Fishwrap (@NCRonline) commits another error in their work to smear Bp. Morlino (@MadisonDiocese)

At Fishwrap (aka National Sodomitic Reporter) there is a “news” piece about the coverage … a news piece about the coverage… sheesh… which was given to a post at the notoriously liberal liturgy blog Pray Tell, which incorrectly attributed to Bp. Robert Morlino of Madison, some notes sent by the Vicar General to priests of the same diocese in a regular Saturday communication.

Pray Tell did this in order to smear the bishop.

They later corrected their post, but the damage was done to the Bishop’s reputation and to the truth.  Homosexualist activist Jesuit James Martin and other promoters of deviant sex such as DignityUSA and New Ways Ministry picked up the false version of the story.

In so targeting Bp. Morlino for ridicule and slander from their constituencies, they accomplished the work of committed cadres in the new catholic Red Guards.  It matters not a whit that they correct their stories or not: their deeper purpose was already achieved.

Circling back to the coverage in the Fishwrap, which never loses an opportunity to promote disordered acts, I took note of this paragraph in particular:

Both sets of directives [from Madison and from Springfield] cite Canon 1184 from the Code of Canon Law, which says that “manifest sinners” whose funeral would cause “public scandal of the faithful” should be denied ecclesiastical funerals “unless they gave some signs of repentance before death.”

That isn’t accurate either.

Canon 1184 really says that these people, unless they repent, MUST be deprived ecclesiastical funerals.

Not “should”… “must“.

The Diocese of Madison, in fact, has a careful and gentle approach to these situations.  That’s lost on the haters, of course.  They have their agenda, and it isn’t charity.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Biased Media Coverage, Canon Law, Green Inkers, Liberals and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Henry Edwards says:

    “Pray Tell did this in order to smear the bishop. They later corrected their post, but the damage was done to the Bishop’s reputation and to the truth.”

    I’m not sure how they could have damaged Bishop Morlino’s reputation. If the recommendations in the vicar general’s memo were appropriate, what difference does it make who wrote and signed them. Surely it sometimes happens that a chancery staff member drafts a statement to appear over the bishop’s name, and perhaps vice versa.

  2. Andrew says:

    Henry Edwards:
    They smear the Bishop’s reputation, because they depict themselves as faithful Catholics and they portray him as a capricious Bishop who arbitrarily targets certain people. They know well, as Catholics, what the Code of Canon Law mandates and the reasons behind it, but they play the public media game to tarnish the Bishop’s name. Off course any faithful Catholic, reading this, will ad up 2 + 2 = 4 (never 5) and understand what’s behind the story, but a vast part of the readership will be given the impression that so and so is a mean Bishop.

  3. Jonathan Marshall says:

    No-one hates like a liberal.
    (incidentally, Father, take a look at the letter from one Fr Keefe in this week’s Catholic Herald)

    [Here’s the letter in question. It isn’t entirely connected to reality.]

    [He is a retired priest of the Diocese of Lancaster. It may be that Father, who has arrived at his twilight years, should quietly devote himself to some gardening.]

  4. jaykay says:

    “It may be that Father, who has arrived at his twilight years, should quietly devote himself to some gardening.”

    It may be that Father is already doing so… albeit the legality of the produce may be open to question. But it’s obviously strong stuff. Maaaaan.

  5. Imrahil says:

    To be fair, they do not disagree with what has to be done with manifest sinners.

    They just deny that the people in question are manifest sinners. They also deny that, after what the Holy Father has found appropriate to teach certain things, it can still be said that the Church holds them to be manifest sinners.

  6. Chaswjd says:

    Of course, the application of the code depends on what it means to be a “manifest” sinner. Under church teaching, to merely be a homosexual is not a sin, it merely indicates that one has a disordered sexual impulse. Likewise, it is not a sin for two men, even homosexual men, to live together and to pool their common resources. It is not even necessarily sinful for two men to love each other. What is sinful is for them to have sexual relations with each other. It is possible for two homosexual men to live with each other as brothers and not actually sin at all. (Whether that is wise, given the temptation which may be presented, is a question for spiritual direction or a confessor.) If the pair is not married, and unless we know what is going on in their bedroom, I am not sure one can automatically label a homosexual couple as “manifest” sinners.

Comments are closed.