Posted on 08/01/2012 5:21:51 PM PDT by annalex
When NPR Fresh Air host Terry Gross conducted an "I feel your pain" interview with radical-feminist Sister Pat Farrell on July 17, she promised a rebuttal from Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo. But Gross was much tougher in that interview on July 25. She laughably said "I don't mean to speak on their behalf here," but that's exactly what she did throughout the interview.
Gross said her "ultimate question" was why wouldn't the Catholic Church bend to changing times and liberalize on female priests, contraception, and homosexuality? "Churches change," so why won't the Catholics? Bishop Blair very calmly educated Gross that churches that have tried to obey Gross's dogmatism and follow "the spirit of the times" like the Episcopalians are having trouble retaining members:
GROSS: I guess what my ultimate question is, churches change; religions change. Religions - many religions are dealing right now with issues of sexuality, equality of women. the question of homosexuality. Does the religion see homosexuality as being acceptable? Do they see homosexuals as being equal, or as people in need of treatment or change, or repression of their feelings? Is gay marriage acceptable? Should women be equal within the religion? Should there be women rabbis, should there be women priests, should there be - you know - women ministers? These are questions that -- you know, what is the role of women in Islam? Every religion, it seems to me, is asking -- at some level, if not at all levels -- these questions. And I think that through their questioning, or through their silence, that the LCWR is asking some of these questions, too. And I don't mean to speak on their behalf here. It's my interpretation of what they're saying.
BLAIR: Well, I think the question is even more fundamental. What does it mean to be a man; what does it mean to be a woman; and - is the question for the world today. And that's what the church tries to address from the point of view of Christian anthropology; from the Gospel, and from her teachings. As I said earlier, you know, it's one thing to question, in the sense of trying to grapple with the issues of the day and the challenges that are made to faith, and to what one believes. But you do it from the principle of what your fundamental teachings are, and not move into an area where you deny those teachings.
You know, it's very interesting. In the New York Times earlier this month, there was an article, "Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?" [by right-leaning Times columnist Ross Douthat.] And, you know, the author -- and I don't mean to pick on Episcopalians, because I'm just quoting what this writer said in the New York Times - but he said today, the Episcopal church looks roughly how Roman Catholicism would look if Pope Benedict suddenly adopted everything urged on the Vatican by, you know, liberal theologians and thinkers, and people who dissent. But he said instead of attracting a younger, more open-minded group, he said the church is really experiencing a tremendous drop in its - in practice. And I mean, Catholicism is, too, having its share of problems. But, you know, this is -- just becoming like the world, and just accepting the secular culture's answer to all these things, is not really a solution for people of faith.
Gross's toughest question was also the longest, hammering the Bishop and Catholics as "very hypocritical" for cracking down on radical feminist sisters and somehow not cracking down on sexually abusive priests. Gross read a long passage from an op-ed in the leftist newspaper National Catholic Reporter:
GROSS: I want to read you something from the National Catholic Reporter. This is an article by Kathy Galleher - I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing her name correctly - from July 17th of this year. For nearly eight years, she worked as a psychologist at a treatment center for priests and religious, and she worked with a number of men who had committed sexual abuse. She writes:
(Reading) The church has not yet been willing or able to examine its own role as an institution, in concealing and enabling decades of abuse. The bishops have not taken collective responsibility for their actions and inactions, and for the enormous pain they've caused. As much as the abuse itself, it is this failure by the hierarchy to acknowledge and accept their responsibility, that has angered and disillusioned so many current and now-former Catholics.
(Reading) The church hierarchy has started a fight with the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. In the doctrinal assessment, they've accused the women of the church of betraying the core values of the church, and of not being sufficiently trustworthy to reform themselves. They have ordered the women to be closely supervised.
(Reading) These accusations seem more rightly to belong to the sexual abuse scandal, rather than to the actions of LCWR. It was the bishops who, by protecting abusers, betrayed core values of the church, and caused scandal to the faithful. It is the institutional church that appears not to be able to reform itself, and to be in the need of outside supervision.
What's your reaction to that? Because I think that expresses the views of a lot of people, inside and outside the Catholic Church.
Blair asserted the church had made major strides:
BLAIR: Well, clearly, I'm not -- wouldn't even attempt, nor would I want to, defend the indefensible. There's not a day that goes by that I don't pray for the victims of sexual abuse in the church. And I will say this; that I do think the bishops, in the last 10 years - at our meeting in Atlanta recently, we received a report from our National Review Board, reminding us of things that we are already aware of - for the most part; of the tremendous efforts that we've done and made in order to address this problem. And we've tried to be a real leader in examining the root causes and the condition of people who do this. We've tried to reach out to the victims, and I think we've been - we've made major strides in that area.
He continued in that vein, but in her long recitation of Galleher's Reporter piece, she left out the sentence just before her passage began: "In the past 10 years, the church has taken steps toward responding to the tragedy of sexual abuse in the church at the individual level, including responding to allegations more quickly, involving law enforcement, and developing child protection policies."
Gross would rather leave that reality on the cutting-room floor. NPR deserves some credit for allowing both sides most of an hour to speak, but the host's biases were incredibly obvious. To assert (as the Reporter piece asserts) that the Catholic Church should be a democracy and not a hierarchy, and that it must repeal its belief in an apostolic succession back to the time of Christ is quite simply anti-Catholic. In America and other democracies, private organizations that you can join or quit should have every right to operate a hierarchy.
This must be said again: it's quite ridiculous that an organization like NPR that fired Juan Williams for daring to go on Bill O'Reilly's show would lecture anyone else on hierarchy and allowing dissent.
The involuntary taxpayer donors of NPR can respond by contacting NPR ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos with this form.
!
That's quite funny.
The bishops have not taken collective responsibility for their actions and inactions
collective responsibility: evidence of the collective stupidity of liberalism.
What strikes me is that she’s like a little child while the Bishop is the adult in the room.
Gross is actually a very good hostess when her guests aren’t politically or religiously oriented, compared especially to the painful and untalented Diane Rehm.
However, she becomes a different person when touchig on religion and politics. She cannot really begin to think outside her lefty/secular mindset.
In two instances, I remember her being put off her game. Both were at unlikely times. And no, I am not thinking of the Bill O’Reilly spat at all. I am thinking of first when she had the hostesses of the British programme “What NOT to Wear” on. At one point, they asked Miss Gross why she never wore skirts. Gross responded that wearing skirts made her feel like a different person, so she avoided them. The Brits then asked Gross why she was so afraid of her femininity. They didn’t let up, either, playing the “Oh, poor street urchin, let us help you be civilized” role.
The second time was the infamous KISS’ Gene Simmons interview. Simmons was completely filthy, rude, beastly and completely in control. He basically took NPR’s phiosophical moral relativism, and showed they couldn’t lay a glove on him. Gross kept on trying to suggest what she thought were inconsistencies and weaknesses in his argument, but they didn’t fly, as his values were different from hers, and she had no moral basis to keep him from being brutally insulting and filthy to her. I have no idea why she let it be replayed. If she were married to a man, he should have gone to the station, turned off the mic, and punched Simmons out. It was that bad. I listened to the whole thing, but now I regret it as it was a sort of verbal smut film in many ways.
Stale Air is still on? Wow. No wonder nobody listens to government radio unless the classical music is playing.
We need to defund NPR! The Democrats don’t need a government paid party mouth piece. They already have ABCNBCCBSMSNBCFOXCNN... They get free year round campaign commercials in the guise of news every day of the year.
A classic. It was like witnessing a train wreck in slow motion.
Here’s the transcript of that interview. Notice how Gross embarrasses herself right off the bat by asking an attack like question about the Kiss make up while getting Gene Simmons’ real name wrong. What an idiot! http://www.cpworks.org/rotton_school/blog/TERRYGRO.HTM
NPR exists for one purpose only - to keep the intellectual elites on the plantation.
Yes, they are all good when discussing their little secular irrelevancies with the like-minded.
I don't know who Diane Rehm is, but avoiding religion and politics is not exactly a high plank to jump over.
Here in Kansas they just play regular commercials like everyone else. They should drop the idiotic “membership drives” which only drive listeners to other stations.
Well, they fill a niche market for prolonged discussion -- who else does hour-long interviews? -- and classical music. It would be good if a commercial station did it without the left wing agenda.
A good alternative is Catholic Radio where you can catch it, but they don't do music.
They fill a niche market for hour long liberal propaganda at taxpayer expense. 50% of their budget comes from big, wealthy liberals and the other from hapless taxpayers.
The free market fills the same niche on many radio shows. Medved had a good show yesterday about Chik-fil-A and hate speech. It lasted the entire hour. Stoessel also does a great job on his specials. The Internet and Youtube are quickly filling the gap.
We don’t need public radio and never did. They’re propagandists and their goal is to stop intellectuals from thinking while keeping the intellectuals at the teat of liberalism. When an Elite says, “I was listening to NPR and...” They’re really signalling - I am very smart, hip and modern.
Chicago has a classical radio station. I record my favorite hymns and music and just play that. I sometimes listen to Catholic Radio as well as Moody which is available here in Chicago.
I agree.
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.