Of interest to readers here is a series at Inside Catholic on the role between media and bishops. Deal Hudson offers the opening salvo arguing that critical coverage can be useful. Francis Maier, the Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Denver is offering commentary this afternoon. My own position is that Catholic media have a particular obligation to understand and explicate the bishop’s teachings. Those who would make themselves watchdogs often fail in this obligation. I’ve noticed this in particular with coverage of Cardinal Mahony.
Personally I have no use for people who see their purpose as undermining bishops. In matters of prudence, one should attempt to follow a bishop’s position even if one disagrees. Caution should be exercised when claiming something is beyond a bishop’s competence. If something truly is unconscionable, then I would expect nothing less than for a person to follow their conscience. I would expect such a thing more in areas closer to the home rather than say arguments over the minimum wage, immigration policy, or other elements of political realm rather than immediate concerns. So yes I do believe that Republicans should not be saying, “I as a faithful Catholic support the Iraq War.” Likewise I believe Democrats should not say, “I as a faithful Catholic believe the government should establish a lesser form of marriage, civil unions, to accommodate the desires of homosexual couples.” This is an entirely seperate matter than what is fit for theological speculation. Greater freedom is and should be granted in the speculative realm. It is the difference between saying there is ample room in law and tradition for denying communion to politicians who support grave evils and claiming that any bishop who does not do so is a crypto-abortion supporter and enabler.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In