Replies

You don't need to ask me; you might try reading Mills' own explanation.

" He’d done so for journalistic reasons, and good ones, I might note. I would have covered the story were I him.

“In hindsight,” he says, “that was a mistake, because another unintended impression was generated: that we were criticizing the pope.” ChurchMilitant.TV is an apostolate dedicating to “further[ing] the cause of the Church,” he explains, not a merely journalistic work. For that reason, “it was wrong to air the story.”

So: he says there were good journalistic reasons for covering this story, so he would have covered it. Then he quotes Voris saying that for him (Voris), good journalistic reasons alone are not enough, because his is an apostolate dedicated to furthering the cause of the Church.

Thus I assume there are additional requirements: like the ones taught by Fr Frederick William Faber (Spiritual Conferences): not just "Is this true?" But also "Is this edifying?" and "Is this necessary?"

So the coverage --- at least in the form in which it was presented --- arguably passed the journalism test but flunked the apostolate test.

I wouldn't call that hypocrisy. I'd call that discretion.