Reese's pieces

May 7, 2005 By

Last lines of stories often serve as a way for the reporter to . . . help readers know how to think about a subject. With that in mind, GetReligion offers the last words in this round of stories about the ouster of Fr. Thomas Reese as editor of the Jesuit weekly America:

The New York Times:

After the election of Pope Benedict XVI, America ran an editorial that said: “A church that cannot openly discuss issues is a church retreating into an intellectual ghetto.”

National Catholic Reporter:

“I know I am speaking for all the editors in saying that we are sorry to see Tom go,” said [Drew] Christiansen [Reese's assistant and successor] in the May 6 release. “Fr. Reese greatly improved the magazine, adding news coverage, color and the Web edition. . . . By inviting articles that covered different sides of disputed issues, Fr. Reese helped make America a forum for intelligent discussion of questions facing the church and the country today.”

Reuters (penultimate line):

“By some estimates, over 100 theologians have been silenced or reprimanded by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” he wrote. “A church that cannot openly discuss issues is a church retreating into an intellectual ghetto.”

The Washington Post:

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.

The Associated Press:

[Pedro] Arrupe [former leader of the order], who died in 1991, had pushed for the church to move for a more socially just world while remaining faithful to papal authority. But during his tenure, some Jesuits especially in the United States and the Netherlands challenged Vatican pronouncements on birth control, priestly celibacy and the ban on women priests.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Catholicism
  • http://www.xanga.com/branthansen Brant

    I noticed the NYT reporter also explains the ouster in this way:

    “In recent years America has featured articles representing more than one side on sensitive issues…”

    This is misleading, of course. America had a clear editorial opinion that opposed the orthodox camp.

    (Perhaps I’ve missed something, though. Perhaps America has gone above-and-beyond in getting the other side, Times-style, by including lines like, “Put some pro-Vatican quote here.”)

    It’s heartening to see the Times so committed, not only to the constitutional separation of Church and Church, but to the cause of allowing dissent. Who knows what’s next? Someone who actually dissents from the NYT orthodoxy as a regular op-ed columnist?

  • http://www.ignatiusinsight.com Mark Brumley

    AMERICA shouldn’t be “balanced” in the sense of inviting those who reject Catholic or Christian tenets to present their case for their positions.

    By publishing, say, a pro-homosexual-marriage piece and a pro-Catholic-view-of-marriage piece side-by-side, AMERICA gives the impression that this is a subject up for legitimate debate within Catholicism and that AMERICA is the place to go to participate in that debate. Likewise, by publishing “moderate” proaborts side-by-side with people who embrace Catholic teaching on the right to life, AMERICA grabs the rhetorical middle ground and assumes the guise of defining what is acceptable discussion within Catholicism. By publishing “name” Catholic commentators who are orthodox, AMERICA can draw attention to itself as it says, “See, we give both sides their chance”–as if on many of the issues under discussion there are two legitimate sides within the Catholic Church, when in fact there aren’t.

    The last approach has the added benefit to AMERICA of putting the orthodox folks in a bind. They can forego contributing to AMERICA because of its dissenting stance and miss the opportunity to have articulate people defend orthodoxy. Or they can contribute and get their message out but risk adding to AMERICA’s perception of legitimacy or balance.

    But Catholics shouldn’t be forced by a Catholic publication into the position of having to choose either to participate in a debate that can mislead people into thinking the subject matter at hand is legitimately a matter of debate among Catholics or to say nothing, thereby missing the opportunity to defend the truth.

    Of course AMERICA could have simply given the dissenting side and attacked orthodoxy. But that strategy would have been more likely to result in Vatican action far sooner and it would have undercut the strategy of helping to get dissenting positions taken as part of the world of acceptable Catholic discourse.

    AMERICA is not Salon.com or THE NEW REPUBLIC or FOX NEWS. It’s published by the Jesuits, a religious order of the Catholic Church. It should not be publishing articles contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Period. There are plenty of other publications that do that. What we need in AMERICA is a solidly Catholic voice presenting Catholic teaching and defending it. Let the non-Catholics or the not-so-Catholics worry about giving the other side in their publications.

  • tmatt

    I think one of the key factors in all of this is the fact that Father Reese is the official unappointed press secretary for the American Catholic Church, as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church. Those who attend meetings of the US Catholic Bishops Conference know that his influence in the mainstream press is ASTONISHING.

    For fun, Google Thomas Reese at IMAGES. Note where the pics come up.

  • Pingback: GetReligion: May 10, 2005

  • Jacques Crémer

    A very good editorial from Commonweal at http://www.beliefnet.com/story/68/story_6872_1.html