Several GetReligion readers have sent in the URL for a Washington Post story that ran last weekend about the formation of a group for gays, lesbians and, one would assume, bisexuals on the campus of the Catholic University of America.
This story is pretty much what you would expect: A love song to a small, courageous band of true believers who are standing up against the establishment. Journalists love that template. You can see this right at the top of the report:
Every Wednesday morning, 150 officials at Catholic University receive an email about a gay student’s struggles on campus.
There’s a graduate student who doesn’t mention her girlfriend to classmates or professors for fear of being lectured. An undergraduate who held her girlfriend’s hand and was called an ugly name. Another student learned his roommate’s mother tried to have her son reassigned when she learned he was gay. Every Wednesday night, more than three dozen students gather to discuss what Catholic can do to welcome, affirm and protect its gay students, staff members and others.
So far, the administration has not been receptive to the group’s Wednesday efforts. This summer they rejected an application from the group, CUAllies, to be an official student club. Doing so would have led to supporting an advocacy group for positions contrary to church teachings, Catholic spokesman Victor Nakas said in a statement.
“What else could be their purpose?” said Nakas.
If you are looking for Catholic doctrinal insights deeper than those of a campus spokesperson, this is not the story for you. There are, of course, a wide variety of voices from the student group itself and from its supporters in other settings. It goes without saying that there is a strong, official, LesBiGay presence at Georgetown University, the Jesuit institution that serves as the official maypole around which dance the principalities and powers of progressive American Catholicism.
However, the Post team does seem to realize that private colleges — left and right — are voluntary associations that are allowed to advocate and even protect their foundational doctrines, whether those doctrines are ancient Catholic Christianity or a modern or postmodern creed of the choosing of a school’s trustees. Thus, it would have been good to mention that CUA students voluntarily affirm a student-life code that includes this statement:
R. Sexual Offenses
1. Sexual Relationships: The university affirms that sexual relationships are designed by God to be expressed solely within a marriage between husband and wife. Sexual acts of any kind outside the confines of marriage are inconsistent with the teachings and moral values of the Catholic Church and are prohibited. …
There are, of course, a wide variety of Catholic educational institutions that would not make this demand or strive, in any way whatsoever, to advocate these doctrines. Then again, CUA is very open about its loyalty to Catholic teachings and to Rome. Yes, the student code includes other statements about sexuality and the dignity of all students. It’s a truly Catholic mix, so check it out.
The leaders of CUAllies know where they are. Thus, the Post reports:
“We might not be an official group, but we’re winning,” said Robby Diesu, a senior political theory major from New York who is a founder of the group. “We have our own community. … It’s empowering.”
But the group has a self-imposed list of topics that are off-limits: Pre-marital sex, gay sex, birth control, gay marriage and behavior not permitted by the Catholic church. Despite the university’s refusal to sanction the group, the students say they want to respect the campus’s conservative nature and rules. Instead, they focus on helping gay students who are trying to navigate campus and educating the rest of the student body about gay issues.
And later we read:
Catholic University used to have a gay-straight alliance, the Organization for Lesbian and Gay Student Rights, which was formed in 1979 and was officially recognized as a student organization in 1988. The group’s original constitution stated that it will not permit “any ambiguous use of the University’s name to imply that the University approves of homosexual lifestyles as morally neutral, of homosexual activity, or of homosexual behavior.”
The group was forced to dissolve several years ago because it became an advocacy group, Nakas said.
Since several readers praised the article, I kept waiting for a truly balanced debate about the Catholic teachings on sexuality (click here for key Catechism material), and homosexuality in particular. In other words, I kept waiting for a balanced, accurate journalistic presentation of the doctrinal issues being debated, with articulate, informed voices from both sides.
You’ll be stunned to know that I’m still waiting.
Surely there are real, live theologians who back the church’s teachings on that campus. You think? Surely there are some faculty members who are critical of those teachings, in part, and are willing to state their views on the record. After all, there are faculty members who are working to help CUAllies seek official status.
However, I was also left asking a more foundational question. The whole point of the article is that CUAllies has become the gathering place for LesBiGay students and their supporters on this campus.
Note, however, that this assumes that there is no local chapter of the Courage Apostolate, a network of support groups for Catholics who struggle with same-sex attraction — but openly support the church’s teachings. In other words, these are gay Catholics who are seeking the strength to remain celibate or to change their sexual behavior in some way. In liturgical terms, these Catholics believe that they need to confess their sins like everyone else who struggles to live by the high standards of Catholic doctrine.
According to the Courage website, there is a priest associated with this organization who works in the Washington, D.C., area. Might someone from the Post team have given him a call?
In other words, there is a chance, a good one I would think, that there are two groups on or near the CUA campus for gay, lesbian and bisexual Catholics. One group is defined by its support for Catholic teachings and the other one is, well, the one worthy of coverage in the Washington Post. If there isn’t a Courage chapter on the campus, then that is, in and of itself, a story worthy of coverage.
 | Posted at 11:24 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (39) |
December 15, 2009, at 12:57 pm
Outstanding point, Terry. Courage was (after some debate) a couple of years ago officially cited by the U.S. Bishops as an example of how it envisions pastoral care to persons with same-sex attractions. One would think that the organization might merit a mention or a phone call in a story like this, if a reporter were to be engaged in actual journalism, as opposed to that other thing.
December 15, 2009, at 1:00 pm
This seems to be the flip side of the Hastings/CLS controversy from a few days ago. It’s interesting that in one case the media coverage seems to implicitly support the school, and in the other the coverage seems to implicitly support the student group… or maybe that’s just my skewed perception.
I see nothing morally wrong with a school ruling that all groups who receive official recognition and the privileges that go along with it allow anyone who wants to join be a member and grant all members full privileges (in the case of Hastings) or that a Catholic school require recognized groups to follow the Church’s teachings (in the case of CUA). I can see why one person might judge one school’s rules to be prudent and the other’s imprudent, but I don’t understand the view that many people on both sides of the debate seem to have that in one case the school has the right to make such a rule and in another case the student group has the right to be free from any such rules. Of course, I might be missing something in the details (like the rules aren’t being applied equally to all groups or something like that).
December 15, 2009, at 1:13 pm
Spiking away, on the left and the right.
The issue here is not the rightness or wrongness of the Catholic Church’s teachings.
The issue is how the Post did, or did not, offer a balanced approach to a story about how those teachings are being debated at CUA.
It’s journalism, people.
December 15, 2009, at 2:01 pm
I just googled Catholic University of America for their home page and interior-googled “Courage Apostolate”. No hits; evidently CUA doesn’t have a chapter. Took me two minutes.
December 15, 2009, at 2:03 pm
tmatt: The Washington Post hasn’t the vaguest idea as to what journalism is.
December 15, 2009, at 2:50 pm
This seems to be a rather nice fluffy piece of feel good journalism. Yet it does ignore, or not fully examine, why the LBG students are at a strict RC school in the first place. The students quoted all sounded, to me at least, to be rather shallow. I can not understand why anyone goes to a school where they know beforehand they will not be welcomed. The best adjective I can come up with for the story is: dippy.
Why is there no mention of Courage? Looking at the website, I notice there are no drop in events listed. Everything requires making a call and being vetted before attending. A journalist would either have to lie or risk seeing a Potemkin type event. I suspect a story about Courage would be in the reporter undercover at secretive organization genre.
The DC Courage chapter does not appear to be located at CUA. Are there RC universities that have Courage chapters? No clue from the website.
There is a link from the Courage website to a group called Priests With Courage.
http://www.priestswithcourage.org/
This is self described as:
What is interesting here is the list of links:
http://www.priestswithcourage.org/links.html
There are clear links to all the leading ExGay and Reparative Therapy sites. This is inconsistent with Courage’s claim to reject sexual orientation change and to simply offer support for a life of celibacy. I agree with you Terry, the press needs to report on Courage.
December 15, 2009, at 3:30 pm
I’m actually a student at CUA right now. I’m not involved at all with CUAllies, but they are a visible presence on Campus. The school newspaper has run a couple stories on the group and its struggle for a place at the school. When I had read in about the group’s attempts gain approval, my first thought was, “wait, shouldn’t there be a Courage group on the campus of the *Catholic* University of America…”.
There’s not. And I think it would be really cool if there was, but I don’t think it would happen anytime soon. I might consider suggesting it but I don’t have any connections to the homosexual presence of the campus.
December 15, 2009, at 3:44 pm
Dave:
I did the same search, of course. But I know from previous contacts with Courage members that their chapters are often not publicized, as a way of discouraging the harassment of the members.
December 15, 2009, at 3:48 pm
Dalea:
Courage members I have talked with stress that they believe the issue of “healing” is truly mysterious, as are the origins of same-sex attraction in the first place. Thus, they believe that it is wrong to insist that changed behavior is the goal. Courage is not an ex-gay group, in other words. But many of its members believe that some people can see real changes in their feelings and attractions. The group — in my experience — has a highly complex view of these issues.
December 15, 2009, at 3:50 pm
William said:
That’s a straw-man statement, pure and simple. Clearly you do not have friends and trusted colleagues who work at the Post.
December 15, 2009, at 4:41 pm
I think the issue of those who find same-sex attraction unwelcome is complex. I’m not familiar with the Anonymous groups that deal with sexual behavior, but I know they do exist for those that choose that path.
I know the culture right now encourages acting on one’s desires rather than not acting on them, but there should be an equal place for those who choose to not act on their urges and so the questions raised in this topic are important to consider.
December 15, 2009, at 5:42 pm
Interesting, I googled Courage and do not find much written about the organization. Very little coverage of the group. The standard GL press has little on it. Even the exexgay sites don’t say much about it. Almost all the information is on RC sites.
Have you written about Courage? It seems odd that the group gets so little publicity, compared to Exodus.
December 15, 2009, at 5:56 pm
dalea:
Long ago. Here is a link to a column that I wrote about a gay Catholic who really gets the Courage point of view:
http://www.tmatt.net/2000/04/05/why-churches-are-silent-on-sex/
December 15, 2009, at 6:41 pm
Having stated the exact same points earlier on my website last Saturday, it’s good to see that people have picked up on the idea. May I suggest getting some like-minded people at CUA together and press the board to have an official group with Courage so that there doesn’t have to be a CUAllies problem anymore? (Seems like a win-win for Board, gays, and faithful Catholics to me.)
Not that I go to CUA (I’m a sophomore at another campus), but it seems like a viable plan to me. …
December 15, 2009, at 7:57 pm
Most Americans don’t realize that the news coverage-like in this article— of the Catholic Church is for the most part “Protestant.” By that I mean that the story takes for granted that basic, core Church moral doctrines are debatable and they are always open to the most bizarre interpretations— including complete reversal— and that the latest Vox Populi is the seat of God’s infallible word.
This of course, through the back door, trashes any real concept of Tradition and Revelation as understood and taught by the Catholic Church (And the Orthodox Church, also, I believe) for 2,000 years.
I forget the exact words G.K. Chesterton. the great media journalist of his day, used, but he said something to the effect that Catholic Tradition protects Catholics from being that most sorry of spectacles-merely a captive child of his own times.
Sadly, many Catholics—and others_— of today have no concept of Truth and proudly advertise their captivity to Modern Ignorance with the mass media leading the way.
December 15, 2009, at 9:07 pm
Two comments:
Deacon: Would most traditional Catholics be willing to endorse a 50-50 approach to journalism that takes the views on both sides seriously?
To the angry comments people:
JOURNALISM. That’s the topic here, people. Take your anger elsewhere.
December 15, 2009, at 9:41 pm
It seems my comment got censored. So much for the “Truth”.
December 16, 2009, at 6:59 am
CHRIS:
No, your comment had nothing to do with journalism or the actual subject of my post.
December 16, 2009, at 6:47 pm
t. matt—I think most traditional Catholics wouldn’t for a very serious reason (if talking about settled orthodox doctrines like the sanctity of human life or Jesus being the human race’s sole saviour) And that is because such 50-50 coverage treats heresy on an equal level with orthodox teachings and that is fraud on the face of it—especially in a culture where people are taught that everything is up for vote and debatable and that there are no absolute truths even if coming from God in Revelation. The few 50-50 stories I have seen in the media treat the pope’s and bishop’s voices and the Bible’s words as somehow carrying less weight than the mob’s in interpreting Christian Truth.
December 16, 2009, at 6:54 pm
Deacon:
So you expect Catholic journalism even in mainstream journalistic settings? You cannot support journalism that tried to capture a balanced, accurate debate between two sides?
I cannot justify coverage that tilts to the Catholic left, which we often see.
How would you justify SECULAR coverage that tilts to the traditional Catholic point of view?
December 16, 2009, at 11:28 pm
tmatt wrote: If there isn’t a Courage chapter on the campus, then that is, in and of itself, a story worthy of coverage.
Are you assuming that there are college-based chapters elsewhere? From the US chapter list on Courage’s web site, I didn’t see any indication of that.
After all, Courage exists in order to provide spiritual support to its members. It’s not about making any sort of statement on campus or engaging in public advocacy. So there’s nothing to be gained by seeking a college’s approval. And, given a choice, it’s probably better for a group about such a sensitive subject to meet off-campus.
December 17, 2009, at 2:25 pm
Terry,
Re: your question to the Deacon - If ‘journalism’ could start from the position that the Magisterium of the Church is set and not open to debate as a basic premise in its reporting, perhaps coverage of Church issues may be more balanced.
However, it won’t happen in our lifetimes - American journalism is premised on democracy; everyone is equal with a vote that matters. That premise is not now, nor has ever been, the structure of our Church as the Truth of the Church cannot change. This is a basic cultural difference that ‘journalism’ can not balance. And rarely does it choose to, even when the opportunity presents itself. Deacon Bresnahan’s point remains.
December 17, 2009, at 3:36 pm
MARTY:
Yes, he is, essentially, opposed to journalism.
Here is the irony: His approach to journalism is PRECISELY the same as the far left, only he is using a different template.
The purpose of this blog is to advocate for classic American journalism, which we concede is under attack today inside MSM newsrooms as well as out in the advocacy groups on left and right.
Most traditional Catholics that I know realize that a fair, balanced, accurate coverage of these issues that respects both sides would be a miracle. They would welcome that.
I am disappoint to see that you and the deacon are pro-advocacy journalism and opposed to the journalism that GetReligion seeks to defend.
December 17, 2009, at 6:14 pm
t.matt— it is NOT advocacy journalism if the Catholic position were to be correctly and honestly presented as THE Catholic position in news media accounts. What is fraudulent in most 50-50 secular media accounts is that the position of those attacking Catholic teaching is usually treated as being somehow as authentically Catholic as the clear and settled teachings of the Church as clearly delineated by the pope and bishops and the official Catholic Catechism.
December 17, 2009, at 7:11 pm
Deacon, the problem with what you want the press to do is that any reporter with the faintest awareness of church history will know that some doctrine has changed over time — glacially, perhaps, but changed nonetheless. The MSM cannot be expected to accept that a current teaching is utterly immutable for all the future.
December 18, 2009, at 10:32 am
Regardless of your views about the purpose of the article, I can tell you that your understanding of what CUAllies is all about is quite inaccurate. The group’s mission is to make CUA a safe, welcoming, and affirming environment for all students, regardless of sexual orientation. What part of that is anti-Catholic? You write that CUA should have a Courage group on campus instead. CUAllies isn’t opposed to that. The key point here is that Courage and CUAllies have two very different focusses. Courage is a group that is meant to provide pastoral care to homosexual Catholics. CUAllies deals with issues of creating an environment in which the human dignity of all persons is affirmed. Courage isn’t about creating an environment outside of the group, and CUAllies isn’t about pastoral care. CUAllies is also not about sex, at all. The Post did mischaracterize the “list of off-limits topics.” CUAllies does not take a stance on these issues because they are not related to the goals of the group, not because the group has to censor itself to be accepted by the school. There is nothing in the mission or goals of the group that is anti-Catholic. The University is unwilling to recognize the group because it is worried about public perception of doing so by people who fail to take the time to truly understand what the group is about.
December 18, 2009, at 4:12 pm
I’m a bit of a late-comer to all this, and the discussion may be over, but I would say that the dichotomy between ‘classical American journalism’ and ‘advocacy journalism’ is not exhaustive, or perhaps even all that much of a dichotomy in the end. The notion of ‘classic American journalism’ as something other than advocacy depends upon accepting a) the religious neutrality of secular order which ‘classical American journalism’ takes for granted and b)the theological neutrality (and self-sufficiency) of the methodology of ‘classical American journalism’ itself. (This is prior to and distinct from the question of inevitable human bias.)
I would argue that neither assumption holds up to rigorous inspection, which means that ‘classical American journalism’ itself is finally a subtle form of advocacy for secular order which is not really secular at all (or at least in the sense we imagine it). It is because we are both confused about the nature of secular order and blind to the subtle assumptions built into the craft of journalism that we tend to reduce the question of ‘bias’ to the question of of a reporter’s subjectivity on the one hand and his good use of technique on the other, while otherwise we regard journalism’s mediation of disputes such as the one depicted in this story as ‘objective’ or ‘neutral’. Again, the assumption is that ‘good journalism’ solves journalism’s problems, not that journalism is inherently problematic.
Acknowledging this problematic would lead to a different characterization of the ‘attack’ on ‘classical American journalism’ inside and outside of newsrooms. While the new advocacy journalism no doubt represents a regretable decline of all sorts of standards (civility, fairness, investigative rigor, parsimony, e.g.,), it may also be seen to point to and follow from the basic incoherence in the journalistic enterprise, wherein you can’t actually get very far without recourse to extra-journalistic judgments.
To wit, I would say to Deacon John’s plea for an honest portrayal of Catholic positions as Catholic positions what I said a few days ago to Terry’s lament about sneer quotes around the word ‘orthodox’. (In light of that lament, Terry’s retort to the Deacon here makes no sense to me.) Not only would understanding what Catholic positions mean require one to cease thinking journalistically, but you don’t even have grounds for regarding the Church’s teaching as more Catholic than the personal idiosyncracies of individual Catholics (or for regarding the Ecumenical Councils as definitive for orthodoxy) without tacit recourse to extra-journalistic criteria.
December 18, 2009, at 7:17 pm
Dave—and that glacial change has been in the direction Catholic teaching was already pointing or going. Or as Cardinal Newman put it upon reading Church history (which led him to leave the Anglican clergy and become Catholic)—Catholic doctrine of today is the natural flower which has blossomed from apostolic or Biblical seed.
But the 50% of most MSM articles on the Church that opposes Church teaching is usually promoting gross mutations (heresy) as somehow a legitimately Catholic position. And frequently this is so obvious one knows that the reporter is acting as a propagandist for the heretical (mutation)position.
December 18, 2009, at 7:46 pm
Deacon, I’m glad you agree with my basic point. Whether the change is as organic as you describe it, or as political as it might seem from the outside — YMMV. I would say that a reporter would have to be inordinately familiar with doctrine to get that far down in the weeds.
December 18, 2009, at 8:36 pm
michael, I think we’d all agree that, at a fundamental level, neutrality and total absence of any advocacy (if only by the embrace of unstated assumptions) is impossible.
The germane question is, has the journalist put a thumb on the scale, as between two clearly identifiable “sides,” in this particular article or class of articles?
December 18, 2009, at 8:53 pm
Deacon John,
I don’t dispute your claim about propagandists posing as journalists.
But, again I would submit that there is no way on strictly journalistic criteria for distinguishing a ‘legitimate Catholic position’ from an illegitimate one or to regard the Church’s self-understanding as any more authoritative for what it means to be Catholic than what some disgruntled subjectivist (or a mob of them) happen to think it means. That very incapacity is one of the ways that so-called journalistic neutrality neutralizes its subjects before they are ever allowed to present themselves.
December 18, 2009, at 11:56 pm
Dave,
I’m not sure we agree on what is really the germane question.
Oh, I agree that fair-minded journalism, thorough investigative standards, and dispassionate reporting are better than their opposites.
But I would hold that the distortions that result from some biased reporter ‘pressing his thumb on the scales’ of an issue are both more obvious and less damaging than those invisible assumptions which have resulted in journalism as such, even the good old classic American variety, acquiring almost exclusive power to mediate reality to our culture. It’s a situation so taken for granted that we do not even see it, sorta like a fish doesn’t see water, so we cannot imagine an alternative. But in historical terms, it’s a pretty recent phenomenon. It seems to me that we need to reflect more on this phenomenon and what it means and not just regard it as unproblematic and natural, even if there is next to nothing that can be done to change it.
Sorry if that is less interesting than whether the Post article on CUA was truly fair and balanced.
December 19, 2009, at 12:46 pm
I don’t know what the problem is in a reporter being able to find out what is THE authentic Catholic doctrine on a religious-moral issue—simply use the index on the Catholic Catechism. If someone is claiming to be Catholic or to be giving the Catholic position it should take about 3 minutes to check it out and state in the article whether someone is being accurate (surely part of a reporter’s job).
My original complaint was that the MSM covers the Catholic Church in a “Protestant” manner—writes about Catholic issues as if there is no way to check on what is objectively Catholic doctrine. Instead,they interview or poll people to find out what they THINK Catholic doctrine is and then treat those opinions (no matter how blatantly opposite to established Catholic doctrine ) as if they could be as validly Catholic as what is in the Catechism.
December 19, 2009, at 1:36 pm
Whatr I’m saying is that while it is true that a reporter can always check the Catechism or other teachings of the magisterium, the identification of these with ‘the authentic Catholic position’ involves an extra-journalistic, that is to say non-empirical judgment. A strictly empirical, or neutral position such as journalistic method claims to instantiate can provide no criterion for acknowledging one position as more authentic than another, or even recognizing that there is such a thing.
December 19, 2009, at 1:43 pm
Michael:
Your position is essentially anti-intellectual.
Of course there is an official Catholic doctrine on a wide variety of issues and it can be quoted. Your position is like saying that the Supreme Court cannot be quoted as a definitive position on the views of the Supreme Court, that the US Constitution cannot be quoted as a source on the US Constitution.
There are facts in history and doctrine in the Catholic Church, under its polity.
It is wrong for journalists to treat the Catholic Church as if it is the Episcopal Church, which has LEGAL BYLAWS that can be quoted, at least.
At the same time, the position of the Vatican is not the only position in Catholic debates that must be quoted accurately and fairly. Journalists must quote rebels and heretics as fairly and accurately as it quotes popes.
The deacon is wrong if he believes that journalists should only quote Rome accurately and fairly. It seemed like that was his position at first.
But we do not need to make journalism into a fog machine that denied facts, history, documents and the polity of the Catholic Church.
December 19, 2009, at 2:57 pm
michael @32, tmatt can refer you to a study that exposed a journalistic thumb on the scale as regards the language used to describe differences over abortion. These invisible assumptions can be exposed and corrected. (I cite this as an example even though the thumb was on my side of the scale.) This blog is about correctable bias as regards religion or religious topics. …
December 19, 2009, at 9:37 pm
t.matt—I agree with everything you put forward—including that I may not have been clear at some point. Both sides in a debate should be quoted accurately and fairly. But if someone claims that to be in favor of, say, abortion-on-demand, is an authentically Catholic position—or claims that Buddha is a co-saviour of the human race according to Catholic doctrine, and the story gives a spin that that is or could be accurate (since there is a mob somewhere claiming this)—that is to take, in my opinion, a “Protestant” attitude toward covering the Catholic Church and Catholic doctrine (which is not reversible once definitively proclaimed—under the inspiration and guidance, Catholics believe, of The Holy Spirit— no matter what a mob may think or opine).
December 19, 2009, at 9:49 pm
Deacon:
What you have to do is attribute the information very clearly.
The following prof who teaches at the following seminary said, in a lecture on the following date to the following gathering of academics, that Jesus and the Buddha are both expressions of The Christ Principle, or what not.
Or the following nun, at the following meeting of the US coalition of women religious, said — click here for transcript — that it is “time to move past Jesus.”
It’s all about attribution and debates.
How would you like reporters to handle clashes BETWEEN BISHOPS?
December 19, 2009, at 10:36 pm
TMatt,
That’s funny.
May I suggest that ‘anti-journalism’—I don’t wish to call it that, but you might—and ‘anti-intellectualism’ are not the same thing? Nor, might I add, are ‘pro-journalism’ and ‘pro-intellectualism.’ Not all thought is journalism, believe it or not; nor is all thought accessible to journalism insofar as it is journalism (though it may be accessible to journalists insofar as they are human). The capacity of the media ‘to mediate’ is inherently limited by journalism’s own ontological assumptions and methodological structure; that’s the whole point. And what is incapable of journalistic mediation—a fully Catholic vision of reality, for instance—is never allowed by journalism to appear to view within journalism. It either disappears from view altogether, or is made to appear as something less and other than it is: a mere ‘moral’ or ‘doctrinal’ position within an order of reality whose essence is assumed (as a matter of theological faith) to be secular.
My point in response to Deacon John and in response to your complaint from a few days ago about doctrinal history is not that there is no such thing as tradition, or doctrine or canon law and that these (or their opposites) cannot or should not be quoted. Who has ever denied that? Nor is it to deny that these do constitute the ‘authentic Catholic (or Orthodox) position—quite the contrary. It is to deny, however, that this is a journalistic judgment.
And it is to insist that the claim of these to have more of a purchase on ‘the authetic Catholic position’ (Deacon John’s words) than, say, the mystical (or mystifying) theology of Nancy Pelosi involves tacit recourse to an extra-empirical, extra-journalistic judgment as to what constitutes an ‘authentic Catholic position’. Don’t get me wrong. Being generally in favor of truth, I’m all for these sorts of judgments. But let’s not pretend that journalists as such are capable of making them. Your appeal to the magisterium or to canon law on analogy with the constitution saying what the constitution says is tantamount to invoking the principle of identity (A=A), but this is question begging. It only holds on the assumption that what the church teaches is identical to ‘the authentic Catholic position’, which is the very question that the mystifying theology of Nancy Pelosi puts into play. I say this not to challenge the authority of the church, but the authority which journalism claims for itself and to suggest why this authority is not neutral: its very incapacity for judgment about such matters relativizes all such judgments in advance, making them appear a priori as so many equally valid options. This, I take it, was the substance of the Deacon’s original point.