Pat Buchanan’s Dishonesty

David Mills at Patheos ^ | October 21, 2014 | David Mills

[Mrs. Don-o]

But that wasn't Mills' topic. He wasn't writing on the synod, on the relatrio, or on the Bergoglio pontificate in general. He was writing on Buchanan's critique of Pope Francis' end-of-synod homily.

If he were writing about the synod it would have been a different article. I'd not be surprised if he agreed with a lot of what you wrote.

I personally have been a Buchanan fan for decades. His article on the homily, however, was poorly thought out. Defense of doctrine needs better than that.

[ebb tide]

David Mills also cheered Michael Davis on for removing Cardinal Burke’s interview from Church Milquetoast TV.

Patheos is pathetic.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Please help me out here. I googled

"David Mills" "Michael Davis" "Cardinal Burke"

And pulled up basically nothing. Could you tell me where I can find this story?

[ebb tide]

Sorry. I meant Michael Voris. Brain hiccup.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidmills/2014/10/michael-voris-apologizes/

[ebb tide]

Mills is such a hypocrite. First he says:

He’d (Voris) done so (Burke interview) for journalistic reasons, and good ones, I might note. I would have covered the story were I him.

Yet Mills goes on to praise Voris for yanking the interview that Mill's, himself, would have covered:

Three cheers for Michael Voris.

How do you explain that?

[Mrs. Don-o]

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.

[JoeFromSidney]

She thought he was really humble and would be good for the church

Well, I didn't think his "humility" would be good for the Church. Right after his election, when he refused to move into the Papal Palace, I was worried. I wanted to tell him, "Move into that Palace and start acting like a Pope." When he started distributing food to the poor, I wanted to tell him, "It's not your job to feed the poor. The Church has agencies for that. It's your job to see that they're doing their job. If you fail in that, you've failed in one of your most important responsibilities."

But of course there was no way I could tell him those things. Even had I written a letter, it would never have gotten through the bureaucracy.

[jwalsh07]

Excellent post. Tip of my KofC hat to ya.

[NKP_Vet]

“Patheos is pathetic”.

And caters to cafeteria catholics

[ebb tide]

So what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander?

It’s not discretion; it’s hypocrisy.

[Mrs. Don-o]

That's a moral judgment on his motivation; something we are not entitled to do. Haven't you ever heard of the allied faults of rash judgment, detraction, and slander?

I myself have an objection to Mills' headline, by the way. It might not be "dishonesty" imputable morally to Buchanan; it might be less witting than that.

[BlatherNaut]

But that wasn't Mills' topic. He wasn't writing on the synod, on the relatrio, or on the Bergoglio pontificate in general. He was writing on Buchanan's critique of Pope Francis' end-of-synod homily.

Let's take this point by point.

First of all, Mills' topic is stated clearly in his opening paragraph. His primary intent is to smear Buchanan by accusing him of dishonesty. His secondary intent appears to be a general condemnation of as many other critics of Francis as possible -- those nameless writers he accuses of being "the same sort".

Secondly, the implication that Buchanan's column is a "critique of Pope Francis' end-of-synod homily" is a mischaracterization of his purpose (which is obviously a broad overview of Francis' synod initiatives rather than a critique of a single speech.)

Thirdly, Mills' attack on Buchanan ironically epitomizes the very snip and tweezer technique you decry. He has taken a couple of Buchanan's remarks, plucked them from their original context in Buchanan's opinion piece, juxtaposed them with papal vagaries that themselves are open to various interpretations, and used this cheap rhetorical trick to launch a character attack on Buchanan which is comparable to Jay Carney's nastiest spinmeister tactics.

For Mills to accuse Buchanan of dishonesty is execrable and for Mills to be held up as "an uncommonly wise observer of the current scene" rather than the transparently biased apologist for the "current scene" that his nasty attack on Buchanan has shown him to be is truly amazing.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I guess we’ll have to disagree.

[BlatherNaut]

Patheos is pathetic.

---------------

The Vatican invited 150 hand-picked bloggers to a "first-ever blogging summit". A writer from Patheos was among the select group.

Did Francis' "PR Guru", Greg Burke, vet the guest list? It would be interesting to find out if the guest list was mainly comprised of Patheos-style writers.

"At least one group of shutouts, who are very conservative or write tradition-minded blogs, have formed an alternative summit scheduled for a Rome pub Tuesday, where organizers promise pizza, beer and that "all the cool kids will be there."

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2011/05/02/vatican_invites_catholic_bloggers_for_first_summit/