Deal Hudson, publisher of Crisis, announced today that he was stepping back from being a political adviser on President Bush’s campaign because reporters at an unnamed liberal Catholic publication are trying to dig up dirt on him. Remember this is what Hudson says. I have no reason to doubt him, but these are only vague allegations so far.
Gee, what national liberal Catholic publication with reporters on staff would be interested in using dirty tactics against a conservative Catholic friend of the president? I’m not naming any names, but it is a short list.
It’s one thing to disagree on politics and even the faith. But to engage in such purely mean-spirited and uncharitable mud-slinging against, not your main target, but a proxy is pretty low. It would be one thing if the incidents in Deal’s past had some bearing on the controversies of today (such as examining whether a particular bishop had certain skeletons in the closet that made him susceptible to blackmail by a pervert priest), but they apparently don’t. It looks like the idea is to discredit Hudson so that he can’t be any aid in helping the President garner the crucial Catholic vote.
I read the Deal Hudson NRO article, and was surprised to hear about his conversion, but certainly not scandalized. Many of us (and I include myself) have had major conversion experiences. We regret the past, but in no wise deny it; we accept that God’s grace allowed us to leave it behind.
What DID surprise me, however, was that in following the links, I read that Abp. Pilarcyzk is on record as supporting a politician’s “right” to support abortion. He completely mis-states the Holy Father’s position:
Let’s prescind from Kerry’s case. Is it at least possible that a politician can be both pro-life, fully accepting the church’s teaching about the inherent immorality of abortion, and also convinced that the legislative strategy of prohibition in this particular cultural moment can’t work?
The Holy Father makes very careful provisions for that. For example, can you vote for a law that says you can have abortions under these three circumstances? Yes, you can, if the alternative is a law that says you can have abortions in 10 different circumstances.
Yes, but what I had in mind is this: Someone who draws the prudential judgment that making abortion illegal would not reduce the incidence of abortion, and would create other grave effects. Is that the kind of political judgment about which good people can differ?
Absolutely.
National Catholic Reporter
Interview with Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk, May 7, 2004, By John L. Allen, Jr.
….Did I miss the furor over this? Where’s the outrage?
Forget excommunicating Kerry—when will Pilarcyzk be excommunicated?
Oh, wait, he was one of Bernardin’s boys, wasn’t he?
Fr. Elijah:
Repeat after me: bishops never get fired. If they are so inclined, they can even outlast the co-adjutor who’s been appointed as a strong hint to retire ASAP.
But removal? Not gonna happen.
Don’t forget who appointed Abp. Pilarczyk to his see, either:
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpilarczyk.html
Hint: it’s the same fellow who appointed the late Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago to his see.
The NCR’s publisher has apparently admitted that it was on the story. Apparently Joe Feurhard was the dirt digger on a sexual harassment allegation at Fordham in the early 90s.
Nice to know that the NCR can get as down and dirty as any supermarket tabloid.
Dale,
I went to the site you gave, but cannot figure out who appointed both Bernardin and Pilarczyk—can you just tell us? Thanks.
Yes, but JPII, new to the job, was certainly relying upon the advice of his nuncio. Never forget, the diplomatic corps is the gayest of all the sinecures.
Margaret,
Who was Pope in 1982? That’s who appointed them.
“Never forget, the diplomatic corps is the gayest of all the sinecures.”
Such things I learn here! That is a quotable quote.
Since when did this turn into a slam on Archbishop Pilarczyk?
What does he have to do with any of Hudson’s past indiscretions? While Hudson may have had an illicit affair, it most certainly doesn’t have Archbihshop Pilarczyk’s name on it.
If there is a beef with Archbishop Pilarczyk take it to the forum. I am certainly no fan, but he is an apostlic successor and he was appointed by the current Holy Father (not the nuncio, btw), so there is a good reason that he is where he is. Unless of course, the Holy Father is wrong about his appointment.
So, let’s see, Deal Hudson participated in an indiscretion in the past. He is an important Catholic voice. We forgive him for that indiscretion. Shouldn’t we do the same for our priests and religious?
I think that what is good for the gander is good for the goose. So, how about some comments on Deal Hudson stepping back from the campaign?
Cam
How ‘bout calling on him to step in again? Any theories as to why he’s explained everything, yet feels the need to still step down? He’d be brilliant, in my opinion for the Campaign.
Well-maybe only because we all agree wtih him, unbelievable how many church going people still “vote Democrat” and will vote any Democrat in to any office.
No offense to Hudson, but I don’t think it’s going to make one iota of difference to the Bush campaign. “Crucial Catholic vote?” What’s that? Crushing as it may be to Catholic journalists: most Catholics have no idea who you are. Hudson actually came to my parish during the height of the crisis and I can name probably two parishioners who even remember his name. Them’s the facts. His bowing out is, in my opinion, a non-story. That said, I wish he hadn’t done it. But it’s not going to effect the election. Real Catholics I know will vote for Bush on the pro-life issue, more than likely. CINO will vote for Kerry, probably on the same basis.
(I admire Hudson for several reasons. His conversion is certainly one. His frankness about his past is another. And, of course, the fact that he uses his real name is, especially these days, is a major plus.)
Okay maybe there is a glimmer of a story here. But basically it’s about various Catholic journalists and their publications talking to, and about, each other.