Grade A incomplete

By Diogenes (articles ) | May 17, 2006

With charming informality in regard to the facts, Cathy Lee Grossman tells the highbrow readers of USA Today what they should think about the incoming Archbishop of Washington. A sample of her subtle approach:

During the 2004 elections, when some bishops pledged to deny communion to politicians who supported abortion rights, Wuerl served on a bishops task force that called for a different definition of “faithful citizenship” for Catholics. Led by McCarrick, the task force called for assessing politicians by a broad range of issues, including peace and social justice. McCarrick was thrashed by conservative Catholic commentators, but the Vatican accepted the task force's report.

How prescient of the Vatican to accept the report of the McCarrick committee! Now if that committee would just issue its report, ....

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

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!

Show 10 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - May. 24, 2006 12:38 AM ET USA

    At the USCCB June Mtg., the unpublic report could make for a most interesting decision via a BXVI-guided reversal for Archbishop-desig. Wuerl on USE of canon 915, perhaps not too-unlike Levada in relation to BXVI’s assessment of Fr. Marciel -- given that Wuerl definitely does not lean toward use of 915 on grounds Wuerl discusses that (sadly) make one wonder whether he sees abortion for the unique peace-blocking evil that it is

  • Posted by: - May. 18, 2006 12:57 PM ET USA

    Phil, I acknowledge you clarification. I appreciate you attention. I was not clear enough in what I wrote as a response to Cathy Grossman's article. I agree with Diogenes that it has yet to see the light of day.

  • Posted by: - May. 18, 2006 9:53 AM ET USA

    Touche, Diogenes. I wonder if Wuerl could be the catalyst on the committee that has kept the report from seeing the light of day? Cathy needs a remedial course in journalistic integrity. She is not alone in that category.

  • Posted by: - May. 18, 2006 9:38 AM ET USA

    "Even though possibly one or two of you may miss my committee report, you know that my prayer, my affection and my deepest appreciation for all of you and for your wonderful kindnesses to me will always be uppermost in my heart." Heh.

  • Posted by: Phil - May. 18, 2006 7:58 AM ET USA

    Centurion, I'm afraid you misunderstand Uncle Di's point. The committee has not submitted its report.

  • Posted by: - May. 18, 2006 7:41 AM ET USA

    Obviously the Report was issued but under the same Code of Secrecy that surrounded the Vatican's Instructions [1962 et al] on dealing with clerical sex abuse. WWJS?

  • Posted by: - May. 18, 2006 2:57 AM ET USA

    So a committee gathered to write a report! The Vatican accepted the report. That means it was received. It does not mean the Holy See agrees with what it concluded. Nor does it mean that it will be enforced in any way. It would be nice nevertheless to have it published for a reaction from the faithful.

  • Posted by: TheJournalist64 - May. 17, 2006 9:20 PM ET USA

    Not at all. Since nobody was slandered and nobody will sue, there will not even be a retraction. Look at the libel laws.

  • Posted by: rpp - May. 17, 2006 5:08 PM ET USA

    Like most liberal media (and some slanted conservative media as well), they will say anything that weakens the church. They don't want know how to check "facts" given to them by their "sources". If they are wrong, who cares, they will print a retraction under the Victoria Secret ad that says something like "CORRECTION: In the article on the 2004 elections, the report has not yet been delivered." No context and a misleading title, yet they can claim "We issued a correction."

  • Posted by: - May. 17, 2006 3:35 PM ET USA

    I can't wait for the movie...