Let me be very clear. The last thing I want to be is the cause of any damage to the National Catholic Register. I have been honored to write for them these past years and to be involved in the incredible growth of their web presence. They do good and necessary work on behalf of Christ.
While I admit that I was unhappy about what happened to my post the other day, I don’t believe for a second that it was malicious or that it is in any way an indicator of tradition unfriendliness at the Register.
My editor had second thoughts about the piece after giving me the go ahead, but the communication was bungled.
The whole episode is embarrassing to everyone involved. My editor is a good man and a good friend. While I didn’t share his concerns, he is responsible for what goes up and not me.
Everyone is regretful about how the situation played out. I know first hand that the folks at the Register are not unfriendly to traditional Catholics and they have allowed me to publish tradition-friendly posts before, posts you would not likely find in any other mainstream Catholic publication.
So nobody should think that because of this one unfortunate incident, the Register is unfriendly or unsympathetic to issues of concern to traditional Catholics.
So if my opinion carries any weight, please let this unfortunate incident go and move on.
February 28, 2014 at 6:44 pm
Mistakes, accidents and miscommunications happen in human endeavours…but proper manners would dictate since the article was inadvertantly made public on the NCR website, the editor, in this one instance, has the duty to explain to the NCR readership what his second thoughts and concerns were to pull down the article, even if that makes the editor uncomfortable.
February 28, 2014 at 6:49 pm
I think the editor should at least post a response as to why NCR is unwilling to to keep the article posted. It's no secret that it was up. But it is now a secret as to why it can't remain up.
February 28, 2014 at 7:10 pm
CM, there's a lot of material there and I will work through it gradually. But what I like is that you've come here with potential solutions, so I thank you.
Last night I went to the lay community that I have been going to since before I started going to the Society. For a long time it was really difficult, since they are steeped to the gills in what I see as "the new stuff" i.e personalism after Heidegger. But we're getting somewhere. I've been saying to them a lot recently, "if I could make people understand the words freedom, person, choice, liberty, the way you understand them, I would. If I could wave a magic wand and make it so that no-one would ever take concepts like 'authority of conscience' the wrong way, I would" As it is, I can't make sure that people understand these words correctly, so I'm suspicious about using them among the uninitiated. They have a place, but they are the goods in the back – concepts to introduce when people have developed some self-discipline and are ready to 'unlearn'. The Vatican Council put them front and centre, and that makes me really uncomfortable. You can't have a sensible conversation with a 5-year old about chocolate. I'm not sure you can have a sensible conversation with 20th century man about freedom, until he's learned some discipline.
February 28, 2014 at 8:15 pm
The editor made a bad decision, plain and simple. They should apologize not only to you – perhaps they did… but should have a third thought and publish it.
February 28, 2014 at 8:29 pm
By the way, Pat – you do great work here… been reading you for 7 years now. You are a good man!
February 28, 2014 at 8:37 pm
There was nothing at all objectionable about the article except that it called for a magnanimous gestureof the Pope toward the SSPX. That kind of charity and humility is – I suspect – unthinkable to those who surround the Pope. And if Mr. Burke wants access for his little rag at the Vatican, he had better do their bidding.
February 28, 2014 at 8:40 pm
I'm a regular reader and learn so much here. Class act.
March 1, 2014 at 12:18 am
Yep. You're right, Pat.
Sometimes a paycheck is more important than principles.
March 1, 2014 at 2:52 am
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 1, 2014 at 2:57 am
Pat, I like most of your stuff, but I have to say, with due respect, that your above post sounds like Dan Burke is standing just out camera frame with a gun. Two examples of how the Register is tradition unfriendly: Their names are Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher.
March 1, 2014 at 4:08 am
Thanks for the note. I, for one, a long-time NCRegister reader (paper edition) have pretty much stopped reading it. I have become more open to Tradition in the past year. And I find I have to shake a lot of anti-Trad attitude that I picked up from NCR.
March 1, 2014 at 5:15 am
Everyone should pick up a copy of EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong.
March 1, 2014 at 8:55 am
What about me Fr.Angelo GeigerF.I ?
March 1, 2014 at 10:28 am
I'd like to think that this situation merely presents a sad misunderstanding. Unfortunately, the fact remains: an article that requested that Pope Francis consider a provocative idea..has been removed from a notable Catholic publication's website.
I'm forced to consider that the article's content may well have ruffled a few feathers that someone didn't want ruffled. ..Given that Pope Francis, himself, seems to be somewhat cool to the idea of anything more traditional, such a situation doesn't bode well for a more traditional understanding of Catholic faith or identity.
March 1, 2014 at 1:55 pm
If the National Catholic Register columnists, Fr. Angelo Geiger F.I and others are not saying that Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then it is not fair to the SSPX.
Since they are not supporting in public the dogma on exclusive salvation (for whatever reason). Neither are they affirming the dogma in harmony with Vatican Council II. Neither are they discussing how most people in general are affirming the Council as a break with the dogma.
Since if Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition then the Council is in agreement with the SSPX's traditional postion on other religions and Christian communities.This must be stated by the NCR columnists.
One must not deny the truth about Vatican Council II just to protect ones career or financial priorities.
March 1, 2014 at 4:18 pm
Speaking about the Real Francis Effect, Louie Verecchio said on his blog on Feb. 19, "Should Francis reign for five years or more, we can expect to see," among other things, "Interest in tradition increasing in step with hostility toward it." This is right on. We've seen this already, and we'll see much more of it.
March 2, 2014 at 1:06 pm
There will be no clarification from the National Catholic Register
March 3, 2014 at 10:39 am
Pat, I like most of your stuff, but I have to say, with due respect, that your above post sounds like Dan Burke is standing just out camera frame with a gun. Two examples of how the Register is tradition unfriendly: Their names are Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher. "
LMAO such a good and amusing point.
March 3, 2014 at 11:30 am
Pat, my apologies as I am guilty of being unkind over Twitter towards both The Register and EWTN. I do agree with the comment however that your editor should have responded. You were left hanging out there. You can handle it though. It's over now, but I am afraid my dear friend, it will return.
Mr Burkes response saddens me as I guess he can throw around words like calumny so easily. There are many examples of antitraditional.anything on the Register….just read some of Mr Sheas polished "patheos" pieces he uses on his blog and at the Register. whoops…now I'm committing calumny Mr Burke,right? Thank God I'm not an alister blogger or I would be getting my comeuppance from Mr.Shea in his very snarky style. But then again this former Jersey girl can handle a left coaster like Mr Shea…in my sleep. Time to move on, but know this, next time we ain't gonna be so kind. we trads are like Marines, leave no one behind. God love you Pat, you are a better person than me.