Let me make one thing clear because some people seem incapable of understanding my points as I make them: I have never suggested that we should excuse the media’s motives because they brought the Scandal to light. I said we should not dismiss the flaws exposed by them by dismissing it as a media creation and hype. Just because they have bad motives (and I don’t doubt that they do) doesn’t mean that what they expose isn’t true.
I certainly have never rejected the idea that the Church is the Body and Bride of Christ even though the bishops have done much wrong. In fact, it is the sign of her divine origin that despite the sins of men she remains divine.
Finally, I have never disputed that the media are using the Scandal as a way of convincing people to dissent from Church teaching. I’ve only been saying that for the past 18 months. But shame on the bishops for giving anti-Catholic voices the cudgel with which they beat the Church on a daily basis.
I hope that’s clear enough for you Kevin.
Chris, the reason I don’t talk about what you see as the “much bigger” cultural stories is because they either don’t interest me or I don’t have any knowledge of them.
This is a blog not a news journal. Hence, the only thing that gets posted here is what’s of interest to me. (The “Rush Limbaugh” doctrine)
If you think those stories are important and you have some knowledge of them, then get a free blog and start talking about the,.
Chris, of course, I’m not saying that. I have chronicled the slime of society many times and I know that this slime has infected the Church and that it is at the root of the Scandal.
Just because I say I have no particular knowledge or expertise in dealing with abuse in the school system doesn’t mean I’m unconcerned. It means I don’t know enough about it to comment on it. You seem to, so why don’t you start a blog and write about it? Why do you demand that I write about it? What right do you have to demand I do anything?
And I have written many times about the actions of the abortion industry in abusing young people, born and unborn. But right now my attention is on the Scandal and what we can do to address it.
We don’t need to fix the rest of society before we can fix this problem in the Church. It can be done today, right now if only the bishops had the will to do it.
Seems to me if folks are coverint the Catholic Church for 18 months they would be doing their research unless they come from the Blair school of journalism. If they can’t research things enough to figure out where Kissling does or doesn’t stand relative to the Church’s teachings or the Church populace as a whole, that makes them pretty poor reporters.
Well after harping on the press about their missing the story, it seems that not ALL the reporters missed the BIGGER implications of this story:
Check out http://www.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/06/13/teacher.student.sex.ap/
Its a story by the Associated Press about sexual abuse cases in public schools. Story said no good statistics kept (where have we heard this?) but estimates are that 700 children nationwide are victims per year. I suspect that is higher. I know in my high school there were 3 teachers who were known for “eyeing” the girls and getting too friendly. Several years after I graduated, one was eventually removed only because he diverted a bunch of them while on a school trip to a hotel and had them watch porn movies. Thankfully nothing happened to the students.
I will second what Rod said about reporters trying to contact orthodox Catholic sources. There have several instances where I have written stories in which I desparately wanted to quote solid Catholic sources who could defend the Catholic position on something. But they never return my calls.
Yet, when I called Frances Kissling and I identified myself, she immediately took my call and asnwered my questions even though she new who I was writing for and that I am not sympathetic to her views. But she did know that she would be mentioned in the article and that was enough for her.
Many official Church sources are so wary of any and all reporters that they lose opportunities to educate the journalists and the public they serve.
Most secular reporters aren’t evil people, they’re misguided and have not been enlightened. They write what they think they know because no one has made the effort to educate them any better.
Rod,
Although I don’t know it to be the case, is it possible that the message never got through to Fr. Groeshel who is often on travel? I don’t know what the answer is to a situation like this and a deadline. Personally I guess it would be nice if news organizations sent advance copies of stories when they can’t reach someone. If this would become standard practice, presumbly someone (or someone from the person’s organization) will respond to correct obvious errors or present their viewpoints. Then again the logisitics of deadlines probably would make even this impossible. Perhaps the only thing to do is emphasize that the story is one-sided and unverified.
Wonder if anyone told Fr. Groeshel that the reporter did try to contact him. If nothing else, it might make him ore proactive in returning calls.
Okay let’s tone it down. There’s no need to get personal and bent out of shape about it. I’m declaring this topic closed because we’re just going in circles.