|
Newsflash
> The Thomas Reese Affair
Also see An American assumes
Benedict’s previous post in the Vatican by John
Mallon.
The Thomas Reese Affair
- by John Mallon
An uproar has ensued in the left-wing Catholic press in the
United States over the allegedly forced resignation of Jesuit
Father Thomas Reese from America magazine. A repeated refrain
was that Reese always told both sides of the story (i.e. the
Church’s position and the anti-Church position). And
that may be true. But the important question is, which side
did the editorial board favor? For example, in the issue of
November 18, 1995, which to be fair, was, I believe, before
Father Reese’s tenure, an article appeared entitled
“How America Went Gay” by a Dr. Charles Socarides,
a psychiatrist, who treats men of samesex attractions, and
author of the book Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far (Adam
Hargrave Books, Phoenix, AZ, 1-800-931-4166).
Dr. Socarides, at least at the time, was a self-proclaimed
Jewish atheist. Nevertheless, his article defended the Catholic
position on homosexuality. The curious thing was that there
was a note above Dr. Socarides’ article that said the
following: “Editor’s Note: Occasionally America
devotes space to strongly alternative points of view regarding
controversial subjects. The following article is a reaction
to the article ‘Confessions of a Pastoralist,’
by David Toolan, SJ, which appeared in our issue of Sept.
23, 1995.” (Emphasis added)
Why is it that America, a Catholic magazine, regards an article
defending the Catholic teaching on homosexuality as “strongly
alternative”? This would seem to imply that the editorial
position of America is “strongly alternative”
to that of the Catholic view.
A recurring refrain among the outraged editors of leftist
Catholic journals in the United States is what a damper Reese’s
ouster will put upon all “thinking Catholics.”
The implication is that if you accept the authority of the
Magisterium you are an unthinking, unwashed peasant who is
an embarrassment to the Catholic Church – at least the
“American” Catholic Church.
And this perhaps is what is most offensive about theological
dissent: the inherent snobbery of it all. The smug attitude
of superiority that reeks throughout the entire Culture of
Dissent. The constant sniffing at the Chair of Peter as the
source of Christ’s authority on earth – which
ultimately adds up to unbelief.
Christ gave Peter the Keys or He didn’t. He sent the
Holy Spirit to protect the Magisterium from errors in faith
and morals or He didn’t.
The Magisterium has definitively closed the book on the dissenters’
pet causes, but they simply won’t accept it. They mistakenly
believe that truth is arrived at via dialogue instead of Revelation
and Magisterial discernment. The dialogue was officially closed
on contraception by Humanae Vitae, on women’s “ordination”
by Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and there never was nor should
there have been a dialogue on abortion, which is covered by
the Fifth Commandment.
So, what did happen to Father Reese?
A Jesuit told me of a rumor circulating at the Jesuit-run
Georgetown University, that Father Reese, as the story goes,
was “furious” at the election of Cardinal Ratzinger
to the papacy and quit in a huff, but then quickly thought
better of it but it was too late. His superiors apparently
called his bluff and accepted his resignation and would not
be moved.
One hopes a grown man, much less a Jesuit priest, would not
behave that way, and it is just a rumor. However, Tom Roberts
and John Allen, writing for the National Catholic Reporter,
seem to lend some credence to this story albeit in a more
genteel manner.
They reported: “Some confusion over whether Reese was
ousted or voluntarily left occurred when Catholic News Service
reported that Jesuit Fr. Jose M. de Vera, spokesman for the
order in Rome, said Reese had decided to resign after discussing
the situation with his superiors and following Cardinal Ratzinger’s
election as pope. “According to a number of Jesuits
close to the situation, Reese, aware of the discussions between
the Jesuits and the congregation, indeed decided to resign
when Ratzinger was elected Pope Benedict XVI. He reportedly
told [Jesuit Superior General Father Peter-Hans] Kolvenbach
and his superiors in the United States of his intent. However,
when he informed the staff at America, the other editors ‘were
unanimously and adamantly against it,’ according to
one source. They asked Reese to reconsider or at least to
‘take a few months off and rest and then see how the
new papacy developed.’
“Reese, following that advice, called Fr. Brad Schaeffer,
Jesuit conference president. Schaeffer visited Reese the next
day and, according to a source knowledgeable about the conversation,
‘told him that Kolvenbach had received a letter from
CDF in mid-March demanding his resignation’ and that
Kolvenbach ‘had concluded that fighting it would do
no good.’ No one who spoke to NCR was able to give the
precise language of the letter and NCR was unable to obtain
a copy.
“Whatever the chronology, it is beyond dispute that
Reese resigned because of Vatican pressure.” (NCR May
13)
Further, a May 16 op-ed column in the Boston Globe also seems
to support some aspects of the tale. Father Richard John Neuhaus,
editor of the journal First Things, wrote in the Globe, “The
leadership of the Society of Jesus decided that the Rev. Thomas
Reese should be replaced as editor of America magazine. Reese,
who was editor for seven years, said he agreed with the decision,
but apparently he later changed his mind.”
The lack of clarity on what exactly transpired did not stop
the US Catholic press from going to red alert. Tom Roberts
in an NCR editorial called Reese’s alleged ouster “tragic.”
In an NCR story, Meinrad Scherer- Emunds, executive editor
of U.S. Catholic magazine, published by the Claretians, called
it “a sad, disappointing and to some degree shocking
development.”
An editorial in Commonweal stated, “American Catholics,
including most regular churchgoers, get their news about the
Church from the secular media, not from Church spokespersons
or official pronouncements. Most Catholics read about papal
encyclicals in the papers; they don’t read encyclicals.”
This raises an interesting point. Wouldn’t it be logical
for Catholic publications to encourage people to read encyclicals?
Commonweal continues: “It therefore behooves the hierarchy,
if it wants to communicate with the faithful (or re-evangelize
them), to act in a way that does not lend credence to the
still-widespread impression that the Catholic Church is a
backward-looking, essentially authoritarian institution run
by men who are afraid of open debate and intellectual inquiry.
It is safe to say that the Vatican’s shocking dismissal
of Rev. Thomas Reese as editor of the Jesuit magazine America
has left precisely such an impression with millions of Americans,
Catholic and non- Catholic alike.”
More clichés. It is certainly true that the mainstream
media depicts the Church in this way. But the argument can
certainly be made that the stereotype of the Church cited
here is frequently given credence in the pages of the liberal
Catholic press, by portraying the Magisterial position as
on the same footing, if not a lower, less credible position,
as dissident positions feeding the secular media clichés
about the Church.
Some are accusing America’s critics of demanding that
they present views opposing Church positions as “straw
men” to be knocked down, as the NCR editorial of May
10 said, “Those same proponents of self-censorship suggest
that Catholic publishing, while permitted to describe opposing
arguments, should, in effect, never take them seriously. They
may be represented in a publication only for the purpose of
knocking them down in defense of Church teaching.” But
all too often it appears in these publications that Church
positions are the “straw man” and the secular,
dissident positions the credible ones.
For example, Heidi Schlumpf, managing editor at U.S. Catholic,
told The Boston Globe she got into trouble with the CDF for
running a story about women who wanted to be priests. I recall
the article, which portrayed the women as misunderstood oppressed
prophets who would one day be vindicated after the repressive
hierarchy someday sees the light. Schlumpf said she settled
the matter by publishing an article in a later issue explaining
the Church’s position on ordaining women.
One might ask, why not simply run the explanation without
the other article which was obviously antagonistic to the
Church? Or an article on the phenomenon of people who believe
God is calling them to a closed door? One might say these
women’s voices deserve to be heard, but their story
would be welcomed with open arms by The New York Times or
The Boston Globe. Why should Catholic publications do their
work for them?
The issue here is not open debate or even thoughtful criticism,
but defiance. Rev. Pat McCloskey, the editor of St. Anthony
Messenger, a Franciscan publication, makes a more telling
point. He told the NCR, “It would be hard for any Catholic
editor not to say, ‘Well, if this happened to America
magazine, perhaps it could happen to others. I’m afraid
that a move like this one will cause more and more Catholic
thinkers to say that they want to write for publications that
are not identified as Catholic and to teach at schools that
are not identified as Catholic, because there is more freedom
there.” These are sad but telling words from a priest.
Catholics believe – or should believe – that the
fullness of freedom is found in Christ. Perhaps those Catholic
journalists feeling “unfree” would do well to
go over to secular publications where their view of the Church
would be quite welcome – and they would make more money.
The image of dissident Catholics as crusading windmill-tippers
is getting tiresome.
The Commonweal editorial of May 10 unwittingly points out
another irony: “Forty years after the Second Vatican
Council, which did so much to enfranchise lay Catholics and
to encourage their engagement with the great intellectual
resources of the Church, it is inexcusable that the [Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith] would censor a magazine as
respectful and responsive to the Church’s tradition
as America. At a time when elites are as polarized as they
are now in the American Church, Reese’s dismissal will
embolden those eager to purge ‘dissenters,’ while
making it nearly impossible for a reasoned critique of the
agenda of Church reformers to be heard by those who need most
to hear.”
Again we see the theme of the dissident press as selfproclaimed
prophet being ignored by the Pharisees.
Not surprisingly, the most rational note in the debate came
from Father Neuhaus in a comment in his Globe oped: “Again,
intellectual integrity requires honestly engaging opposing
arguments. It does not require providing a platform for opposing
arguments. I dare say that an editor working for Planned Parenthood,
the Sierra Club, or the National Rifle Association who regularly
turned a publication into a platform for those opposed to
the mission of the organization would soon be looking for
another job.” The irony is that of all the publications
angry over the Reese dismissal, all but two, the NCR and Commonweal,
are run by religious orders, not laity.
Meanwhile, the “enfranchised laity” are responsible
for numerous publications who see it as their mission to support,
explain, advocate and educate on authentic Church teachings:
to name a few, Catholic World Report, Crisis, This Rock, Envoy,
Canticle, The Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission, San Diego
News Notes, The Wanderer, and, of course, Inside the Vatican.
These publications operate at great personal sacrifice to
those involved and run on very tight budgets, with their mission
to support the mission and teachings of the Church. Their
operating expenses, food and shelter are not paid for by the
Church.
Perhaps the Vatican should take note of this imbalance, that
lay-run self-supporting journals tend to support the Church
while those run by religious orders tend to favor dissent
and are the first to denounce being “repressed”
when their positions are called into question. A number of
people working for these faithful lay publications are refugees
from the diocesan Catholic press after having been forced
out of their jobs by hostile dissident clergy because the
journalists were “too Catholic.” By no means extremists
or zealots, they were run off by clergy who were threatened
by a Catholic diocesan editor with an orthodox “bias”
when they wanted dissent given an equal (or superior) footing.
Unlike Father Reese, these journalists did not have a religious
house to return to, to discuss their future with their superior.
No, they were stuck with bills to pay, mortgages to be met,
families that might have to be moved across the country and
so forth.
In this, there is a note of hypocrisy in the “outrage”
being voiced in the dissident Catholic press over the Reese
affair. Father Reese’s story is not tragic. He will
be well cared for by his religious order.
But when did the dissident Catholic press ever utter a word
on these same principles of “dialogue,” “open
debate” and “justice” regarding Catholic
journalists forced out, not by the Vatican, but by diocesan
officials for being faithful to the Church?
-----
John Mallon is former editor of Oklahoma City’s diocesan
weekly, the Sooner Catholic.
Also see An American assumes
Benedict’s previous post in the Vatican by John
Mallon.
Subscription Information
Inside The Vatican (ISSN 1068-8579) is published monthly except July
and September, with occasional special supplements. | 
