Slandering the faithful
Mudslinging has become so common in mainstream media nowadays that we barely notice it, but I'm always astonished at the willingness of some Catholics to stoop to scoop up slime. The latest: A Canadian "activist," John Pacheco, has spent the past few weeks calling into question the orthodoxy of Richard Gaillardetz, a lay professor of Catholic studies at the University of Toledo, a Catholic university, according to Catholic News Service.
Unhappy that the Canadian bishops have invited Gaillardetz to speak at their fall meeting, Pacheco and other contributors have pasted Gaillardetz as a "dissenter" on their Socon or Bust blog. That slander, picked up by Lifesitenews.com, has gone on so long (beginning with a Sept 21 post) that Gaillardetz felt compelled to write in his own defense to the president of Canadian bishops' conference, which Gaillardetz has been invited to address.
The problems with Socon's critique of Gaillardetz are legion--mostly a series of snips from this or that source--and it's clear that its writers know very little about theology, how it works, or the task of a theologian. What they should know is that slander--the use of information, true or not, with the intent of harming someone's reputation--is considered a sin against charity.
Richard Gaillardetz has written beautifully, not only about ecclesiology and church authority (which he values) but the spirituality of marriage as well. His works are well-rooted in our broad and living tradition. If you'd like a taste of his thinking, you can check out his interview with US Catholic, "Who's the boss?" and his Sounding Board, "Let's pray, pay, and have our say." The Canadian bishops chose well.
Too bad Gaillardetz has had to reply to what can best be described as intemperate self-righteousness with an Internet connection. The Web is great for making voices heard; too bad some people abuse it with slander instead of engaging the issues that matter, with good arguments tempered by a healthy measure of the charity God calls us to.
Comments (6)
Appeals to authority, not refutation
By tantumblogo (not verified) on Friday, February 26, 2010Mr. Cones has taken an easy out - he responds to the criticisms of Dr. Gaillardetz work with insults, appeals to authority, and sweeping generalizations. He does not address a single substantive point raised by those critical of Dr. Gaillardetz, and those criticisms go far beyond a single blogger, and he knows it. Several other well respected theologians have also taken Dr. Gaillardetz to task for his unorthodox viewpoints. His work was removed from the USCCB 'foryourmarriage' website due to its unorthodox nature. Casting aspersions by insinuating that the subject matter is simply beyond the level of the "blogger" to understand is libelous as well. There has been nothing libelous said about Dr. Gaillardetz - individuals, including PhD theologians, have reviewed his work and found problems with it from a doctrinal standpoint. Your attempt to shut down the debate by trying to cow those concerned with Dr. G's work into flying to the confessional will not work.
That US Catholic would rush to the defense of such a theologian, without addressing the facts of the case at all, is hardly surprising.
I've never heard of this guy
By Anonymous (not verified) on Wednesday, October 7, 2009I've never heard of this guy before, so I went off and read the interview you linked to. I thought it was pretty good up until the very end where he suddenly comes out with this:
Catholics are obliged to do their best to give the presumption of truth to such teachings, to try and assimilate them. But if in doing so, Catholics at the end of the day say: "I simply cannot internally assent to that," I would argue they have genuinely done all the church has asked of them.
He is wrong in that last sentence and I am sure that he knows it. Catholics must obey all doctrine of the Catholic Church, even if they "cannot internally assent to it". So for example, a Catholic who "struggles" with the mortal sinfulness of artificial birth control is not thereby relieved of the obligation to obey the Church, just because she has decided that she "simply cannot internally assent to that." Catholics must obey the Church in matters of morals even if they disagree with the Church.
Any self-described Catholic who finds it hard to agree with Church doctrine has a deficient understanding of the Church. The Catholic Church was given the authority to teach and is guarded from error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself. There is no reason to believe any doctrine of the Church if you reject that premise. Having accepted the premise, there is no reason to reject any doctrine of the Church.
Heresy Defined
By Dan (not verified) on Tuesday, October 6, 2009I thought I would throw the actual definition for heresy in from Websters Online:
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards.
I was reading somewhere the the "grade level" for Catholic academic training in their faith averages to the 8th grade. That is probably why there is so much misinformation on the web. The other problem is that most don't realize that it is disinformation.
"I've seen good people, both
By Anonymous (not verified) on Monday, October 5, 2009"I've seen good people, both lay and religious, dismissed from long-standing positions simply because someone stepped in and said they "weren't Catholic enough.""
If you proclaim heresy, you hardly can call yourself a Catholic. Sorry buddy.
Define "heresy"
By Bryan Cones on Tuesday, October 6, 2009Talk about a word that's used too much out of ignorance. Go look up "heresy" in the Catechism; Gaillardetz is not guilty of it. Slander is more easily defined. There's a definition for that in the Catechism as well.
Bryan Cones
Blessed are the peacemakers
By C. S. Conroy (not verified) on Monday, October 5, 2009Thank you, Bryan Cones. Yours is a voice of reason on the Internet, calling for a cease fire in what has become a dirty war of accusation, finger-pointing, and mud-slinging.
A growing chorus of negative, divisive, and destructive attitudes is taking to the Internet. These locally festering infections quickly become viral, spreading throughout the Internet and affecting the whole body of the Church.
Supposedly "good" Catholics are resorting to dirty tactics, turning on their own fellow parishioners and members of the larger Catholic community, calling into question the validity of their faith and their fitness to serve in the Church. I've seen good people, both lay and religious, dismissed from long-standing positions simply because someone stepped in and said they "weren't Catholic enough." I've seen schools and parishes divided to the point that they have become hostile and forbidding environments filled with suspicion and fear, rather than loving, nurturing, and guiding environments of Catholic teaching.
These angry Catholics have a warped sense of duty to admonish and purify the flock in order to bring it back into line with Church teachings. How ironic to think that mudslinging could ever result in purification, forgiveness, and reconciliation--all things the members of the Church desperately need right now to become whole and strongly united in Christ. At what point did we forget to love our neighbor as we do ourselves?
