To paraphrase a friend, unless you treat every allegation of misconduct as worthy of investigation, then no allegation is worthy of investigation. No one is incapable of doing monstrous things, and no one should get a pass from scrutiny just because they code Trad or Lib.
And that's the rub of this whole thing. People want to believe Fr. …
To paraphrase a friend, unless you treat every allegation of misconduct as worthy of investigation, then no allegation is worthy of investigation. No one is incapable of doing monstrous things, and no one should get a pass from scrutiny just because they code Trad or Lib.
And that's the rub of this whole thing. People want to believe Fr. Martins is innocent because he's on "their side." And maybe he is innocent. But that doesn't mean he just gets handwaved on accusations.
Nobody should get "handwaved on accusations," but when the parish priest basically does the same thing at the same event, then things start to look like two-tier justice is being applied. Also, when clarifications and definitions are not offered, it isn't unreasonable in the context of historical abuse scandals for many people to jump to conclusions.
I think the Pillar's reporting contributed to the issue by going out of its way to express skepticism of Fr. Martins overall ministry. If someone said that a priest was "allegedly" acting in-persona Cristi and "claiming" that the bread and wine were turned into the body and blood of Christ, people might not take it very well. Using claimed and alleged regarding sacramental ministry in a single sentence can be perceived as fighting words to those who believe in the efficacy of a particular sacrament.
Just to clarify, exorcism is not a sacrament and not one of our fundamental beliefs as Catholics, as the Eucharist is. The Church takes a "verification needed" stance toward even the holiest people who report apparitions of Christ and Our Lady--I think verification should go double for those (priests or not) who say they've encountered demonic forces.
Elinor, Excellent point that exorcism isn't a sacrament, but to say that it isn't a fundamental belief of the Catholic Church would, I think, go a bit far. The office of exorcist was historically one of the four minor orders of the church with exorcist ordination rites going back at least as far as the Fourth Council of Carthage in 398 AD, and much further when you consider that Carthage was merely formally approving what had already been practiced from time immemorial.
Anytime someone is ordained for a ministry and given formal rites to follow, I think it is safe to assume that such a ministry is considered a foundational part of the Church's function on earth and part of her core belief structure.
the issue with anything pertaining to an exorcism is that its unfalsifiable. It's doubly challenging when you have a dramatic retelling of an exorcism. We have no way of whether they're accounts of actual exorcisms or not, and thus, we'd feel obliged to use similar language even in the case of Benedict XVI or something.
I can see how, in the context of a story about a priest under suspicion, it seemed like we were adding fuel to fire and that's a good insight. I'm not sure how else to talk about exorcisms though, since no one can really know whether they were accomplished or not.
Were the issues in this case exorcisms? It appears that it began with something else. Not that there’s another thread to tug on, but to stay on point and to direct your point would be helpful I think.
This is in response to a person who is concerned that we referred to the priest's podcast as doing dramatic reanactments of "reported" exorcisms. some readers felt that we were demonstrating a lack of trust in the priest, so I'm just aiming to explain why we use that language.
I hear what your saying, but I still have questions. By that logic, almost every story about things in the past is unfalsifiable. So, when Pope Francis tells a story about an interaction that he had with someone as a young priest, would a journalist say "Francis allegedly spoke with a woman about her difficult marriage situation..." I have a hard time imagining that any journalist would do that. Now, maybe they would if the Pope produced a documentary of it, but I can almost guarantee that any journalist using that language would be called crass and accused of insinuating that the pope is a liar. How should a journalist draw that line?
Honestly, I love your reporting overall and would support you if the subscription price was double what it is now. You are the only news organization willing to consistently report honestly about issues like this. I just wonder if there was a way to appear more neutral in this particular situation? Maybe there isn't: I'm not sure on that point, though I suspect there is in a world of perfect hindsight. Frankly, I'm glad it is you doing this job and not me, because I can guarantee that I'd offend more people than you, Ed, and the other great reporters on your team.
we would say, "Francis reported speaking to a woman about her difficult marriage," or "Francis said he .. " or "Francis reportedly ..." Maybe even "Francis allegedly..."
We would never say, "Francis spoke to a woman about her difficult marriage situation" because we have no way of knowing it was true!
You did it! We have a solution for more neutral wording above! If you had said "Fr. Martins said he..." it wouldn't carry nearly the emotional weight as the words "allegedly" and "claimed", both of which tend to insinuate disbelief in today's culture (especially when used redundantly in the same sentence). Maybe that's just me, but I don't think I'm alone in that assessment.
The words have been used to neutralize things when it is quite clear that the things are not neutral, so that they are losing (if they have not already lost) their neutralizing capacity.
There are a number of investigations that have declared a bishop innocent of sexual misconduct but said that they were "imprudent". Any bets on how long it will take for that to become a euphemism?
To paraphrase a friend, unless you treat every allegation of misconduct as worthy of investigation, then no allegation is worthy of investigation. No one is incapable of doing monstrous things, and no one should get a pass from scrutiny just because they code Trad or Lib.
And that's the rub of this whole thing. People want to believe Fr. Martins is innocent because he's on "their side." And maybe he is innocent. But that doesn't mean he just gets handwaved on accusations.
Nobody should get "handwaved on accusations," but when the parish priest basically does the same thing at the same event, then things start to look like two-tier justice is being applied. Also, when clarifications and definitions are not offered, it isn't unreasonable in the context of historical abuse scandals for many people to jump to conclusions.
https://roddreher.substack.com/p/child-touch-for-me-but-not-for-thee
I think the Pillar's reporting contributed to the issue by going out of its way to express skepticism of Fr. Martins overall ministry. If someone said that a priest was "allegedly" acting in-persona Cristi and "claiming" that the bread and wine were turned into the body and blood of Christ, people might not take it very well. Using claimed and alleged regarding sacramental ministry in a single sentence can be perceived as fighting words to those who believe in the efficacy of a particular sacrament.
Just to clarify, exorcism is not a sacrament and not one of our fundamental beliefs as Catholics, as the Eucharist is. The Church takes a "verification needed" stance toward even the holiest people who report apparitions of Christ and Our Lady--I think verification should go double for those (priests or not) who say they've encountered demonic forces.
Elinor, Excellent point that exorcism isn't a sacrament, but to say that it isn't a fundamental belief of the Catholic Church would, I think, go a bit far. The office of exorcist was historically one of the four minor orders of the church with exorcist ordination rites going back at least as far as the Fourth Council of Carthage in 398 AD, and much further when you consider that Carthage was merely formally approving what had already been practiced from time immemorial.
Anytime someone is ordained for a ministry and given formal rites to follow, I think it is safe to assume that such a ministry is considered a foundational part of the Church's function on earth and part of her core belief structure.
the issue with anything pertaining to an exorcism is that its unfalsifiable. It's doubly challenging when you have a dramatic retelling of an exorcism. We have no way of whether they're accounts of actual exorcisms or not, and thus, we'd feel obliged to use similar language even in the case of Benedict XVI or something.
I can see how, in the context of a story about a priest under suspicion, it seemed like we were adding fuel to fire and that's a good insight. I'm not sure how else to talk about exorcisms though, since no one can really know whether they were accomplished or not.
Were the issues in this case exorcisms? It appears that it began with something else. Not that there’s another thread to tug on, but to stay on point and to direct your point would be helpful I think.
This is in response to a person who is concerned that we referred to the priest's podcast as doing dramatic reanactments of "reported" exorcisms. some readers felt that we were demonstrating a lack of trust in the priest, so I'm just aiming to explain why we use that language.
I hear what your saying, but I still have questions. By that logic, almost every story about things in the past is unfalsifiable. So, when Pope Francis tells a story about an interaction that he had with someone as a young priest, would a journalist say "Francis allegedly spoke with a woman about her difficult marriage situation..." I have a hard time imagining that any journalist would do that. Now, maybe they would if the Pope produced a documentary of it, but I can almost guarantee that any journalist using that language would be called crass and accused of insinuating that the pope is a liar. How should a journalist draw that line?
Honestly, I love your reporting overall and would support you if the subscription price was double what it is now. You are the only news organization willing to consistently report honestly about issues like this. I just wonder if there was a way to appear more neutral in this particular situation? Maybe there isn't: I'm not sure on that point, though I suspect there is in a world of perfect hindsight. Frankly, I'm glad it is you doing this job and not me, because I can guarantee that I'd offend more people than you, Ed, and the other great reporters on your team.
we would say, "Francis reported speaking to a woman about her difficult marriage," or "Francis said he .. " or "Francis reportedly ..." Maybe even "Francis allegedly..."
We would never say, "Francis spoke to a woman about her difficult marriage situation" because we have no way of knowing it was true!
And thanks for the great and very kind note.
You did it! We have a solution for more neutral wording above! If you had said "Fr. Martins said he..." it wouldn't carry nearly the emotional weight as the words "allegedly" and "claimed", both of which tend to insinuate disbelief in today's culture (especially when used redundantly in the same sentence). Maybe that's just me, but I don't think I'm alone in that assessment.
it's helpful feedback.
This is actually a good point. I think the words had different connotations even a decade ago.
The words have been used to neutralize things when it is quite clear that the things are not neutral, so that they are losing (if they have not already lost) their neutralizing capacity.
There are a number of investigations that have declared a bishop innocent of sexual misconduct but said that they were "imprudent". Any bets on how long it will take for that to become a euphemism?