Does the New York Times now oppose dissent from Church teaching?
In a New York Times op-ed, Michael Peppard, a Fordham theology professor, strains to make the argument that Paul Ryan dissents from Catholic teaching on abortion. Ryan, he observes, has promised “to oppose abortion, with the exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.” But the Catholic Church opposes direct abortion in all cases. Therefore, Peppard concludes, Ryan “has joined the ranks of dissenting Catholic politicians.” Peppard even suggests that Ryan might properly be denied Communion because of his public dissent.
It’s a reach. Ryan is not promoting legal abortion, nor is he asking taxpayers to subsidize the slaughter. He is making a pragmatic compromise, recognizing that the American public is not prepared (and his running-mate is not prepared) to approve an across-the-board ban on abortion. He is neither defying nor misrepresenting what the Church teaches.
But Peppard’s essay is remarkable for another reason as well. The headline reads: “Paul Ryan, Catholic Dissident.” Am I mistaken, or is this the first time the New York Times has labeled someone as a Catholic dissident—and not applauded the dissent?
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!