Another well-educated, well-formed Catholic in the Archdiocese of Boston makes her opinion known in a letter to the editors of the Boston Globe.
Quick point, Rose: The Church does not have a blanket prohibition against the death penalty. And the snide remark about Jesus being Bush’s “self-proclaimed personal savior” (Is it Jesus who’s proclaiming himself to be Bush’s savior or is Bush claiming to be his own savior? I’m confused by the wording) doesn’t exactly declare you to be engaged in Christian charity yourself.
That’s fine … if you live locally. But a good journalist is always looking for more, perhaps even someone who lives locally and knows the subject better than you do.
And the word “files” is innocuous. Plenty of people have files. I have files, mainly consisting of notes and clippings about various people, places, and events that I may want to refer to in future pieces. And scuttlebutt can be anything from gossip to old public statements that you won’t find in a Google search, but which will help you to form a more complete view of the subject. Most of it will never make it into the story (thus it is “on background”), but it can give you insight into the subject.
Also, bishops receive all kinds of weird stuff every day (I know, I’ve been told about some of it). Why this response to this little bit of almost nothing? You have to admit it was a strange response.
That’s my whole point: Hundreds of words in the diocesan newspaper, plus hundreds more in CNS about this little ambiguous email? It’s more than passing strange.
That10.3.0.101
2004-09-30 08:24:02
2004-09-30 12:24:02
Dom,
Jaime is one of those people in the “cheap seats” and he doesn’t think it is strange. I know many folks in Minneapolis, and they don’t think that it is strange. They think that the archbishop is well within his rights to use his paper, which is his forum, to respond to anyone and anything. What did he do wrong again?
See, I put diocesan newspapers in the same boat as say, ‘Columbia’ magazine. While I consider it to be journalism, you apparently wouldn’t, because it is propoganda.
“Just because someone publishes something critical of you doesnthing. Or at least anything new. He doth not protest what she is written. He doth protest the means she seeks information.
Again, (whether you or any national service picks it up is not really up to him is it?) He is addressing his congregants. We’re the ones who have read the papers, seen the protest groups, watched the television cameras turn the Cathedral into a circus and listened to talk radio go on about this ad nauseum. (This being his stance on the Eucharist)
As a personal witness to it, I’m saying he did not go over the top. He just said “enough”.
Thatction and ignore its damage to reputations.”
I have to agree…I think that I always have. This goes way back with us, but it rings true.
Archbishop Flynn’s understanding of the Catechism on this is wonderful. It is also accurate. Perhaps we should all stop being so narrow-minded and open up to what the Church teaches—Today, Yesterday, and Forever. There is no difference.
Have I always agreed with Archbishop Flynn, <b>A HUGE AND RESOUNDING NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!<b> But I can say this, he is a faithful and holy man. He is devoted to the Church and he loves our Lord. Is he sinful? You bet. Is he fallible? Admittedly so. But does he have a right to get on his podium in Minneapolis and St. Paul? You know it, brother…..it is his See and short of teaching heresy, he has a lot of autonomy…..the current Holy Father put him there for a reason. I think that it was to right the ship that was listing, from his predecessor, of happy memory. He is doing that, not perfectly, but he is doing that. The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis are in a better place now than they were when he took over. That is a big plus.
Barbara made a mistake. Admit it. It’s ok. I admit mine all the time. I think most do, like I said though, this one probably smarts a little.
Cam
My husband and I were both cradle Democrats. I re-registered 6 years ago as an Independent over the life issue. He’s still a registered Democrat. Abortion was condemned as “an abomination” in the first century of Christianity. War and the death penalty have been argued ad infinitum within the church… not so the life issue. We need to stop the knee jerk generalizing. Yes, I’m against abortion. However, that doesn’t automatically mean that I am in favor of war or the death penalty. My moral decisions are generated by my faith not my politics. p.s. My youngest son is a wonderful, solid priest.
I wrote the Globe – arent’ you proud of me?? [grin] I wonder if they’ll ever publish it…
In response to an opinion posted in your 9/29/04 Letter’s section:
As a Catholic, I am not offended by Republicans telling me to vote
Republican, nor am I offended by Democrats telling me to vote Democrat. I
have to wonder why anyone would be offended by either stance, it’s absurd!
As for President Bush’s “Catholic values” – ahhh… newsflash! President
Bush isn’t Catholic – his brother, Jeb is, so maybe some get confused, I
don’t know.
As a Catholic, I am completely aware that the Church does not deny the use
of the death penalty, and even the Pope, who regularly pleads for the lives
of US death penalty inmates, has said that the death penalty can be utilized
when guilt is incontrovertible, and there is a clear need to protect the
community. Maybe some others are not aware of this teaching, found in the
Catholic Catechism in CCC 2267. The Church teaches that recourse to the
death penalty is “not excluded”, but that it should be “rare, if not
nonexistent”.
This phrase may ring familiar to some, as it is used by certain Catholic
politicians when they claim that they personally are opposed to another,
more heinous form of death, abortion. Now, this is most definitely a
controversial issue. But it’s not clear why this would be so uncertain for a
Catholic. The Church clearly and concretely teaches that this is not only
wrong, but is a crime, regardless as to civil law. Some, however, claim that
in the spirit of “rights”, while they are “personally opposed” to abortion,
they will not deny the rights of another to have access to them, and that
they will not push the teachings of the Catholic Church onto Protestant, Jew
or atheist. This is a complete red herring. For starters, many a Protestant,
Muslim, Jew, agnostic, atheist, etc. is staunchly pro-life. To claim that it
is a purely Catholic issue is absurd. In addition, think of it this way –
if, back in the pre-Civil War era, a person was “personally opposed” to the
Dred Scott decision, but that people had the legal right to own slaves, does
that even make sense to us now? Today, if a person said they were
“personally opposed” to terrorism, but allowed that people should make their
own choices, would that even make sense? No, of course not – and we fight
against these evils where we find them!
Talking about the death penalty and abortion is, to some extent, apples and
oranges. With a criminal, he has had a chance to make his choices towards
virtue or crime, he has had the thing that we take most for granted, to live
his life. The unborn child is a complete innocent, who has done no wrong. He
or she is not an unjust aggressor who must be defended against. Catholic
teaching is extremely clear on this, to the point where it considers aiding
and abetting of procurement of an abortion to just as much a sinful and
criminal act as procuring one for one’s own self. If we are going to argue
Church teaching, then we need to be clear, and not wave our arms in the air
and run about spewing verbiage that makes no sense. The death penalty is a
grave wrong, but it can never be as wrong as the crime of abortion. Both are
wrong, but if you are forced to make a choice, then the choice is clear –
defend the innocent.
I wrote the Globe – arent’ you proud of me?? [grin] I wonder if they’ll ever publish it…
In response to an opinion posted in your 9/29/04 Letter’s section:
As a Catholic, I am not offended by Republicans telling me to vote
Republican, nor am I offended by Democrats telling me to vote Democrat. I
have to wonder why anyone would be offended by either stance, it’s absurd!
As for President Bush’s “Catholic values” – ahhh… newsflash! President
Bush isn’t Catholic – his brother, Jeb is, so maybe some get confused, I
don’t know.
As a Catholic, I am completely aware that the Church does not deny the use
of the death penalty, and even the Pope, who regularly pleads for the lives
of US death penalty inmates, has said that the death penalty can be utilized
when guilt is incontrovertible, and there is a clear need to protect the
community. Maybe some others are not aware of this teaching, found in the
Catholic Catechism in CCC 2267. The Church teaches that recourse to the
death penalty is “not excluded”, but that it should be “rare, if not
nonexistent”.
This phrase may ring familiar to some, as it is used by certain Catholic
politicians when they claim that they personally are opposed to another,
more heinous form of death, abortion. Now, this is most definitely a
controversial issue. But it’s not clear why this would be so uncertain for a
Catholic. The Church clearly and concretely teaches that this is not only
wrong, but is a crime, regardless as to civil law. Some, however, claim that
in the spirit of “rights”, while they are “personally opposed” to abortion,
they will not deny the rights of another to have access to them, and that
they will not push the teachings of the Catholic Church onto Protestant, Jew
or atheist. This is a complete red herring. For starters, many a Protestant,
Muslim, Jew, agnostic, atheist, etc. is staunchly pro-life. To claim that it
is a purely Catholic issue is absurd. In addition, think of it this way –
if, back in the pre-Civil War era, a person was “personally opposed” to the
Dred Scott decision, but that people had the legal right to own slaves, does
that even make sense to us now? Today, if a person said they were
“personally opposed” to terrorism, but allowed that people should make their
own choices, would that even make sense? No, of course not – and we fight
against these evils where we find them!
Talking about the death penalty and abortion is, to some extent, apples and
oranges. With a criminal, he has had a chance to make his choices towards
virtue or crime, he has had the thing that we take most for granted, to live
his life. The unborn child is a complete innocent, who has done no wrong. He
or she is not an unjust aggressor who must be defended against. Catholic
teaching is extremely clear on this, to the point where it considers aiding
and abetting of procurement of an abortion to just as much a sinful and
criminal act as procuring one for one’s own self. If we are going to argue
Church teaching, then we need to be clear, and not wave our arms in the air
and run about spewing verbiage that makes no sense. The death penalty is a
grave wrong, but it can never be as wrong as the crime of abortion. Both are
wrong, but if you are forced to make a choice, then the choice is clear –
defend the innocent.
I wrote the Globe – arent’ you proud of me?? [grin] I wonder if they’ll ever publish it…
In response to an opinion posted in your 9/29/04 Letter’s section:
As a Catholic, I am not offended by Republicans telling me to vote
Republican, nor am I offended by Democrats telling me to vote Democrat. I
have to wonder why anyone would be offended by either stance, it’s absurd!
As for President Bush’s “Catholic values” – ahhh… newsflash! President
Bush isn’t Catholic – his brother, Jeb is, so maybe some get confused, I
don’t know.
As a Catholic, I am completely aware that the Church does not deny the use
of the death penalty, and even the Pope, who regularly pleads for the lives
of US death penalty inmates, has said that the death penalty can be utilized
when guilt is incontrovertible, and there is a clear need to protect the
community. Maybe some others are not aware of this teaching, found in the
Catholic Catechism in CCC 2267. The Church teaches that recourse to the
death penalty is “not excluded”, but that it should be “rare, if not
nonexistent”.
This phrase may ring familiar to some, as it is used by certain Catholic
politicians when they claim that they personally are opposed to another,
more heinous form of death, abortion. Now, this is most definitely a
controversial issue. But it’s not clear why this would be so uncertain for a
Catholic. The Church clearly and concretely teaches that this is not only
wrong, but is a crime, regardless as to civil law. Some, however, claim that
in the spirit of “rights”, while they are “personally opposed” to abortion,
they will not deny the rights of another to have access to them, and that
they will not push the teachings of the Catholic Church onto Protestant, Jew
or atheist. This is a complete red herring. For starters, many a Protestant,
Muslim, Jew, agnostic, atheist, etc. is staunchly pro-life. To claim that it
is a purely Catholic issue is absurd. In addition, think of it this way –
if, back in the pre-Civil War era, a person was “personally opposed” to the
Dred Scott decision, but that people had the legal right to own slaves, does
that even make sense to us now? Today, if a person said they were
“personally opposed” to terrorism, but allowed that people should make their
own choices, would that even make sense? No, of course not – and we fight
against these evils where we find them!
Talking about the death penalty and abortion is, to some extent, apples and
oranges. With a criminal, he has had a chance to make his choices towards
virtue or crime, he has had the thing that we take most for granted, to live
his life. The unborn child is a complete innocent, who has done no wrong. He
or she is not an unjust aggressor who must be defended against. Catholic
teaching is extremely clear on this, to the point where it considers aiding
and abetting of procurement of an abortion to just as much a sinful and
criminal act as procuring one for one’s own self. If we are going to argue
Church teaching, then we need to be clear, and not wave our arms in the air
and run about spewing verbiage that makes no sense. The death penalty is a
grave wrong, but it can never be as wrong as the crime of abortion. Both are
wrong, but if you are forced to make a choice, then the choice is clear –
defend the innocent.
It is not surprising that non-Catholics misunderstand the Church![CDATA[
Part of the problem is that describing oneself simply as “Catholic” has become meaningless. Is she a baptized and confirmed Catholic who hasn’t set foot inside a church in 20 years, except for funerals and weddings? I stopped using the phrase “practicing Catholic” when I realized that that is how John Kerry describes himself, or at least how the media describes him. The phrase has been rendered meaningless if one can apply it John Kerry. I wish more people realized that it’s more descriptive and honest to make a distinction in terms of orthodoxy when discussing “Catholics” these days.
I was talking to a patient last night who insisted that Kerry is prolife vis-a-vis the abortion issue. I was like, HUH??? She said, “He has said so, many times!”
So I guess it must be true.
Umm, Jaime, it’s not that late. There’s more than one link in that entry. The one for “Barbara’s explanation” links to the CNS story.
And it’s one thing for me to grouse on a blog. It’s another for an archbishop to do it in a diocesan newspaper and by doing so to draw attention to a situation that no one would have known about otherwise. By attacking Kralis he drew ensured that everyone in his diocese knew about it when ignoring it would have meant that very few people would have known about it.
Cam, There is nothing wrong with asking your private circle of friends for information. You’re making it into something it’s not.
There’s no difference between “standing up for someone” and “defending someone” and I’m not doing either. I’m simply saying that what Kralis did is not as nefarious as you and Jaime and the archbishop make it out to be because every writer does it, albeit not necessarily in the same wording. As I’ve related, Kralis admits that the wording is regrettable, but only because people outside her circle of friends wouldn’t understand what she meant.
And again as she said, when she asked for scuttlebutt she says she wasn’t seeking “dirt” but general information about the archbishop.
Who keeps journalists honest? The public does, because a journalist’s reputation is all he has and if he loses that he’ll find it impossible to find people to trust him any more. Just ask Jayson Blair or Dan Rather. If someone consistently engages in bad journalism, the people refusing to read his work will put him out of business.
The bishop’s statement on detraction isn’t necessarily wrong, but the application of it is. Just because someone publishes something critical of you doesn’t make it detraction. If that were the case, then it would have been wrong for any of us to write anything about the Scandal, and we’d all be living fat, dumb, and happy while perverts molested our kids in the rectory and bishops continued to shuffle them about.
As for Archbishop Flynn, this isn’t about whether he had the right to say anything about this. Once, for the people in the cheap seats, it was strange for him to respond to this in this way.
And, once again, Kralis admits it and I’ve said it, God knows how many times already, that she made a mistake. Here let me try again: She made a mistake. She made a mistake. She made a mistake. She made a mistake. She made a mistake.
That’s not my point, hasn’t been my point, and won’t be my point. My point isn’t what Kralis did. My point is what the archbishop did.
Sheesh, you’d think people didn’t read anything I write before they respond. I’ve said this umpteen times in my previous comments and the two posts.
Dom,
Jaime is one of those people in the “cheap seats” and he doesn’t think it is strange. I know many folks in Minneapolis, and they don’t think that it is strange. They think that the archbishop is well within his rights to use his paper, which is his forum, to respond to anyone and anything. What did he do wrong again?
See, I put diocesan newspapers in the same boat as say, ‘Columbia’ magazine. While I consider it to be journalism, you apparently wouldn’t, because it is propoganda.
“Just because someone publishes something critical of you doesnet’s look at some of your statements.
“Archbishop Harry Flynn has unloaded both barrels on Barbara Kralis, who
2004-09-30 15:04:24
Here’s the flaw in your analogy Patrick. The email that was sent to a “private group” got out beyond the walls. How big was that audience in the end? 50? 100? 1000? You don’t know and I don’t know. Its been said before, you put something out on the internet and its like p**ing in the pool. You have no idea how far reaching it can be. In that case, don’t you think the archbishop has a right to make his frustrations public? HE HAS NO IDEA how many people got this email looking for “scuttlebutt”. And all those people that are six degrees of separation from Kralis have ABSOLUTELY no idea that she chose her words poorly.
Still think he’s over the top?
If I walk down Fifth Avenue and I’m bumped by a careless person talking on a cell phone, I can say, if I’m in a particularly bad mood “Watch where you’re going”.
The person resonds “Excuse me” or ignores me. Maybe five or six people in the immediate vicinity might be paying attention to this non-event.
What would thousands of people think if I grabbed a bullhorn and paraded up and down Fifth Avenue shouting that “I’ve been assaulted by Joe Doe?”
I think Dom and I are on the same page: the complaint’s nature and the audience to whom the complaint is made is not proportional to the what’s really going on here.
Here’s the flaw in your analogy Patrick. The email that was sent to a “private group” got out beyond the walls. How big was that audience in the end? 50? 100? 1000? You don’t know and I don’t know. Its been said before, you put something out on the internet and its like p**ing in the pool. You have no idea how far reaching it can be. In that case, don’t you think the archbishop has a right to make his frustrations public? HE HAS NO IDEA how many people got this email looking for “scuttlebutt”. And all those people that are six degrees of separation from Kralis have ABSOLUTELY no idea that she chose her words poorly.
Still think he’s over the top?
Jaime. What you are writing makes little sense unless you are making assumptions that you are not explaining:
Is Archbishop Flynn claiming that there would be no harm if 10 people were aware of Kralis’ inquiry but he is harmed by 1000 people with the knowledge of Kralis’ inquiry?
And you indirectly bring up another point—Kralis has been offended by an unidentified person who forwarded the email (and we assume here without Kralis’ permission).
In my book, that person’s sin is greater for it is betrayal – the sin of Judas.
The point Dom and I have made is that a word loaded with baggage like “scuttlebutt” doesn’t belong in an email and it’s unauthorized forwarding is forseeable. Whole web sites are devoted to this leaking of private emails to the public to embarrass the sender while concealing the indentity of the forwarder.
But just like a walking past a car whose door is open, while it is forseeable that it is likely to be stolen, it doesn’t give the first person who notices this the right to steal the car.
Jaime. What you are writing makes little sense unless you are making assumptions that you are not explaining:
Is Archbishop Flynn claiming that there would be no harm if 10 people were aware of Kralis’ inquiry but he is harmed by 1000 people with the knowledge of Kralis’ inquiry?
And you indirectly bring up another point—Kralis has been offended by an unidentified person who forwarded the email (and we assume here without Kralis’ permission).
In my book, that person’s sin is greater for it is betrayal – the sin of Judas.
The point Dom and I have made is that a word loaded with baggage like “scuttlebutt” doesn’t belong in an email and it’s unauthorized forwarding is forseeable. Whole web sites are devoted to this leaking of private emails to the public to embarrass the sender while concealing the indentity of the forwarder.
But just like a walking past a car whose door is open, while it is forseeable that it is likely to be stolen, it doesn’t give the first person who notices this the right to steal the car.
Archbishop Flynn has a history of displaying very little patience with those who should know better, and great patience and care for those who don’t. Sound familiar?
Archbishop Flynn has a history of displaying very little patience with those who should know better, and great patience and care for those who don’t. Sound familiar?
And you indirectly bring up another point/wp:comment_date>
2004-09-30 18:43:18
As far as I’m concerned, the reaction of the good archbishop is nothing more than a reflection of the mindset afflicting our “shepherds”: They expect Catholic journalism to be nothing more than toadyism, they expect blind deference from the faithful, they behave as members of a preening, privledged class that believes it’s entitled to everything.
That’s why I believe more than ever that these so-called “shepherds” should be taken out and shot by God. Every single, last, God-forsaken one of them.
And you indirectly bring up another pointmedia junkies.
]]>
3983
2004-09-29 21:29:00
2004-09-30 01:29:00
open
open
what_barbara_kralis_really_said
publish
0
0
post
Since he has taken over as Archbishop, he has been excellent about addressing whatever issues that have come up. Whether it be in dealing with the scandal, the sash wearers, etc. He hasn’t ducked anything and has shed a lot more light on issues than his predecessor did.
Which has been my point. The only people who don’t know where the archbishop stands on an issue have not been paying attention. There is no need to go looking for “files” or “scuttlebutt”. The guy’s been up front and on the record.
Kelly said: “But what amazes me192.168.1.1
2004-09-29 23:29:29
2004-09-30 03:29:29
That’s fine … if you live locally. But a good journalist is always looking for more, perhaps even someone who lives locally and knows the subject better than you do.
And the word “files” is innocuous. Plenty of people have files. I have files, mainly consisting of notes and clippings about various people, places, and events that I may want to refer to in future pieces. And scuttlebutt can be anything from gossip to old public statements that you won’t find in a Google search, but which will help you to form a more complete view of the subject. Most of it will never make it into the story (thus it is “on background”), but it can give you insight into the subject.
Also, bishops receive all kinds of weird stuff every day (I know, I’ve been told about some of it). Why this response to this little bit of almost nothing? You have to admit it was a strange response.
That’s my whole point: Hundreds of words in the diocesan newspaper, plus hundreds more in CNS about this little ambiguous email? It’s more than passing strange.
Kelly said: “But what amazes me>
63.187.201.248
2004-09-30 01:31:02
2004-09-30 05:31:02
My husband and I were both cradle Democrats. I re-registered 6 years ago as an Independent over the life issue. He’s still a registered Democrat. Abortion was condemned as “an abomination” in the first century of Christianity. War and the death penalty have been argued ad infinitum within the church… not so the life issue. We need to stop the knee jerk generalizing. Yes, I’m against abortion. However, that doesn’t automatically mean that I am in favor of war or the death penalty. My moral decisions are generated by my faith not my politics. p.s. My youngest son is a wonderful, solid priest.