur, and barks it’s not a duck. I mean what more do you need?
“Mollie, do you really believe it would have been appropriate in this kind of article to launch into a “she isn’t really a Catholic even though she says she is†analysis? Who are you going to rely on to make that argument, pro-life groups?”
No, the Catholic Church would probably be the best authority. See the posts by Paul Barnes and Cornelius above.
“Unless you can get the Pope for a sit-down, it seems like an impossible task. ”
No, honest reason and simple logic should do the trick.
If I may venture a reason why the press has such a hard time with something like this, I would suggest two reasons.
1) They don’t want to get flack for coming out and stating the obvious, though offensive, truth.
2) Much of the Left,and therefore the press as well, is in love with the romantic notion of the lonely idealist rebel; one who loves their Church/government/country but is cursed with so much intelligence, education, and deep spiritual insight that they are smarter than the people who actually work for and run said Church/government/country. Therefore they have dedicated themselves to the lonley life of a “reformer”. (I think this has its roots in the “I love America so much I refuse to be drafted and I’m going to Canada instead of Vietnam” bull of the ’60s.)
Calling a spade a spade here would cause difficult complications in other areas; it would lead one to question the patriotisim of most of the Democratic Party, (as well as the sincerity of all those healthy pro-war Republicans who still haven’t found time to enlist even though the Army raised the maxium enlistment age to 42). They might have to start questioning all sorts of things that would lead them into uncomfortable places. An honest press corps would have to do things like say “Paris Hilton is a tallentless floozy and not worth of our attention.” or “James Cameron is just staging a publicity stunt and we will not dignify his efforts with our time and attention, no matter how good the buffet after the press conference was.” Perhaps they would have to go so far as to say ‘Publishing this leaked memo is dangerious to national security. I don’t want to help the terrorists, I coud wind up with blood on my hands someday.”
Where would the press corps be then?
March 1, 2007, at 7:34 pm
I’m old enough to have remembered the issue of JFK and Catholicism. Romney and Mormonism is the religion-politics issue of today. But the question is still relevant - how should we judge a candidate for office if they consider themselves a good whatever. If their church says to do something, will the officeholder ignore everything else to do that? What if the requirements of the Church conflict with the law of the land?
Here we have a person not in politics. But judging from some of the comments, we need to ask such questions of every person running for office who professes to follow a religion.
I’ll be interested in seeing how often the question is asked: if religious doctrine and the requirements of the office you’re seeking are in conflict, what will you do?
March 1, 2007, at 7:54 pm
My standard for judging if someone is a member of a religion is what they do. Does she attend Mass? Engage in other Catholic devotions like saying the rosary? Religion is more than a belief. It is also a practice.
March 1, 2007, at 9:37 pm
I think you mean “ipso facto”, not “de facto”.
There are people who “feel” that they are dragons, or vampires, or elves. (Search under “otherkin”…) But I doubt that they times would treat their claims with respect.
And, no, I do NOT know that “Catholic” is a cultural label. I had the silly idea that it denoted specific religious beliefs. Are there “cultural Baptists” who baptize their children? Are people of Scots descent “cultural Presbyterians”? Are there “cultural Methodists”? “Cultural Lutherans”? Where are the “cultural Episcopalians” in the current controversy? Are Jake and Maggie Gyllenhaal “cultural Swedenborgians”? “Excuse me, sir, but are you a Catholic agnostic or a Protestant agnostic?”
March 1, 2007, at 10:43 pm
Or maybe they would say, “I have an obligation to hold the administration responsible for its behavior by publishing this leaked memo, because the press’ job is sometimes to speak truth to power regardless of the consequences.”
Here’s the problem with all your “calling a spade a spade” examples, Larry. They are your reality and truth, not THE reality and truth. The press has to sort through multiple realities and multiple truths and sometimes that means that people get to self-identify because sorthing through the realities and truths is either inappropriate or too convoluted.
If Kissling wants to call herself a Catholic, it’s not the NYT’s job to necessarily disagree with her. They can offer the opinions of those who believe she isn’t, but they need to be balanced with those who believe she is. So where does that leave us? Will anyone be satisfied? And do we really want journalism flushing out the “who is a Catholic/Jew/Fundamentalist/Muslim” question. especially when it is so complex (and agenda driven).
March 2, 2007, at 7:20 am
Really, I think the author of the above should get out more. Or look at the enrollment records of any number of churches. A cultural Catholicism (i.e. a Catholicism divorced from any obvious religious activity, is well represented in the movies, from The Bells of St. Mary’s to Seabiscuit.)
The reason why we let individuals self-identify their faith is because it gives the reader a context for that person’s thought; the person is in effect establishing a relationship between her/himself and some social community. Our relationships are mediated both by rites, but also by our social networks.
March 2, 2007, at 9:23 am
Well, here’s where the media fail me. Kissling by her own admission belongs to no parish, doesn’t practice Catholicisim as it is commonly understood by practicing Catholics and merely uses the name to push her agenda.
As the poster above quoted by her public support of abortion she has under canon law excommunicated herself and has been publicly denounced by the conference of Bishops.
Why is the “self-identification” of a person such as Kissling considered valid against the norms and structures of the organization she claims to be a part of?
March 2, 2007, at 9:23 am
Michael: If Kissling wants to call herself a Catholic, it’s not the NYT’s job to necessarily disagree with her. They can offer the opinions of those who believe she isn’t, but they need to be balanced with those who believe she is.
Mollie: I’m sure both Kissling and her critics in the church have reasons for their positions about whether she is Catholic….But substantive arguments aren’t mentioned.
I’m with Mollie. As a former stringer, I was taught to let quotes drive the story, because readers want to hear from those who were in the middle of the action. But if you’re gonna rely on “opinions”, then you’d better make sure that you get subject-matter experts expressing them, and you’d better make sure that they cover substantive arguments (or augment opinions with such arguments).
The press seems quite lazy at doing so, especially when it comes to stories on religion. The well-traveled path for the press is to do one of the following:
(1) Trot out the usual suspects to get the opposing view
(2) Get a good quote from anyone, regardless of position or expertise, who has an opposing view
(3) Wave your hands a lot, express the opposing view in a general fashion, and attribute it to “many” people in the other camp
As I have written before, what passes for acceptable journalism (or is even praised on this board as stellar journalism) for stories on religion would result in people getting fired if the stories were on sports. Stories on religion often treat readers as if they know little on the subject, whereas stories on sports understand that readers know quite a bit on the subject.
March 2, 2007, at 9:35 am
Very true. And I have noticed in my own local newspaper the sources used in religious coverage tend to be the same ones, over and over, making me very suspicious that there is a definite agenda on the part of the editor.
March 2, 2007, at 9:46 am
“They are your reality and truth, not THE reality and truth. The press has to sort through multiple realities and multiple truths and sometimes that means that people get to self-identify because sorthing through the realities and truths is either inappropriate or too convoluted.”
Well I think we have come to an important point here.
Several million years ago, during the Cold War I was trained as an Army Tactical Intelligence Officer. Before that I read some Aristotle in school. Before that I read a lot of history.
I mention this because everything I have learned over the years tells me that your idea of “multiple realities and multiple truths” to be illogical, irrational, self-deceptive, psuedointelectual bull. The clearest example is that of the Intelligence Officer. Either there are Japanese Carriers off Hawaii or theire aren’t. There is no “well YOUR truth is that the Japanese are off Hawaii, but MY truth is that the Japanese Fleet is still in Tokyo Bay”. You can’t say “General Custer’s Truth is that there were only a few hundred Indians in the village and they all scattered before him.” or “The CIA’s Truth is that we can expect a quiet Tet Holliday”, or “Secretary Rumsfled’s truth is that we found the WMDs and Chalabi is now President of an honest, peaceful, prosperious and westernized Iraq.” Reality is what reality is, no matter how painful that might be. If there was any sort of validity to this “mulitple truths and all are equally valid” bilge the TITANIC would have made it to New York and I’d be buying you for lunch at Windows on the World.
It is a sign of maturity that we learn to deal with unplesant TRUTHs, unplesant reality. Aristotle’s first rule is “A is A” and his second rule is “A is NOT B”. If you reject these truths these you have no logic, no reasoning, no ability to think abstractly or rationally. (Which explains a lot about the post-modern Western Left if you think about it.)
Sometimes one deals with an irrational or overly emotional individual and it is simply good manners to humor them and agree to disagree. This does not make their “truth” valid, it simply means proves the wisdom of the saying “Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”
Simply because people have an equal right to say what they want does not mean that somehow they all have an equal claim to “truth”. There are multiple points of view, some are quite convoluted. There are also LIES, fantasy, and self-deception, and most of them are VERY convoluted.
Just because “everybody” believes it does not make it true either. (Just ask the guys and gals on Wall Street about that one.) As Marcus Aurelius said “The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.”
2+2 does NOT equal 5, or 3, or 22 for that matter. 2+2 does not stop being 4 just because it makes you, me, Ms. Kissling, or the editoral staff at the NYT uncomfortable.
So this is a simple matter of identity, A=A and A does not equal B, no matter how uncomfortable that makes people, regarless of if those people are the non-Catholics who claim to be “Cultural Catholics” or the overweight middle-aged civilians who call themselves the “Idaho Unorganized Minuteman Militia”.
And if the press does not have the intelectual honesty and basic courage to understand and acknowlege that… well that says more about the press than anything else I could think of.
March 2, 2007, at 10:28 am
But you run the risk that it could be your truth and reailty that is being humored. You have your own version of reality. Maybe its rational, or maybe is delusional. But it is your truth.
I know you think you believe you have THE truth, but there’s a fairly good chance you don’t. So are you the delusional person who is humored or are you the person who is treated with dead seriousness.
Using your war analogy, if the press had been intellectually honest, the consensus is they would have been much more suspicious of the Bush administration and the neocons who started this war. The press’ failure to ask tough questions is partially responsible for the situation we are in. That’s A truth and reality, that I imagine you don’t agree with.
See why this gets complicated?
March 2, 2007, at 12:52 pm
There’s a good point being expressed here. Finding
someone to say the earth is flat to be ‘fair and balanced’ to those who think the earth is round
is hogwash in the 21st century.
But, that said, there can be grey areas. I don’t know if someone is a Catholic if they’ve not been formally excommunicated but hold heretical positions? After all, infallable popes have reversed the judgements of other infallable popes. So can someone disagree with the current infallable pope assuming that a future one will change the doctrine?
It’s a grey and messy area.
March 2, 2007, at 1:56 pm
Not true: infallibility has only been invoked a handful of times.
March 2, 2007, at 4:38 pm
Nope and hardly
Its as certain and rooted as the didache..
March 2, 2007, at 6:07 pm
Thanks, Ann. I learned something today about papal
infallability.
But I’ve found two web sites that
disagree about the Pope’s messages on abortion. One
says that abortion, female priests were given
as infallible messages. Another says that is
not the case. So while my statement about
infallability was a mistake, the issue still
apparently remains.
March 2, 2007, at 6:20 pm
Michael writes: “If Kissling wants to call herself a Catholic, it’s not the NYT’s job to necessarily disagree with her.”
It’s not the NYT’s job to give her a platform either, but the NYT does it. Kissling is newsworthy only in that she represented an effort by anti-Church forces to establish a Fifth Column within the Church. The NYT should have said so without equivocation, because it’s the truth.
March 2, 2007, at 9:18 pm
And I suppose that the people who watch “Big Love” are cultural Mormons.
In a piece already cited in comments on an earlier post, Lennie Bruce implied that everyone in New York is “culturally Jewish”. But I doubt that Jews for Judaism would accept his assessment with equanimity.
March 3, 2007, at 5:42 pm
“It’s a grey and messy area.
Nope and hardly
Its as certain and rooted as the didache..”
The Didache may not have been as normative or representative as previously thought.
March 3, 2007, at 6:25 pm
You made a good point about taking self identification too seriously. One thing we have learned about the media is that it has become acceptable practice to make it up as one goes along. Which calls into question the practicality of taking seriously anything the media writes. Rely on the ‘mainstreme’media for information these days is like an open admission to the idea that we will never know or be able to find the truth about anything, it’s all relative. But, traditional Judeo-Christian values have such things as the ten commandments, which set out the parameters for scientific advancement and a just society that learned to contain and control human feelings and emotions. These values by nature require sacrafice and a humbling of one’s urges and hard work, which has become the main taboo in modern society. It is no wonder that when such a taboo dominates society that violence and relational entropy start to rule.
March 3, 2007, at 9:33 pm
I totally agree with Larry’s long and thoughtful posting.
“Your version of reality” is merely restating the “your reality” nonsese from above. Reality is one, truth is one. It is our scopes that are limited but we cannot turn this necessity into a virtue and claim multiple, contradicting truths.
Grey areas do exist in some areas, including theology at some points BUT none of the things raised by Ms Kissling is touching upon any grey areas.
Though actually a perversion, the phenomenon of Cultural Catholics exist. Ms Kissling appears to be one. If that is enough for her, why doesn’t she call her group “Cultural Catholics for a Free Choice” (not going into the choice term).
If the NYT wants to touch upon the issue, they should have covered all sides at their best.
Re “infallibility” and the two issues: both are covered by the ordinary magisterium of the Church, i.e. she has always held these things to be true. The last paper on women “priests” takes this stance. That doesn’t make that paper infallible (in other words: it could be wrong) but the reality behind it, that the Church has consistently held that view makes it just as binding as if were an infallible definition of faith or morals. The situation is even stronger for abortion. “Thou shall not murder” is one of the Ten Commandments. Applied to our scientific knowledge, this means “Thou shall not murder thy unborn child”.
March 3, 2007, at 10:41 pm
Well, this brings us back to the self-ID issue again, and it’s as clear as it was before: The media have an obligation to make it clear that someone holds abberant views that are contrary to the group/political party/religion they are claiming they are upholding.
In a way, this seems to have been done here, even in a subtle way (such as pointing out the Che Guevara paraphanalia in her office. Good detail.) But not to the extent necessary, in my view.
On a personal level, I’m always amused that the press always, always, ALWAYS go to the Catholic who “disagrees with the Pope.” Maybe it’s the media’s overriding “man bites dog” philosophy at work here, or maybe many reporters (and apparently, some people posting here on this blog) simply don’t know that obediencce to the Pope on social/moral issues is pretty much the definition of being Roman Catholic. Warm and fuzzy “feelings” of attachment, as this woman has, aren’t really enough.
This failure of reporters to understand this point (perhaps willfully?) reminds me of the garbage-bag-clad “WomenPriests” a few months back, who were also noted to be Catholics “in good standing” despite clear evidence to the contrary. Same issue.
If someone makes a claim to be a Freemason (for example) but no Masonic lodge can back up that claim, and some Masons actually come forward to say it’s not true, and the person has no connection to any lodge, reporters wouldn’t think of using that person as an authoritative spokesman for Freemasonry, or if they did, would perhaps make the story about why this person is making false claims.
March 4, 2007, at 3:37 pm
I keep waiting for one of those purported relativists to say something like “discrimination against homosexuals is wrong”, so I can sniff “That’s true for YOU.”
If I said to someone “Stay off that bridge, it’s not safe”, I anticipate that he would either believe me or not. I doubt that he would respond “That’s true for you.”
“Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.”
“Is that absolutely true, Master?”