Since the beginning of this current pontificate, the cool, considerate men and women of Catholic media have urged many of us not to jump to early conclusions regarding breaking news and alleged troubling quotes from Pope Francis. It is more important to get the story right than it is to be first, my former editors at the National Catholic Register would often tell me.
It is hard to argue with that mantra when journalistic media, particularly Catholic journalistic media, have an obligation to present the truth of events. In this age of global communication and agenda-driven secular media parsing every papal action and quote for their own ends, Catholic journalistic media must hold itself to a higher standard.
It is immensely troubling, therefore, that many of the primary sources of Catholic journalism completely misreported the events surrounding the gift of the hammer and sickle crucifix of Bolivian President Evo Morales to Pope Francis on Thursday July 9, 2015. Worse, even as facts about the events themselves were clarified, and subsequent to additional clarifications from the Holy See spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, some of Catholic media outlets refused to correct what was shown to be a false narrative, leaving stories with erroneous reporting on their websites without correction for days after updated information was available.
In any situation like this, it’s important to understand the timeline of events:
Following the publication of video of Pope Francis smiling while holding the gift of the troubling crucifix early on Thursday morning, initial reactions from Catholics could largely be characterized as confused and negative. Criticism began mounting, with many suggesting that the Pope should have rejected the blasphemous object.
On the video, when the gift is first presented to him, Pope Francis appears to register some slight surprise at the crucifix. He quietly says something, shaking his head slightly, but because of the poor audio quality, it is unclear what the Pope said. Later that same morning, some suggested after examining the video that what the Pope might have said was “No está bien eso,” or “that’s not right.” Soon after, an article at Romereports.com suggested the same comment by the Pope. Catholic social media fired back at those criticizing the pope’s response, wielding this new development. Critics were accused of jumping the gun.
But as we moved later into the day on Thursday, better quality audio of the incident became available and it quickly became clear that instead of saying “No está bien eso,” that the Pope actually said, “No sabía eso,” or, “I didn’t know that.” It became clear that the Pope was not rejecting the item, but rather reacting to something President Evo Morales had said to him. Coupled with his subsequent reactions – all smiles – it was obvious that the Pope had indeed accepted the gift without rebuke or concern.
This sequence of events was largely confirmed later on that same Thursday, July 9, when Holy See spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said the Pope had expressed “I didn’t know” in reaction to the gift because he was unaware the crucifix was a replica of the one carved by Jesuit Father Luis Espinal Camps.
All of this occurred on that Thursday. By the end of the day, a clear and verifiable sequence of events of events had emerged, a sequence of events that made clear the Pope happily received the gift, and in no way rejected or expressed any concern about it. These facts, confirmed by the Holy See, were widely known and discussed across Catholic social media by Thursday afternoon.
So it came as quite a shock to me when on Friday, reports began to emerge on prominent Catholic media outlets reiterating the erroneous reports that the Pope expressed dissatisfaction at the blasphemous object saying, “That’s not right.”
Particularly egregious in this regard was my former employer, the National Catholic Register. Their first story about this went up on Friday, July 10, a day after the basic and verified facts were known and widely available and discussed. The story they published was a HARRIS/CNA/EWTN NEWS report entitled “’This Is Not Okay’: Pope to Bolivian President on ‘Communist Crucifix.’” The lede of that report embraced without caveat that the known false narrative and quote.
Because of my former relationship with the editorial staff, I contacted them and let them know of the false headline and the false reporting, asking them to immediately fix it. Instead of retracting the story, they instead chose to retitle it with the equally false title “Pope Francis Apparently not Amused by ‘Communist Crucifix’” The lede of the story remained the same with the false quote, maintaining a narrative they now knew to be false.
The National Catholic Register knowingly maintained a false narrative about this story throughout the weekend and through the first half of Monday, even after being notified by me and several commenters of their errors and with the truth about the matter, which by then had been available for 96 hours. During that period, thousands of readers read this story and were mislead by the Register.
It was only after the Pope’s interview on his plane on Monday, when the Pope confirmed in no uncertain terms what we had already come to know on the preceding Thursday, and after again being contacted by myself and others (including Steve Skojec of 1P5) that the National Catholic Register amended the title and contents of the original story to reflect reality.
While the National Catholic Register published the contents of the Pope’s plane interview and amended the original story, they failed to issue any retraction or acknowledgment of their willfully erroneous reporting. They included an editorial note about the story having been updated, but not a correction.
When pressed on this issue by me via email midday Monday before amending the erroneous article, the editor in chief for the Register, Jeanette DeMelo, first excused their actions saying that it was a ‘developing story.’ Later, in email she excused herself, the other editors, and the publishers of the National Catholic Register by asserting that the story was a Catholic News Agency report.
The bottom line is that publishing an erroneous story and then knowingly maintaining it after it was repeatedly brought to their attention calls into question the judgment of the editorial staff at the National Catholic Register and the credibility of the outlet. This was not a matter of difference of opinion, but rather of known facts. The misleading headline and lede left in this story, which was accessible from the front page of the Register website, caused not a little confusion for Catholics trying to get to the bottom of what really transpired.
It seems obvious that the story was left unchanged intentionally. Less obvious are the motives for such a choice. Was the headline, which provided cover for actions by Pope Francis that many Catholics ultimately found objectionable and offensive, left in place to mitigate the damage the story might do to the pope’s reputation? Is there any reason to believe that a story with a negative headline about the Holy Father would have been left unchanged for four days after the reporting it contained was demonstrated to have been false? As Catholics, we all want to give the benefit of the doubt to the Vicar of Christ, but when facts emerge that contradict the narrative we prefer, are we not obligated to present the truth?
Journalistic and Catholic integrity demand a public retraction of the story and an explanation of this unprofessional behavior. Without it, the National Catholic Register risks forfeiture of any claim that it is a reliable Catholic news outlet.
Thank you! I support you already. Keep up the good work.
Thank you Patrick for taking to task those who obfuscate. The shadows of falsehood surrounding this pope are very disturbing.
Aside from the large Communist blasphemy of the Hammer-and-Sickle Crucifix, Francis also received a little rendition of it on a pendant. He has now dedicated it to the Virgin of Copacabana, Patroness of Bolivia.
Troublesome; disturbing.
Cover up.
Lie.
Distract.
Mislead.
When did journalism begin to include these as part of their daily objectives, particularly those that are supposedly covering the Pope’s activities?
In 1981 when ewtn was founded and than later on the movement grew stronger when karl keating and his “catholic answer” PJPII cult hopped on board.
It was a complete Catch-22 for the Francis can do no wrong apologists. They had already rightly acknowledged that the “gift” was a grave offense against Christ; consequently, once it became obvious that Francis did not view it that way (despite his admission that it was a part of a genre that had been condemned by both the Jesuit Superior General and the CDF), there was no way for them to cover the pope’s true response without simultaneously indicting him. Not a very good situation to be in when your editorial position is the pope can do no wrong.
Perhaps, after 28 months, we can begin to develop a Standard Operating Procedure for the Mottramists.
Four Things to Know and Share!
1. Treat each incident as absolutely sui generis. Never acknowledge the sheer volume and frequency of troubling, dismaying, or confusing actions or statements emanating from this papacy. Instead, each incident must be considered as if it was an isolated one-of-a-kind deviation from an otherwise completely unproblematic pope, much like Benedict’s ill-worded musings on condoms that one time.
2. Ignore all immediate context. To take a hypothetical example, imagine the pope accepted a gift of a blasphemous Marxist object from a friendly Marxist dictator in the middle of a visit in which he made a series of speeches, gestures, and statements expressing considerable sympathy for Marxist movements. It is in no way acceptable to make any linkages whatsoever between his acceptance of the gift and his contemporaneous statements.
3. Smear anyone who expresses even mild concern. Accuse them of taking the pope out of context (with luck, they will fail to appreciate the irony). Tell them to calm down and/or stop panicking (this never fails to rile them). Ask them why they hate the Holy Father. Call them cranks and misfits. Force them onto the defensive. Change the topic, at all costs.
4. Never, ever give ground. Out of arguments? Make something up. Anything will do, no matter how implausible it may seem. Remember: We’ve got your back, and to reinforce the point we’ve made object lessons of a few prominent Catholics who went off the reservation.
That covers the basics, though I’m sure it can be improved upon.
Why are you not writing for us again? 😉
Seriously
I think I generally have between 250-300 words of interesting material until my true mediocrity is revealed. I’m a mile wide and a quarter-inch deep. 🙂
If only the First Humble Pope were this humble.
Just by reading this, I’m certain that your ”true mediocrity” would enlighten many of us.
Mother Angelica feared that EWTN would get into the hands of liberals. Her worst nightmare has come true (at least it is evident that liberals have gotten ahold of NCR, an entity of EWTN).
Mr. Archbold, you should work your way back into EWTN in a leadership position. It is very clear that your talents and moral character are very much needed at EWTN in a management/leadership role. Maybe in the future you can work your way towards that. Keep it in mind at least.
In the meantime, I suggest contacting Fr. Joseph Mary or Fr. Anthony Mary and explaining to them that the National Catholic Register is mainly a bunch of liberals, and that Mother Angelica said she would “burn this place down” before it got into the hands of liberals. Thus, she would support you in your concerns, and if she is aware right now she is probably praying for you. EWTN needs a few honest reporters, not 100’s of liberals/liars/spinners.
“Spinning” the news IS lying, and Mother Angelica would not support such lying, even if it makes a Church leader “look good.”
Keep persevering on this matter.
Mother definitely would ‘burn it down’ if she were younger and healthy again. Part of me hopes she’s not aware of the evil lies these people are spewing.
Murray, how long have you been patronizing Mark Shea’s blog? 😉
1. Smash 2,493rd keyboard in incoherent rage.
2. Permaban 38 commenters for “looking at me funny”.
3. Brief pause to wipe spittle from monitor with shirtsleeve.
4. Apologize profusely for unhinged apoplexy.
5. Goto 1.
[Elapsed time: 35 seconds]
On the one hand, it’d be terrifying if we had another Borgia Pope
like Alexander VI– openly keeping concubines and fathering children
by them, looting the papal treasury to enrich his family, selling offices
in the Church, and poisoning political enemies. On the other hand, it’d
be hilarious to watch some of the Catholic press–
A) Try to spin all that to avoid anything critical of such a Pope,
simply because he’s the Pope, or
B) Watch them call out the Borgia Pope on his actions, and then try
to justify why it’s OK to report objectively on him, but Francis got
a pass.
It would be silly if it were not tragic: cf. “Pope Francis showed great tact when receiving the ‘communist crucifix’ by by Francis Phillips, Monday, 13 Jul 2015 [http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/07/13/pope-francis-showed-great-tact-when-receiving-the-communist-crucifix/] and one comment there:
Sadly, he insults his own mother, when he says that she believed the Archangel Gabriel lied to her.
But did Bergolio not say of his own biological mother in January of this year while speaking to reporters on (again) a plane returning from the Philippines:
“One cannot react violently, but if [someone] says something bad about my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s to be expected,” the pontiff said. “There are a lot of people who speak badly about other religions. They make fun of them. What happens is what happens with my friend [who insults my mother]. There is a limit.”
No defense for the Virgin Mary. Only insults. Who’s going to punch Francis in his mouth for insulting the Blessed Mother?
Yes, the NCR was wrong, but what about Pope Francis? How can our Pope be silent? Evo Morales proclaimed his interpretation–the Pope supports socialism. Evo wore not the figure of Chirst on his chest, but the figure of the murderer Che Guevara: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Bolivias-President-Evo-Morales-Calls-Popes-Teachings-Socialist-313504021.html
The most interesting thing is that Morales truly believed that this Pope would be pleased with such a gift. This is the message This Pope sends.
Willful blindness. Just like Pharisees, they are determined to see only what they want to see. Despite Jesus’ miracles: raising people from the dead, casting out demons…the Pharisees and their followers refuse to acknowledge Jesus. Today, we have modern-day types who not only refuse to see the errors of Pope Francis, they are determined to hinder other Catholics from seeing the truth. John Chapter 9
“For judgement I came into the world, so that those who do not see, may see and those who see will become blind.” This is a very fearful thing — because their blindness is a punishment. They won’t see because they don’t’ love Truth. Seriously, how scary is that. Beg God for mercy and asked that you will be speared and that he will give you the Grace you need to preserve until the end.
I suspect that many of these mainstream Catholic media outlets are heavily influenced by the USCCB. They might not (or might be) completely captured, but I’m sure there’s a tremendous amount of pressure from the top to put a smiley face on every story*. Say anything too controversial and critical, and the hammer will fall (from the top). EWTN, e.g., has been completely unwatchable for the past five years or so. You can just see the bishops’ grubby fingerprints all over the joint. And that’s why I get my Catholic news from no-nonsense bloggers and other “detached” web sources.
(* except those about the evil traditionalists)
I was younger boy when Vat 2 came into being. That being said, I know what would have happened had I brought this item into our house. After my mother went ballistic, the item would not have even stayed on the property that night. But if I go a step further and try to imagine what may have happened if I tried to give this to our parish’s pastor…… I can’t even imagine what that outcome may be. To me, that is the context this item should be taken in. Not how we may view it today, but how it would have been viewed by those who taught us.
And now…it will reside in the Vatican.
The motive is obvious. They can’t admit they are wrong about this out-of-control pontificate, which confirms almost daily “rad-trad” warnings over the past five decades about where the conciliar “opening to the world” was leading: to the invasion of the Church by worldly thinking, as even Paul VI admitted. We have reached the very end of a trajectory they have ignored for half a century. Now they are unable to bring themselves to report the truth that is staring them in the face.
They are unable to report the truth staring them in the face because it would mean that Arch. LeFebvre, Father Gruner, Catholic Family News, the Remnant, and the SSPX have been right for over 40 years now in warning us about the disastrous direction the Church and the Popes have been leading us towards and which it looks like we have definitely finally arrived at.
Boycott the WMOF. EWTN will be there to cover it, but it will be quite a site if hardly any Catholics are.
It’s difficult to follow this blog. The author should work harder, to correct his own grammar and repetition of phrases, in order to gain the readers trust in his work.
Is that “reader’s trust” or “readers’ trust”? It’s difficult to follow this comment…
Well since I’m the reader responding to this article “reader’s trust” would be correct. But then again I’m not the one that was fired and disgruntled.
I’d be very careful about presuming you know enough about that situation to comment. The issue here isn’t the author, it’s the editorial negligence.
What do you have to say about that?
Patrick’s article confirms what I have believed about Catholicism ever since I started visiting Mark Shea’s abominable blog nearly 15 years ago.
Catholics basically define themselves not by fidelity to Christ but by blind loyalty to the institutionalized church. In fact, Catholics tend to equate those two things. While Francis’ papacy has exposed the most mindless members of the Apologetics-Industrial Complex, most Catholics behaved the same way when JPII issued controversial statements as well, especially concerning capital punishment.
When he was archbishop of Denver, Charles Chaput actually criticized Supreme Court Justice Scalia for being a “cafeteria Catholic” on the level of Frances Kissling (president of the pro-abortion organzation, Catholics For A Free Choice) because Scalia questioned JPII’s de facto abolitionist stance on capital punishment in “First Things” magazine.
I got the same treatment from Msgr. Thomas Pope, blogger from the Archdiocese of D.C. When I raised objections based both on Scripture and centuries of teaching, he said I was trying to form my own religion and called me “Joe Luther D’H.”
Such behavior makes Catholicism into a cult on the level of Scientology, with any sitting Pope playing the role of L. Ron Hubbard. If this is what Catholic ecclesiology teaches, then Catholic ecclesiology has serious problems.
Catholic media offers two choices: neo-Ultramontanist propaganda (National Catholic Register, the rest of EWTN, First Things, Patheos) or Progressive propaganda (America Magazine, Commonweal Magazine, National Catholic Reporter). This is what happens when blind group loyalty (to an institution or an ideology) trumps honesty and truth.
For that matter, the N.C. Register should rename itself Pravda and the N.C. Reporter should rename itself Izvestia. Or vice versa. It really doesn’t matter, anymore.
I have noticed both strains as well, since converting. You have described it well.
Dont forget, they also covered for all of the horrendous and evil acts during PJPII and PBXVI papacies so this is really nothing new.
Michael Voris still has the misleading image of the Pope. The article makes NO mention of the Pope’s smiling acceptance of the sacrilegious gifts & remains uncorrected stating: “Pope Francis thus far has offered no clarification on the international controversy; however, he has in the past stated, ‘Marxist ideology is wrong.'” http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/leftist-leader-sets-up-pope When I first discovered Voris, I was heavily under the influence of Jesuit moral relativistic & religious indifferentism…. I became drawn to the Truth because of HIS passion for the Truth! Seems he has lost that passion, & that genuinely befuddles me.
DOTCOM_MOM, Voris is under the influence of the Opus Dei cult. That organization tells it’s members, never to criticize the Pope. That’s why Vortex Mike “lost his passion”. But he can still rip into Cdl. Dolan, can he?
Michael Voris and his church militant is a ”for profit organization” that is why he -and his cronies- don’t touch the pope. They well know that ”barking” at the bishops, like Dolan, brings money. Remember that he knows what sells, that has been his job while in advertising.
And, if you don’t agree with him/them, he/they freely insult you.
It’s not Opus Dei. That Opus Dei canard really needs to be put to rest. Michael is not in Opus Dei and never was. One of his initial backers (Marc Brammer) was, but they split years ago, before PF was elected. They have nothing to do with Brammer anymore and haven’t for years.
The reasons for their stand against papal criticism are complex and varied. They have much to do with his major financial backer now (definitely NOT Opus Dei), but are also partly based on conviction, a conviction I think was honestly arrived at, but very badly put into practice. When CMTV started using criticism of the Pope as a kind of barometer for “with us or against us,” and started making their attacks on others in Catholic new media very personal, they really painted themselves into a corner. As this pontificate continues to deteriorate, they now confront either a massive loss of face/prestige in finally relenting and publicly declaring the grave problem of this pontificate, or they face a slow decrease of relevance as they continue to refuse to address the one item that really matters.
No matter, it’s their apostolate and their choice. What was unfortunate in the entire matter was the very ugly and bitter invective that was addressed at those who did not share their viewpoint. They burned a lot of bridges in the process. They alienated a lot of good people unnecessarily. There’s a bit of psychology behind all that I won’t go into, but sometimes having some success can go to people’s heads. I’m afraid that may have played a bit of a part, as well.
Is it entirely inaccurate? Fr. Paul Nicholson is still involved, and he seems to have a connection with Opus Dei. He was posting pictures of their ordinations on his most recent visit to Rome.
They’re very squeamish about any public association, but he’s definitely operating out of CMTV facilities and working with Voris directly. They’ve been spotted together not a few times.
I don’t know. You know I collaborated with CMTV (when it was still RCTV) quite a bit for a few years. I guess I’ve always just accepted their statements that they have no tie to Opus Dei. That’s what I was told by MV and some of their other folks. But stepping back and thinking about their stand regarding no public criticism of the papacy ever and an Opus Dei connection sure would make a lot of sense. I can’t recall now just how they phrased their denials. I remember them being pretty clear, though, and would need some pretty compelling evidence to convince me otherwise.
As for Fr. Nicholson, he is very close to CMTV, regularly offers Mass in their chapel, and may even base his operation from their facility. I don’t know how significant posting some ordination photos is, though. Doesn’t exactly paint a clear picture.
I guess believe what you want, but I’d say hanging an Opus Dei
Connection on their being funded for a while by Marc Brainerd and some photos posted by someone else is pretty weak evidence. You do know the Saint Michael’s Media postulate predated Brammer’s involvement by several years, right.
Enough with the rabbit hole. I’mOut.
I didn’t mean to say it was a definitive connection. I’m just speculating. Personally, I don’t go to weddings of people I don’t know, and a similar rule applies to ordinations. I figured there must be a connection beyond curiosity, but perhaps I’m simply applying my own “don’t go to long ceremonies for things you don’t have to” rule unnecessarily.
All I know is that there are some influences on CMTV which appear to be unhealthy. It’s a shame, because they’re well-positioned to do more and better.
Interesting.
All the Pope had to say was: ‘ Communism (as well as marxism, socialism) as well as all forms of collectivism violate the Doctrine of the Catholic Faith.
Therefore I cannot accept your hammer and sickle cross. ‘
Symbolism is important. Otherwise we would not have Crucifixes, Statutes, Stained glass windows, etc., in our Churches.
And the Pope did not acknowledge this, and therefore reject the hammer and sickle cross.
I began limiting my time watching EWTN about the time that Pope JPII passed away. So much of the programming was canned and cliche. My wife used to watch the morning Mass if she missed it at our parish, and I usually only caught old re-runs of Mother Angelica’s show. I had no idea that EWTN’s news division was moving to DC. And I didn’t know that EWTN purchased NCR.
It does appear that there are gatekeepers, so to speak, protecting or forming an official Catholic Narrative. I’ve seen how “outsiders” (like Steve) are treated by these gatekeepers. If one speaks in less than glowing words about the Pope, he is attacked, banned, and thrown into the abyss. And I did get a rather guilty pleasure watching these gatekeepers squirm when everything they lectured to us about the Pope and Latin American Liberation Theology turned out to be false.
The National Catholic Register has betrayed Mother Angelica. I pray those responsible resign immediately.
I see the gossipers and anti-pope people are back at slamming the pope. Has anyone ever thought about looking for any kind of good in the man? BTW, I am a traditionalist, but bad mouthing and not praying for this pope or any pope is not a good idea. OH yes, I know, most of you say you pray for him but then you are back at it slamming him. I know the prophecies and read the stuff on modernism by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius X and I agree that things were bad after Vatican II. Still, we are to let God handle our vicar in Christ. And we need to pray for his conversion and those of the bishops if there is anything bad in them. Only God knows their hearts. Yes we read their ‘supposed’ words. I don’t believe anything I read on the internet anymore. Especially from bloggers who think they know exactly what this pope is doing, thinking, feeling. You do not know. Only God knows. PRAY FOR THE MAN and stop slamming him and the popes before him.
Look at the photo. There is a Spanish adage that applies to your reasoning here: No búsques cinco píes al gato (Don’t look for five feet on the cat). In plain English, it’s Ockham’s razorf: stop multiplying explanations for what is staring you straight in the face. Oh, and legitimate criticism is NOT “slamming” someone except in the mind of those wishing to silence said legitimate criticism without further discussion. What you offer is nothing but disguised papolatry.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Nice. And if it were germane it would be even better.
Truly you sound like a Christian Scientist. Prayer is good. We need to pray and to rely on prayer, but other actions are also vital. This idea that prayer is the only thing needed is fraught with moral difficulties. There are times when prayer is the only thing we can do. This is not one of those times. Opposing error through our words and actions is a very Catholic thing to do. The fate of untold souls is in the balance, and we will be called to account for our silence in the public square when action was called for.
So covering up for the Pope is not the duty of a Catholic? Is the covering up a sin of Scandal or telling the truth (not covering up for the Holy Father) is sin of Scandal?