Self-righteousness is destructive and uncharitable

The current political campaign, with its fusillade of personal attacks and orchestrated charges and counter charges, is unpleasant to endure.

Even partisans and those firmly in support of a candidate must grow weary of the incessant personal attacks on the candidates, their integrity and their reputations. One wonders why the Christian values of charity toward one another and the American value of fair play have been abandoned.

Particularly distressing is that this uncharitable, biased and reckless substitute for what formerly was fair-minded commentary and fact-based dialogue has found its venomous way into our Catholic family.

Just this past week, I received e-mails from friends of mine here and in other parts of the United States that were sent to them by a woman named Barbara Kralis.

Her e-mail, which was sent out far and wide, read: “I’ve been asked by [The] Wanderer to do an article this weekend on Harry Flynn, Archbishop of St. paul/Minn (sic). Don’t go to any big trouble, but if you have a file on him or any scuttlebutt regarding Flynn, send it to me ASAP. Thanks, Barb.”

Without question, I am fallible, and my words and actions are certainly open to critical analysis and worthy of disagreement. Nor should any of us whom the church has chosen to place in a position of authority be above fair and balanced evaluations of our actions. Such editorial examinations and conclusions ought not, however, be determined by “scuttlebutt” or rigid precon- ceived biases. The end product of that type of journalistic endeavor is mere gossip and inherently dangerous speculation that can damage reputations and spread distortions. For a Catholic publication to fall prey to such things is especially distressing.

An e-mail such as this one, conspiratorial and prejudicial as it is, raises questions. What kind of benighted self- righteousness causes someone who doesn’t even know me to speculate that people have “files” or “scuttlebutt” that would assist her to write a fair, balanced analysis of me on something I have said or done in my role as archbishop? Of course, what kind of religious periodical, worthy of the name, would assign such a person to write such an article? The answer to that second question is that The Wanderer is hardly representative of the best Catholic press this country has to offer. Each issue is filled with its own brand of polemic screeds, interpreting our Catholic faith and its dogma through the prism of its own narrow, rigid opinion. Objectivity, that centerpiece of journalism, seems of no interest to the newspaper. Their editors and writers use the newspaper as a forum to preach their own version of the Gospel and to castigate those, often including this archbishop, whom they find to be in serious violation of church teachings. Most certainly, the light and spirit of Vatican II has never penetrated the darkness of those editorial chambers.

Shortly after I assumed my duties in this archdiocese, I attended a dinner event where I happened to be seated next to Mr. Al Matt, The Wanderer’s editor. After introductions, he turned to me and said: “You know, it’s my job to keep the bishops honest.” I pondered that for just a moment and then responded, “And who keeps you honest?”

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” in a section titled “Offenses against Truth,” teaches us that “respect for the reputation of persons forbids every action or word likely to cause them unjust injury.” The catechism then defines detraction as being one of those offenses against persons. It explains detraction involves “without objectively valid reason, disclosing another’s faults to those who do not know them.”

Today, we seem to live in a culture of detraction, where the media feel free to practice detraction and ignore its damage to reputations.

The Catholic catechism’s teaching on truth in the media is in stark contrast. It states: “The information provided by the media is at the service of the common good. Society has a right to information based on truth, freedom, justice and solidarity: ‘The proper exercise of this right demands that the content of the communication be true and — within the limits set by justice and charity — complete. Further, it should be communicated honestly and properly. This means that in the gathering and in the publication of news, the moral law and the legitimate rights and dignity of man should be upheld.’ ”

As for Ms. Barbara Kralis, the creator of the broadcast e-mail, I only know her from her previous writings, which present a decidedly narrow view of our faith. She and her husband have a religious foundation called Jesus through Mary that is based in Howe, Texas. Beyond those facts, I neither possess nor wish to possess files or scuttlebutt about her.

The Wanderer is hardly representative of the best Catholic press this country has to offer. Each issue is filled with its own brand of polemic screeds, interpreting our Catholic faith and its dogma through the prism of its own narrow, rigid opinion. Objectivity, that centerpiece of journalism, seems of no interest to the newspaper. Their editors and writers use the newspaper as a forum to preach their own version of the Gospel and to castigate those, often including this archbishop, whom they find to be in serious violation of church teachings. Most certainly, the light and spirit of Vatican II has never penetrated the darkness of those editorial chambers.

I don’t know much about this guy, but he starts right out with a false moral equivalence, which is a mainstay of the left: “Even partisans and those firmly in support of a candidate must grow weary of the incessant personal attacks on the candidates”

Here he equates telling unpleasant truths about a scumbag with telling despicable lies about a decent person, as moral equivalents. Who would do that but a leftist?

Archbishop Flynn whines, “Such editorial examinations and conclusions ought not, however, be determined by “scuttlebutt” or rigid preconceived biases.” Gee, that almost sounds reasonable, but…Uh-oh, what’s this?

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/colleen.htm

Looks like the archbishop has been shielding homosexual priests.

Ooops, and what’s this over here?

http://www.thewandererpress.com/b4-1-2004.htm

“What kind of benighted self- righteousness causes someone who doesn’t even know me to speculate that people have “files” or “scuttlebutt” that would assist her to write a fair, balanced analysis of me on something I have said or done in my role as archbishop?”

Maybe she’s trying to find out if you protect homos out of moral blindness, or because you are one.

Oh, and here’s a serious charge against the Wanderer: “Their editors and writers use the newspaper…to castigate those, often including this archbishop, whom they find to be in serious violation of church teachings.”

Well! Da noive.

“respect for the reputation of persons forbids every action or word likely to cause them unjust injury.” The catechism then defines detraction as being one of those offenses against persons. It explains detraction involves “without objectively valid reason, disclosing another’s faults to those who do not know them.”

Clerical sexual misconduct constitutes objectively valid reason for its own disclosure. So does covering up for clerical sexual misconduct.

“Society has a right to information based on truth, freedom, justice and solidarity”

Solidarity. Puke. Ah, but there aren’t any commie infiltrators in the clergy, right?

That aside, if society has a right to those things, how about telling us why you protect homosexual priests.

Not surprisingly, he’s on the wrong side of the communion issue, too.

These theological leftists never hesitate to trash the reputations of others, but just point the finger at them if you want to see what real self-righteousness looks like.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.