Certainly there is value in having a publication for stories like this, but stories like this one coming from a “Catholic” paper are a bit questionable.
Participants were given handouts that made strong points about war and violence, noting that 60 percent of the United States’ federal budget is spent on the military — while such vital needs as health care, education, housing and urban development, and environmental protection all come out of the remaining 40 percent.
Well that’s just a bunch of stuff. Some might even call it mularky. A quick googling shows that military spending is in the 20-30% range as is spending on health care programs. So the Courier prints bad numbers because they relied on some liberal propaganda… that’s forgivable and I understand it’s hard to fact check everything. That’s where being able to comment on articles is really beneficial. Someone might write something like, “hey, I think those numbers are wrong – can you check it out?” In fact, that’s a comment I just made. Will it make it though moderation? My experience says no. A self respecting journalistic institution ought to be open to the facts. But not the award winning Catholic Courier. Instead they simply delete comments that disagree with the liberal agenda. Or maybe they just delete everything I write. You tell me – have you had comments not make it though moderation? Before you click submit, save the text of the comment, the url of the article you’re commenting on, the date, and send it to me or post it here. I’d like to offer another outlet for comments on Catholic Courier articles.
Here’s another comment I left not too long ago that didn’t make it through. The article was “Caretaker role intended to watch over diocese”. The portion I was commenting on was this:
Father Hart, who was one of two diocesan vicars general and also moderator of the diocesan Pastoral Center under Bishop Emeritus Matthew H. Clark, noted that the appointment of an apostolic administrator in a vacant see is not unusual. For instance, he noted that Archbishop Alexander Brunett, archbishop emeritus of the Archdiocese of Seattle, was recently appointed apostolic administrator of the Diocese of Oakland, Calif. And closer to home, Bishop Robert J. Malone of Buffalo also continues to watch over his former diocese of Portland, Maine, Father Hart noted.
my comment was something like this (paraphrasing as I didn’t take my own advice above of saving the text before I submitted).
Actually, neither of those cases are quite like the one we had in Rochester. In both of those cases, the bishops’ seats were empty because they had been appointed for work elsewhere. In the case of Rochester, our Bishop wasn’t heading anywhere else – he was simply retiring. I do believe it’s a misnomer to say this situation wasn’t quite unusual.
Some might say, “well, they just don’t like controversy. It should just be a feel-good paper and not lower itself to arguments within the flock.” Well, that’s just find and dandy except for the fact that this paper has no problem scolding authentic Catholicism over and over again. For a quick example, here’s a comment on the article “Pope accepts Bishop Clark’s resignation, appoints Syracuse Bishop as apostolic administrator”, :
by Don Muench on September 21, 2012, 11:19 PM
Of course, we’ll never get an explanation for this rather unusual (to put it mildly) transition. Suffice it to say that this arrangement appears to be an insensitive, hamhanded and disrespectful treatment of the Faithful in our Diocese and of our Bishop.
So let’s recap the Courier’s comment policy:
- not acceptable: Questioning liberal “facts”
- perfectly acceptable: Calling the pope insensitive, hamhanded, and disrespectful
And don’t forget that they continue to publish articles by this guy.
Related article here.
side note: for those who don’t have time to research every local candidate and thus consider themselves unworthy of voting, here’s the cliff notes for you:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/candidates/2012-party-platform-comparison-web.pdf