Cardinal McCarrick responds to the Denver Catholic Register column by George Weigel. [Via Kevin Knight]
The cardinal says that Weigel is correct in his assertion that he often calls for "moderation and civility." However, McCarrick continues, "that doesn’t mean compromising our faith and our teachings."
McCarrick, who said that through his column that Weigel is guilty of, "deceptive journalism, if not worse," wrote in his letter to the readers of Commonweal that people should, "avoid name calling and personal attacks and be careful that what we say is always true both in its expression and its implication." "Sometimes…it truly is important to set the record straight in the face of half-truths," McCarrick said.
I would be curious to exactly where George Weigel resorted to name calling or personal attacks. Re-reading the article I could find no signs of such behavior and wouldn’t saying someone was guilty of "deceptive journalism" be a personal attack itself? The original article made no positive assertions against the Cardinal, but only wondered what he meant by moderation and whether it just meant being in the middle of issues. George Weigel also wondered what he meant by moderation when there were many issues he was not moderate on and was willing to lobby congress on.
The funniest part of the whole thing is that the Cardinal decided to make his reply via Commonweal a magazine not exactly noted for heterodoxy.
22 comments
Do you mean to say, “…Commonweal a magazine not exactly noted for orthodoxy”? Or perhaps, “…Commonweal a magazine noted for heterdoxy”?
Fr. Philip
Did he end the letter with an “Allah bless you”?
I don’t know who to cheer for here. I despise McCarrick and have for years (I live in D.C.) precisely for his “moderation” in the face of doctrinal orthodoxy (remember 2004?). On the other hand, Weigel (and his fellow traveller, Richard John Neuhaus) has his own agenda. While there are many things for which he could have criticized McCarrick, this column was fairly weak intellectually. The incident dates back to John Paul’s reign. McCarrick has done many significantly heterodox things since then. Why didn’t Weigel mention those? For instance, the lies McCarrick told about Cardinal Ratzinger’s Worthiness to Receive Communion Letter of 2004? McCarrick didn’t take a “middle ground” there. Or McCarrick support for “same sex” civil unions right before his tenure ran out? That wasn’t a middle ground position either. In both of these incidents McCarrick wasn’t worried about losing those on the right or the left. He was unambiguously supporting those on the left. That’s where he’s always been. Weigel himself seems very disingenous here by selecting a fairly innocuous incident and then building on it. Methinks there’s more to this than meets the eye, but Weigel would have to write another column to explain it.
In your second sentence, did you mean to type in disagree with and typed in despise by mistake?
No, I typed in despise because I meant despise. McCarrick is the avatar for the type of bishop I despise. He is spineless when it comes to orthodoxy, never met a secular thought he couldn’t endorse, never met a Church stand he couldn’t sell out.
“Weigel (and his fellow traveler Richard John Neuhaus) has his own agenda”
What’s the agenda other than Catholicism?
Weigel and Neuhaus use “orthodox” Catholicism as a cover for very odd ideas about the relationship of church and state in the United States and for the way they evaluate what IS “orthodoxy.” Both of them, it seems to me, have substituted John Paul II for Jesus Christ. Their notion of Catholicism is not predicated on the Gospel or on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but on a personal relationship with John Paul II. For both of them, it appears that Christianity began in 1978, rather than on Calvary.
It’s significant that the Weigel column was published by a Diocesan newspaper.
And you can now bet that McC. was the source of a lot of “anonymous” quotes in Commonweal before this.
Just as R. Weakland was the source of a lot of Steinfels’ NYTimes comments…
Wiegel is a smart man. If he misunderstood the Archbishop’s position on these issues, why did Abp. McCarrick not clarify them for Mr. Wiegel, and the millions of other Catholics left scratching their heads?
Janice,
With all due respect, I do not think W and N are looking to 1978 as the beginning of the Church. I think they are speaking as men that know it didn’t start in 1965.
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” – Barry Goldwater
We might say the same about God’s will.
Kind of interesting that the Weigel column ran in “The Catholic Advocate”, the paper of the Archdiocese of Newark, the week that the Cardinal came to Seton Hall University for his first post-retirement visit.
Jeff: Weigel accused McC of, e.g., “severe intellectual confusion.” That isn’t a positive assertion against the cardinal? That isn’t an attack?
Also: The fact is that McC has been very forthright in teaching what the Church teaches about the evil of abortion, the unacceptability of same-sex “marriage,” etc. And as he clarified more than once, he was not calling for “civil unions” as these are generally understood, i.e., as something that amounts to marriage in all but name, or that gives legal status to a sexual relationship as such.
McC hasn’t been all good. He was, it seems pretty clear, wrong to misrepresent what Ratzinger had told him about communion for pro-abort pols.
But much of the criticism one hears of him is simply false.
McCarrick had to retract what he said about civil unions two days after he said it. At best, he’s an incompetent, although I think he’s been trying for years to sneak anti-Church teachings in under the radar. This last time, there was such a barrage of criticism he had to issue a “clarification.” He’s not “forthright,” believe me.
The “incident” referred to does not date back to JPII. The “incident” was a recent interview with Cardinal McCarrick in which he stated that his current method of “standing in the middle” was inspired by JPII’s visit to Newark some years ago. So, while the visit may have been in the past, Cardinal McCarrick’s response to it is very much in the present. Mr. Weigel and Fr. Neuhaus are referring to this very recent statement by Cardinal McCarrick.
Does Janice mean to suggest that her understanding of Church State relations, the Gospel, And Catholicism surpasses that of the two men she names; both of whom are rspected intellectuals, one of whom (Fr. RJN) is a respected theologian?
Yes, Janice does. Furthermore, Janice thinks Neuhaus distorts American history to get to his “understanding” of Church-State relations, the Gospel, and theology, with his disciple, Weigel, following close behind. By the way, Dim Bulb, since you don’t know anything about me, how do you know I’m not just as intellectually prepared as both of these men?
All I can say is please pray for CHAPUT or BURKE for BALTIMORE – Lord knows many of us prayed for them for Washington to succeed Cardinal McCarrick. Many people here in DC have had enough American cardinals walking “in the middle” … which to me is a cop-out for an outright preference of the left. I’ve never seen Cardinal McCarrick on EWTN other than by non-preferential circumstance, or write for CRISIS, CWR, First Things or This Rock magazines – but have unfortunatley followed his courting of the Jesuits at Georgetown, his contributions to the Jesuit America magazine, and now his unfortunate choice of offering his viewpoint through Commonweal magazine, and the countless occasions he has given Holy Communion to pro-choice, Catholic politicians such as the current mayor of Washington, D.C., etc. etc. If His Eminence has ever walked “in the middle,” he sure has taken some notable public breathers on the moderate and not so moderate left. His presence on the “right” side of the nave has been notably missing. I do not despise him, I pray for him and out of filial respect for his person and his office, I would readily bow and kiss his ring, but I cannot say that he has been “in the middle.” I attend the monthly solemn Mass in the Tridentine rite celebrated in downtown Washington, and these faithful Catholics will sadly admit that their presence in the Archdiocese has been explicitly and implicitly ignored by their former cardinal- archbishop during his entire five year tenure in Washington. Not one word of support or concern, only a reluctant agreement to continue allowing Cardinal Hickey’s indult. And how we miss the holiness and spiritual greatness of Cardinal Hickey, who with all his humility and meekness, made it clear he did not walk “in the middle,” especially to Georgetown University and to local and national politicians. A dear friend and admirer of Mother Angelica, he courageously reminded his flock, in writing and in homilies during the 2000 presidential election, that in that election in particular – there was a clear Catholic, pro-life choice – and that choice won. We need another courageous voice who will stand on the shoulders of a holy giant like James Cardinal Hickey, may he RIP. And to conclude, I wonder how the late John Paul II would have provided the ideological, spiritual and political impetus to topple communism if he had “walked in the middle.” Kudos to Mr. Weigel.
Perhaps McCarrick, in his desire for moderation and civility, should recall the words of Joseph Ratzinger:
“It is true that the Church may never simply align itself with the “Zeitgeist” [spirit of the times]. The Church must address the vices and perils of the time; she must appeal to the consciences of the powerful and of the intellectuals, not to mention of those who want to live narrow-minded, comfortable lives while ignoring the needs of the time, and so forth. As a bishop [of Munich] I felt obliged to face this task. Moreover, the deficits were too obvious: exhaustion of the faith, decline in vocations, lowering of moral standards even among men of the Church, an increasing tendency towards violence, and much else. The words of the Bible and of the Church Fathers rang in my ears, those sharp condemnations of shepherds who are like mute dogs; in order to avoid conflicts, they let the poison spread. Peace is not the first civic duty, and a bishop whose only concern is not to have any problems and to gloss over as many conflicts as possible is an image I find repulsive.”
Janice,
With all respect, please help me out here. I just finnished readinf “Catholic Matters” by Fr.Neuhaus and it seems to me to be an orthodox account of his journey to Catholicism and the state of the Church today. I haven’t read anything by him on the philosophy/history of Church/state relations but neither have I read anything indicating a distortion of facts. As far as George Weigel’s writings, other that “Letters to a young Catholic” and “Witness to Hope” I havn’t read much. He also seems to be pretty straightforward.
What distortions are you referring to that I can look up?
Cardinal McCarrick is ‘retired’.
Let us thank God for that.
Comments are closed.