belief, unbelief, and bad faith
By Diogenes (articles ) | April 13, 2004 7:13 AM
Last month, National Catholic Reporter contributor Chuck Colbert planted himself in a parish mass near Boston with the purpose of disrupting it by gay shock tactics. Off The Record questioned the propriety of his pretending to write as an objective reporter. To his credit, the NCR’s editor Tom Roberts takes up the issue and addresses it directly (subscriber-only content):
In stories and newscasts that followed [his disruption], Colbert was correctly identified as a freelance writer who regularly contributes to NCR. What wasn't said, however, is that Colbert has not written for NCR since the issue of March 19, not since he made the decision to cross the line between reporter and activist. At that time, we talked about the situation and Colbert understood that becoming a public activist on the gay marriage issue would prohibit him from reporting on our pages.
Roberts admits that Colbert’s “decision to disrupt the Mass was the decision of an activist, not a journalist.” To give credit where credit is due, he understands the journalistic conflict of interest at stake in direct action partisanship and seems determined to make Colbert understand it as well. While I’m still somewhat baffled as to why John Allen was allowed to give a talk titled “From Stonewall to Stonewalling” at the 2002 New Ways Ministry convention (reported in the NCR by
Yet this very separation hits at the paradox of religious journalism, where convictions define what a religion is, and “activism”
The NCR’s editor, post-prank, identifies Colbert as “Catholic, highly educated and ... deeply committed to a church in which he increasingly feels alienated and marginalized.” He further tells us that “Colbert lives in a committed relationship with another man, and the two of them plan to be married, under Massachusetts law, in May.”
This is important: to call Colbert “Catholic,” Roberts cannot use the term in the public, face-value sense of one who holds such-and-such convictions, because Colbert rejects those convictions. He can only use “Catholic” in the narrowest canonical sense to mean one aggregated to the Catholic community by baptism who is not formally excommunicated. Note that this fact hinges purely on what Colbert publicly professes to be true and false, not on his moral comportment.
So why wasn’t this card played face-up back while Colbert was still contributing as a reporter? After all, it’s highly relevant to the question of his objectivity on Catholic controversies. Well, obviously, it’s congruent with the NCR’s own editorial sympathies, which are counter-Catholic on a whole range of doctrinal issues. Why attach a warning flag to this particular specimen of partisanship? A tug on any loose string and the whole web unravels.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our Spring 2013 goal ($25,969 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: snowbird -
Apr. 15, 2004 8:59 AM ET USA
Such action by Colbert shows a complete lack of respect by choosing to treat as unworthy a place consecrated to God at precisely the time when Catholics believe that Christ becomes truly present in His body and blood. Such action reveals hubris and reveling in victimhood, rather than a commitment to faith and a love for Christ's work of redemption. Colbert's antics reveal him to be a Catholic in name only. No true Catholic would profane the Mass - for any reason! This boy is on an ego trip.
Posted by: -
Apr. 14, 2004 6:25 PM ET USA
I too am "Catholic and marginalized" because I happen to believe that the faith of our fathers is worth being marginalized over! Does that mean I can disrupt the modern Mass my neighbors are content to assist at? I think not. But I missed something ... what did this jerk do? Did anyone have the courage of a higher conviction and beat him up? Yes Pollyanna, it's okay to beat someone up who maliciously disrupts the Mass.
Posted by: -
Apr. 13, 2004 10:57 PM ET USA
Want to feel alienated and marginalized? try asking your local Bishop for a Latin Mass, Try kneeling down in Church to pray the Rosary, Try finding a kneeler!!!!Try going to confession on Saturday, Try going to confession period.try recieving Holy Communion on the toungue, Let alone kneeling down at an Alter rail!!