I saw a piece at Crux today which left me disappointed. The piece in question is an opinion hit-job by Austen Ivereigh against anyone who dares to suggest that there are problems with Chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia.
Ivereigh is a “contributing editor” at Crux. His position is de facto an editorial position.
On Crux’s webpage we read:
We’re an independent Catholic news site, operated in partnership with the Knights of Columbus….
They are partners.
Is this the sort of product that the Knights of Columbus want?
If this is the sort of thing that the Knights of Columbus aim for as partners, then I must review my hitherto positive view of the Knights of Columbus.
Loading ...
I most certainly agree Father.
“where the notion of ‘adultery’ simply fails to capture a reality.” That is an interseting way to put things. Adultery is just a notion? And in quotation marks, as if adultery is not reality?
The Order of the Holy Vacillators?
Austen Ivereigh’s pathetic piece is blowing up big time. And rightly so.
Unclear why the pope doesn’t have the respect to respond in any way from this apologia
I had to stop halfway through. Mr. Ivereigh has written quite a piece of tripe. It would be a very good thing for the Knights of Columbus to clarify their position on the article. They cannot maintain much of their membership if the view espoused in the article is also their view. At the least, I’ll rethink mine, should that be the case.
Speaking as a proud Third Degree Knight:
The Supreme Council of the KofC is always going to “support our priests,” “support our bishops,” “support the Pope.” Query what that means at this juncture. This is not the kind of article that you’ll find in the KofC’s monthly magazine, “Columbia,” which goes to all Knights. Those articles tend to play up the charitable works of the KofC and inform the Knights on initiatives of the Pope and bishops. This means that you’d see a piece extolling “Amoris,” but almost never mentioning in a direct way any controversy; certainly nothing like this piece. A few years back, a new Editor-in-Chief of “Columbia” decided to start running letters to the editor. After a couple of letters taking issue with settled doctrine, that was scrapped. The KofC stay away from controversy, but support the hierarchy. That may be a difficult spot right now.
What does the involvement with “Crux” mean for the membership? I doubt that many of the brothers know anything about the dispute, for better or worse.
Mr. Ivereigh invokes the adage “Roma locuta, causa finite” to attack a request that Rome “end a cause” that is persisting because Rome has not “spoken.” Such is the quality of a liberal’s reasoning.
Why should we presume that the opinion of a Crux writer is the opinion of the KofC order? The worst that it means is that they should keep their writers on a shorter leash. I wouldn’t read any more into the order as a whole than that. They took over Crux to save it, and I am sure they did not wholesale replace their people with others of their choosing. Crux is in flux. The longer the Knights have it, my 12 years as a member and officer give me confidence, the better it will get.
Apologists of AL Chapter 8 never fail to mention children from the second marriage, and they never fail to neglect children from the first marriage. This supposed development of doctrine is made to help children from the second marriage, but it neglects children from the first marriage. It hurts me deeply, as I am one such child. Every time I read something by them, I feel alone and forgotten. Children from the first marriage are the ones who are “on the margins” in these discussions. I cry to God regularly about not only my situation but others like me, and also for the Church. I know he sees and hears me.
I don’t think the apologists of Chapter 8 realize how offensive their remarks sound to those like me who were left behind and forgotten in the entire discussion. Perhaps there needs to be a development of doctrine, and if so, I welcome it. AL has some truly beautiful and perfectly orthodox passages about marriage and the family, but if there was a legitimate development of doctrine in Chapter 8, I do not see it.
I think Father’s piece misconstrues the status of a “contributing editor” at a publication. Contributing editors to online publications are not, generally, individuals exercising editorial control over articles written by others. They are, rather, writers who contribute articles from time to time and get a fancier byline. Perhaps their articles, because they are not written by “editors,” are not subject to the same manner of oversight by a different editor than articles submitted by other writers. So while one may rightly raise an eyebrow at the type of person a publication would name “contributing editor,” I would not view the individual’s positions necessarily as those of the publication or its editorial board, because I don’t believe a person with that title generally sits on what we would describe as an editorial board.
And I agree that it would take something cataclysmic for the Knights of Columbus to take a side, particularly the Ghibelline side, in the Kasperite dispute. Barring something truly bizarre, or an express condemnation of the Kasperite error by the next pope or a council, they are not going to wade into that fray. They’re in the odd position of being both (a) the sort of old-guard social-action conservative Catholics of whom it’s fashionable to make fun these days and (b) staunch papal-court loyalists, always very Guelph.
As for the Knights’ partnership with Crux, I don’t know precisely what the angle is. I saw that in last month’s Columbia and was a little surprised. I doubt they’re promoting this sort of nonsense, at least on purpose. But the leadership at Supreme has been a bit hair-brained of late (not theologically, just in general), so who knows what the thought process was.
Parce nobis, Domine.
This Knight certainly doesn’t have much good to say about that piece. I am happy to be as understanding as possible with those I talk to–just like I want understanding when I struggle to discern what’s right, or with known sin. But care and understanding, careful listening for what is the best “next step” for each person, does not change the parameters of the situation. Knowing how to care and serve with truth that heals is real pastoral concern.
I concur. This really left me drop jawed. Totally unacceptable, and I expect the Knights of Columbus to do public penance for this. They tanked.
It is worth pointing out that Mr Ivereigh is a former Deputy Editor of The Tablet. The “bitter pill” and UK equivalent to the Fishwrap.
I read it this morning and had exactly the same response. Thanks for raising it here.
To quote the original press from March:
“Reporting and analysis by Allen and San Martín will continue to focus primarily on the Vatican, the Church and Catholic issues generally…The Knights will respect the editorial freedom of Crux, trusting it to present news and commentary in a way that serves the good of the Church.”
JamesM
Perhaps he will soon be a former contributing editor of Crux.
There has been no improvement in the reportage or analysis at Crux since they hooked up with the Knights. The one change I have noticed — and with regret — is that there is no longer the opportunity for readers to comment. There was never any question that the Knights were getting into a cesspool when partnering with Crux. I want to see a loud apology from Carl Anderson. Ivereigh’s ideological madness is offensive and unworthy of a Catholic publication. His service as hagiographer and apologist for the current nonsense has rendered him entirely unreliable.
Like many others who have commented, I am a 3rd degree Knight who is active in a council. I do read the Columbia, which is a good publication, often covering the Sanctity of Life, and even articles about couples who have conceived using methods approved via Holy Mother Church. I also like how the support for the Armed Forces and military chaplains are highlighted, as well as vocations.
I don’t read Crux (or Pathos or Aletiea) very often (if I need a laugh I might go to the Fishwrap), but it looks like the Knights need to be more cautious about vetting authors (Dr. Peters and Fr. Z would be welcomed additions)for the pieces that are written. I suggest emailing the Communications Office for the Knights of Columbus and bringing this to their attention.
Glad someone else took note. It is been a constant source of garbage since it’s inception. Lipstick on a pig, still a pig.
We must always remember that there are three things that corrupt: money, sex, and power. There are ample examples of their corrupting influence in the Catholic Church – including Catholic fraternal and charitable organizations. We need to be wary of Catholic Groups that are awash in money – whether it’s source is State funding or selling insurance policies. We need to be very wary of Church organizations that wield too much power. And certainly, we are all too well aware of what happens when the Church succumbs to sexual exploitation of the vulnerable.
Pingback: TUESDAY EDITION | Big Pulpit
Austen Ivereigh is a writer whose entire history screams, “Catholic in name only.” He worked for The Tablet in the U.K. which has a disgraceful history of publishing dissent pieces. He was Communications Director for Bishop Cormac Murphy-O’Connor who was enabler of sex abusing priests and promoted programs in his diocese that undermined the Church. Catholic Truth Scotland has often included articles in their newsletter about both The Tablet and said bishop. Christian Order has also uncovered the bishop’s scandals. Don’t waste your time reading anything by Austen Ivereig. You’d be better off using the time to brush your teeth. Oh…and don’t forget to use mouthwash to eliminate the sour taste of dissent. http://www.christianorder.com/editorials/editorials_2003/editorials_feb03.html
P.S. Ivereigh was actually a deputy editor of The Tablet so he no doubt gets credit for promoting their policy of dissent.
The attacks get uglier. The four Cardinals are now subtly accused of heresy, like the Jansenists.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/december-9th-2016/the-return-of-jansenism/