posted
Hmm...unfairly silencing critics, or an example of a guy who didn't realize who he ultimately works for?
I think I might've enjoyed the old format of the magazine.
quote:Jesuit Magazine Editor Quits Amid Conflict
By Alan Cooperman Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, May 7, 2005; Page A02
The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, editor of the Jesuit magazine America and one of the nation's foremost commentators on Roman Catholicism, has resigned from the publication after years of tension with the Vatican.
The New York-based weekly announced that its new editor will be the Rev. Drew Christiansen, a fellow Jesuit who was recruited as a writer and editor by Reese in 2002.
The magazine's statement did not give any explanation for Reese's departure, effective June 1. But the National Catholic Reporter, an independent publication, said he resigned at the request of the Jesuit order after five years of pressure from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department formerly headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
Since Benedict's election, Jesuit officials concluded that their long-running disagreements with the Vatican over the magazine were "unwinnable," the National Catholic Reporter said.
Reese, 60, declined to comment except to say that he is looking forward to a sabbatical while discussing the next phase of his ministry with his superiors.
During his seven years as editor, the magazine's circulation and visibility rose as it tackled controversial subjects head-on, often by pairing essays on two sides of issues such as gay marriage, condom use to prevent the spread of HIV-AIDS and denial of Holy Communion to politicians who support abortion rights.
Reese's editorials often took a left-leaning position. They became particularly sharp during the interregnum after the death of Pope John Paul II, when he called for a new pope who would allow more open debate.
posted
And I'm sure the calling for a Pope that would have been anyone but Ratzinger didn't help either. The interregnum had the feeling of being one of the only times of democracy in the Church, so everybody was speaking on what they wanted and how they thought it could be better, etc. But it also showed more clearly for the new Pope who and where his "enemies" are.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no one in the world who would gladly pay someone to constantly criticize them. To expect the Vatican to do so is hypocritical at best.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I would have enjoyed the old format too..but I don't see anything wrong with this at all. He resigned, although under pressure, and this is a private magizine....
Now, if it was the NYT (or some other neational, independant paper) doing this to a well established writer there, that would be diffrent.
posted
Yeah, I suspect that editing a magazine run by the Catholic church (or any organization for that matter) would include ensuring that the magazine supported (and presented in a favorable light) the views espoused by that organization.
Being a left-leaning person within Catholicism is not all that difficult. But being one employed by the Catholic church must be exceedingly hard. If one wishes to have ones viewpoint heard and addressed.
I suspect this guy knew he was out of a job the instant the new pope was elected. Sounds like they didn't particularly appreciate each other before.
A quiet resignation certainly saves the church undesired embarrassment. And its not like by carping about it (even if he wanted to) that he'd be able to keep his job. It's not a democracy.
Of course, that was sort of his point.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
People so often talk about "no one in the world" for certain things -- I recall OSC telling me what I thought about a person's actions being war crimes in that way.
I would gladly (assuming sufficient supplies of money) pay an intelligent person who strongly disagreed with me on many issues to routinely criticize what I did, especially if that person took care to include someone arguing in support of what I did along with every criticism.
I would rather enjoy it, actually. Of course, I'm also a strong believer in divided governments.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being a left-leaning person within Catholicism is not all that difficult.
Depends on what you mean by "left-leaning." The Church's "official" (U.S. Bishop Conference or Papal announcements) stands on the death penalty, welfare, prisoners rights, use of military force, economic policy, and many other issues align much more closely with those considered left than right.
Abortion, sexual education, divorce, and birth control subsidies are the major areas where it doesn't.
Dagonee P.S., I'm including Catholic commentary on political questions, not internal Church matters. If we include those, then ordination of women, celibacy for priests, and others would probably be considered "right-leaning," but it's a much bigger stretch, I think - mainly because left and right don't translate directly to "liberal" and "conservative."
quote:There is no one in the world who would gladly pay someone to constantly criticize them. To expect the Vatican to do so is hypocritical at best.
I send stuff to my friend to criticize every week. I expect him to tell me when he thinks I'm screwing up and when I'm going the wrong direction. I don't pay him, though...
Granted, this magazine is probably expected to be more of an extension of the church than a commentator on it, but you used too broad a statement.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is no one in the world who would gladly pay someone to constantly criticize them.
The US government does -- NPR.
The U.S. goverment is an organization, and doesn't invalidate the claim about "no one".
Also, this doesn't have anything to do with free speech. The Vatican isn't trying to keep him from writing our speaking his views. They just aren't going to pay him to do it anymore.
posted
There's also the concept of the newspaper ombudsman, someone employed for the sole purpose of investigating complaints and grievances against the newspaper. Their sole function is to verify the newspaper is accurate or tell the newspaper when it has screwed up.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd also like to point out that any company president that doesn't expect and encourage his/her employees to speak up when they see something wrong is a fool.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh good - I was wondering if this had not hit the radar or if my ramblings were not making sense . . . entirely possible . . . I'll just add my .02 from the thread I tried to start between naps today hopeful for some good hatrackology to speed the day's recovery . . .
quote:Pardon me if I seem fuzzy - I am at home with pneumonia.
Saw "Vatican is said to force Jesuit off magazine" in the NY Times and got to thinking about "silencing" of people, their thoughts, feelings, and deeds. Which makes sense since I also have just read Bold Spirit , which is a poignant story about one Victorian woman's epic struggle and the "silencing" by her community and family that went on.
Free exchange of ideas whether or no they agree with the party line is critical to the health of community. Or is it? Helga chose to live with being silenced for the sake of holding together her family and community. The NYT article describes the increasing discomfort and controlling attempts by then-Cardinal R to the articles published in America- characterized as "loyal opposition." And ends with this statement: "A church that cannot openly discuss issues is a church retreating into an intellectual ghetto."
posted
Chris, this may come as a shock to you, but the Church is not a company, and the Pope is not a CEO. Nor is it a political party. It does not exist for the purpose of appeasing shareholders or appealing to as many voters as possible. If every last church building on the face of the earth stood empty and abandoned, the Pope could no more change the teachings of the Church than you or I can change the laws of gravity.
That being said, there are plenty of places you can criticize and/or oppose the Church and its teachings, and it will do nothing to stop you. But it doesn't have to pay you to do it, and it isn't going to allow people who teach things that are opposed to its teachings and claim to speak for it.
As TomDavidson (I believe it was he) put it in another thread somewhere : If you're a sales rep for Coke, and you go around telling everyone that Pepsi is better, Coke has every right to fire you.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt that this editors comments rose to the level of promoting Pepsi while working for Coke. But still, the new pope disliked his approach when he was the Cardinal in charge of doctrinal purity. These two men simply do not see eye-to-eye. I suspect that he knew that if Cardinal R became pope, he would be better off resigning quietly rather than be forced out and fight it, thus causing more embarrassment for the Church.
This is a man of God and a devout Catholic. He's probably not trying to embarrass the church. I truly suspect this was all done without the bitterness that one might expect if the Church actually WAS a corporation.
It's an interesting thing to discuss, but the news isn't that he resigned, but that he WASN'T fired...
Personally, the side-by-side format discussing issues within the church sounds appealing to me. I'm sorry that it's probable that sort of thing may be gone after this change.
But then, I never read the magazine so it's really no skin off my nose.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I'm missing it, but why are people saying that the Vatican pays for the publication of this magazine? I don't see it in the article, although I may have missed it. I could be wrong, but from what I know of the Jesuits and Vatican finances, I don't think that it's likely that the Vatican was paying for this magazine.
Also, the aims of most of the reformist factions of the Church are not adequately expressed by focusing on changes in doctrine. For most of them, the specific doctrinal changes come out of an enthusiasm for the letter and spirit of Vatican II and an antipathy for the current centralized autoritarian control exercised by the Pope and the Curia.
For example, birth control. The Papal commission of birth control, convened following Vatican II, did something kind of revolutionary. It involved laity at a level nearly commensurate as the ordained. As pretty much every married couple told them, sex was a terribily important mechanism of bonding and reconciliation. The finding of the commission was that there were no doctrinal nor pratical reasons that opposed the Church's acceptance of birth control. However, Pope Paul VI, acting at least partially from advice that changing this would diminish the power of the Pope, set aside the commission's report.
Central to the reformist cause is the idea of collegiality, of the Church being better represented by a organization of colleagues than of a hierarchical power structure. Thus, individual Bishops would have much more say over matters in their dioceses. And the ordaineds' relationship to the laity would become one more of explanation, teaching, engagement, and dialog rather than commands without explanation or discussion.
Yes, there are thus the issues of birth control, married priests, woman priests/deacons, and even acceptance of homosexuality, but that's in large part because one of the strongest arguments against any of these (well, homosexuality is not quite there) is that the Pope says no.
It's a complex relationship nad I certainly didn't do it justice here, but I do know it's even less accurate to say that it boils down to disagreeing on certain issues.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, this may come as a shock to you, but the Church is not a company, and the Pope is not a CEO.
And, had I been responding to the comments about the Catholic Church, that would have been relevent as all heck. However, I was responding to this one: "There is no one in the world who would gladly pay someone to constantly criticize them." Such a sweeping statement deserved response, as all needlessly general statements do. There are an awful lot of people whose sole occupation is to criticize others for money. Your average consultant, for another example.
And, as has been brought up, we don't know if the Church is funding this particular magazine. If it's not a Church publication, is it forbidden from publishing anything besides Church-approved articles and essays? If so, fine. But it hasn't been said.
Having said that, I do think the Catholic Church should pay someone to criticize them, although possibly not publicly. Any person or group with that kind of power over other people needs to collect opposing views, if only to see how their own doctrines are being perceived. Doesn't mean they have to change those doctrines, but if they appear blind or hostile to criticism they risk alienating their followers who have legitimate questions.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Another participant at the news conference, Bishop James A. Tamayo of the Diocese of Laredo said his area on the U.S.-Mexico border provides daily witness to the consequences of a broken immigration system.
“Our experience on the border is far from the vision of the Kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed: many who seek to migrate are suffering, and, in some cases, tragically dying; communities are divided; and racist and xenophobic attitudes remain,” he said.
“From my perspective on the border,” Bishop Tamayo continued, “I welcome the Justice for Immigrants campaign because Catholics are involved in all aspects of the migration phenomenon…But often members of our faith work at cross purposes or against each other, leading to division and rancor in local communities and in our parishes. With education and through prayer, we hope, through the Campaign, to bring Catholics of differing perspectives together to find a human solution to our immigration crisis.”
“We are also launching the Justice for Immigrants campaign because the U.S. Bishops are united in the view that the status quo is unacceptable and that comprehensive immigration reform is needed,” Bishop Tamayo said. “We can no longer accept a situation in which some public officials and members of our communities scapegoat immigrants at the same time our nation benefits from their labor. We can no longer tolerate the death of human beings in the desert.”
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
