Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

L.A. Times columnist misuses Jesuit Murray to defend Senator Biden

Tim Rutten has worked for the Los Angeles Times for thirty years. Along the way he has made known his irrational and rather unhinged dislike for those who would dare to criticize prominent Catholic politicians who support abortion. And in his most recent column, "The Catholic Choice" (August 27, 2008), he attempts to come to the defense of Senator Joe Biden by using—or, I am convinced, misusing—some quotes from the writings of John Courtney Murray, S.J. (1904-1967), the influential theologian who wrote extensively on the relationship of Church, State, culture, and society.

But, first, to give you a sense of the low level of discourse engaged in by Rutten, here is his opening paragraph:

Every four years, an astonishing array of conservative commentators and Republican campaign strategists suddenly discover an intimate concern for Catholic consciences and an overriding preoccupation with the Roman church's sacramental and liturgical norms.

This is pure silliness. This is akin to saying, "Every four years, an astonishing array of liberal commentators and Democrat campaign strategists suddenly discover an intimate concern for religion and showing how they are just as spiritually-oriented and heavenly-minded as the average American." So what? Is Rutten amazed that important political, social, and religious issues garner loads of attention during the final months of the presidental election year? If so, perhaps he needs to start editing the comic strip page and criticizing Garfield's eating habits. But his remark is also silly because this issue, for many Catholics and non-Catholics, is important regardless of the date, month, and year. Rutten the Ideologue is clumsily trying to say that Catholics are being used by "conservative commentators and Republican campaign strategists," but the reality is quite different, especially when you consider how many Catholics apparently won't vote for either Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain. Such remarks say much more about the commentator than the commentatees.

Rutten goes on to suggest that Archbishop Charles Chaput is simply a shill for the Republican Party because of Chaput's strong denunciation of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's wildly inaccurate depiction of Catholic teaching on abortion. But it is clear that Rutten's real issue, when all of his spleen-splitting hubris is analyzed, is with the Catholic Church's clear and consistent stance against abortion. Which is why he tries the old "theologians know better than the Magisterium" approach, which is both pandering and pathetic:

If Pelosi had half a wit about her, she might have done what most U.S. Catholics instinctively do, which is to rely on a tradition of moral reasoning that stands athwart Chaput's novel reductionism. Nearly five decades ago, the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray offered this classic appraisal of the real matter at issue:

"The American Proposition makes a particular claim upon the reflective attention of the Catholic ... in the matter of the 'pluralist society ... ' " Murray wrote. "By pluralism here I mean the coexistence within the one political community of groups who hold divergent and incompatible views with regard to religious questions -- those ultimate questions that concern the nature and destiny of man within a universe that stands under the reign of God. Pluralism therefore implies disagreement and dissension within the community. But it also implies a community within which there must be agreement and consensus. There is no small political problem here."

Murray went on to argue that the "working out" of that political problem is itself "an exercise in civic virtue" -- and a theological imperative.

It is this older line of Catholic moral reasoning that allows Biden, who has voted to ban late-term and so-called partial-birth abortions, to say he is "prepared to accept" the Catholic Church's teaching that life begins at conception while supporting Roe vs. Wade because, for now, it "is as close as we're going to be able to get as a society" to accommodating all religious views on the issue.

Now, I readily admit that I've read very little by Murray and am the furthest thing from an expert on his thought and work. He was (and is), of course, very controversial, and his ideas continue to be strongly critiqued by people much smarter and well-learned than myself. This is not a defense or critique of Murray's thought, but something much simpler: an examination to see if Murray is accurately being quoted and referenced.

The quote given by Rutten comes from the foreword to Murray's famous book, We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition (Sheed and Ward, 1960). Rutten seems to be saying that Murray's approach would allow for the support of abortion since there is always and necessarily debate and disagreement within communities about the nature of God, man, and society. In other words, the work of a politician is to uphold pluralism and to work toward a consensus that is healthy for the political community. And this means, he seems to think, that a politician must support abortion, otherwise he somehow rends the fabric of the public order. But Rutten fails to quote this, which comes immediately after the above quote:

If society is to be at all a rational process, some set of principles must motivate the general participation of all religious groups, despite their dissensions, in the oneness of the community. On the other hand, these common principles must not hinder the maintenance by each group of its own different identity. The problem of pluralism is, of course, practical; as a project, its "working out" is an exercise in civic virtue. But the problem is also theoretical; its solution is an exercise in political intelligence that will lay down, as the basis for the "working out," some sort of doctrine.

It seems quite evident to me that, first, Murray's statements in no way excuse or allow for a Catholic politician to uphold policies and laws that are contrary to Catholic social and moral teaching. On the contrary, Murray refers to the right of various groups (which would, of course, include Catholics) to maintain their own identities. The issue is simply this: in a pluralistic, democratic society, how do groups with opposing viewpoints work out principles and consensus for the common good? It must be noted that the final chapter of Murray's book is titled, "The Doctrine Lives: The Eternal Return of Natural Law," and is a strong argument for the use of natural law to guide such actions. The conclusion of that chapter states:

Finally, it does not bow to the new rationalism in regard of a sense of history and progress, the emerging potentialities of human nature, the value of experience in settling the forms of social life, the relative primacy in certain respects of the empirical fact over the preconceived theory; at the same time it does not succumb to the doctrinaire relativism, or to the narrowing of the object of human intelligence, that cripple at their root the high aspirations of evolutionary scientific humanism. In a word, the doctrine of natural law offers a more profound metaphysic, a more integral humanism, a fuller rationality, a more complete philosophy of man in his nature and history.

I might say, too, that it furnishes the basis for a firmer faith and a more tranquil, because more reasoned, hope in the future. If there is a law immanent in man—a dynamic, constructive force for rationality in human affairs, that works itself out, because it is a natural law, in spite of contravention by passion and evil and all the corruptions of power—one may with sober reason believe in, and hope for, a future of rational progress. And this belief and hope is strengthened when one considers that this dynamic order of reason in man, that clamors for expression with all the imperiousness of law, has its origin and sanction in an eternal order of reason whose fulfillment is the object of God's majestic will.

I quote that at length because I think it is safe to say that folks such as Rutten are not only dismissive of natural law, they find it manifestly ridiculous and of no value when it comes to debates over, say, abortion. (Indeed, there are Catholic theologians who sniff in disdain at the natural law tradition, or at least the natural law tradition upheld by recent popes.) They prefer to insist that those who oppose abortion are doing so as irrational religious believers, not as logical and syllogistically-minded men of good will. But the argument against abortion, as Dr. Francis Beckwith and many others have shown, can be made very well without any recourse at all to divine revelation, Scripture, Magisterium, or thunderbolts from on high.

Now, did Murray's various writings help promote a division between public action and private morality? Some have argued so and, again, I plead ignorance on that count. But I would point readers to an October 7, 1994 article in Commonweal (yes, I just recommended a Commonweal article), "What would John Courtney Murray say? On abortion & euthanasia," by Todd David Whitmore. Whitemore appears to be addressing the same sort of misuse of Murray engaged in by Rutten, and states:

One might argue that official Catholic teachings on the status of the embryo-fetus and the morality of taking its life are wrong, and Segers suggests as much in her article. However, the question is what can we say within the context of the concepts that Murray has provided us. In such a context, there are real difficulties in making the case that official Catholic teaching on abortion is wrong. For example, in his writings on churchstate relations, Murray was quite careful to shape his argument so that he could say that Leo XII was not wrong on religious freedom. The pope was simply writing in a different historical context. Because of the presence of the imperita multitudo ("illiterate masses") in Leo's time, a paternalistic government linked to the Catholic church was necessary. However, with the increase in literacy rates and the concomitant rise in people's awareness of their human dignity such a government is no longer necessary. Murray's account of doctrinal development was shaped by an understanding of historical consciousness that allowed him to argue for a change in Catholic teaching on churchstate relations without saying that Leo was wrong. It would be very difficult to make a similar case on abortion: one would have to say, flat out, that popes as different as Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II are all wrong. The understanding of doctrinal development offered in Murray's writings leaves little--if any--room for such a claim.

Any argument on abortion made from within the Murray tradition--that is, within the context of the moral and social theory he provides us--must begin, therefore, with three presumptions: that official Catholic teachings on the status of the embryo-fetus and the morality of taking its life are true, that as a result abortion is a matter of public morality, and that laws limiting recourse to abortion are appropriate. If schools seek to make another argument on any of these points, the burden of proof is on them to show how they are operating within the Murray tradition. Segers's argument would require a different understanding of doctrinal development, a changed epistemology, and an altered understanding of consensus. This makes her case that she is responding from within the context of Murray's moral and social theory rather strained. I do not think that her argument can be sustained in the end.

Which brings me, in the end, to a simple fact I hinted at above: pitting this or that theologian against the clear teaching of the Magisterium, while a favorite form of argumentum ad populum for those who deny or dislike Church teaching, is obvious in both weakness and intent. Even if Murray had boldly stated, "I think every Catholic should decide for himself what he believes about abortion," it wouldn't matter a bit as far as the formal, authoritative teaching of the Church. Archbishop Chaput's stance does not reflect a "novel reductionism," but obvious moral teaching: abortion is evil.

Or, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law" (par 2271). Period. Dance, jabber, blather, yell, mock, kick the curb, and misuse John Courtney Murray's writings as much as you like, there it is. Anyone with half a wit about them should be able to see it, even if they have written for the L.A. Times for over three decades.

• Biden: "My views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine..." (Aug. 27, 2008)
• Archbishop Chaput chastises and catechizes Speaker Pelosi (Aug. 25, 2008)
• More Archbishop Chaput! (Aug. 21, 2008)
• Archbishop Chaput on being Catholic and voting Catholic (Aug. 20, 2008)
• Speaker Pelosi keeps polluting the waters... (Aug. 7, 2008)
• Catholicism, Pelosi style (January 26, 2007)
• Catholics who are shamelessly clueless about the Bible (April 25, 2008)

Bishops respond to Speaker Pelosi, self-described "ardent Catholic"

In case you've not yet seen these responses:

• The USCCB statement in response to Speaker Pelosi, issued earlier today.

• Statement by Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl of Washington, D.C., issued yesterday.

• Statement by Edward Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York, issued today.

But I thought "women's ordination" would solve those problems...

From The Telegraph, a piece about a study claiming that women in England are abandoning Christianity in large numbers:

The study comes amid ongoing controversy over the role of women in all   Christian denominations. Last month its governing body voted to allow women   to become bishops for the first time, having admitted them to the priesthood   in 1994, but traditionalist bishops have warned that hundreds of clergy and   parishes will leave if the move goes ahead as planned.

The report's author, Dr Kristin Aune, a sociologist at the University of   Derby, said: "In short, women are abandoning the church.

"Because of its focus on female empowerment, young women are attracted by   Wicca, popularised by the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

"Young women tend to express egalitarian values and dislike the   traditionalism and hierarchies they imagine are integral to the church.

"Women's ordination, as priests and now bishops, has dominated debate and   headlines – but while looking at women in the pulpit we have taken our eyes   off the pews, where a shift with more consequences for the church's survival   is underway."

Her research, published in a new book called Women and Religion in the West,   cites an English Church Census which found more than a million women   worshippers have left churches since 1989.

Over the past decade, it claims, women have been leaving churches at twice the   rate of men.

Wouldn't you know it, some are saying this proves that more women need to become clergy in the Church of England:

Christina Rees, chairman of the pro-women bishop campaign group Watch, said   the report highlighted the damaging effect that traditionalist attitudes   within the Church of England are having on women.

She added that the introduction of female bishops will lead to a renewed   interest in the church among young people and women in particular, despite   the opposition to the historic step from Anglo-Catholics and conservative   evangelicals who believe scripture and tradition teach that bishops must be   male.

Ms Rees told The Daily Telegraph: "What this research reveals is that a   lot of people are put off by traditional stances and attitudes. We still   have a long way to go before women, particularly young women, feel as   included in the church as men do.

"I'm absolutely convinced that when we have women as bishops that it will   send out a very clear message that women are as valued as much as men."

Let's see: membership and attendance in the CofE has been plummeting for many years now, concurrent with the feverish jettisoning of nearly everything that might be considered traditional and orthodox. The same sort of correlation can be seen in Protestant groups and in various Catholic circles. The essential problem with trying to be "relevant" or "accessible" by tossing out dogma and doctrine, not to mention practice and devotion, was described pithily a few decades ago by the wonderful Anglo-Catholic author Dorothy Sayers:

Christ, in his divine innocence, said to the woman of Samaria, ‘Ye worship ye know not what’––being apparently under the impression that it might be desirable, on the whole, to know what one was worshiping. He thus showed himself sadly out of touch with the twentieth-century mind, for the cry today is: ‘Away with the tendentious complexities of dogma––let us have the simple spirit of worship; just worship, no matter of what!’ The only drawback to this demand for a generalized and undirected worship is the practical difficulty of arousing any sort of enthusiasm for the worship of nothing in particular (From Creed or Chaos?).

I think it is misleading to say that Wicca is popular because it portrays female empowerment while Christianity is unpopular because it allegedly denegrates and devalues women. Rather, Wicca and neo-pagan movements are popular because they espouse rebellion wrapped in spirituality, which is really the age-old way of denying God. Atheism may have a niche market, but most people want some form of "spirituality", even if they also wish to deny traditional Christian beliefs. When Christians fail to live, express, demonstrate, and articulate the truth and beauty of Christianity, they provide a default excuse for those who wish to pursue "egalitarian values".

The Kinda Great Eight: 1968

Fr. Raymond J. de Souza is writing a series of columns on the "Great Eights"—1968, 1978, 1988, and 1998—for National Catholic Register. First up, 1968:

Nineteen Sixty-Eight: The year itself summons images of upheaval.

The Paris student riots.

The assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy.

The riots at the Chicago Democratic Convention.

The Tet Offensive and the My Lai massacre.

The Prague Spring.

The Black Power salute at the Mexico City Olympics.

The sexual revolution.

It was not a time amenable to authority. Yet, in 1968, Pope Paul VI chose to exercise his authority in the most dramatic way imaginable. The resulting earthquakes are still shaping the Church.

The first earthquake was Humanae Vitae (The Regulation of Birth), the papal encyclical affirming traditional Christian orthodoxy on the immorality of artificial contraception. Published in July 1968, the teaching met with widespread rejection from theologians, an equivocal reception by bishops’ conferences, lukewarm support even in the Roman Curia — and outright ridicule from the mainstream culture.

Forty years later, many now praise the courage of Paul VI in taking a lonely stand for orthodoxy, but at the time, it was widely judged a disaster. The Holy Father was so traumatized by the open dissent that he did not write another encyclical in the remaining 10 years of his papacy.

Read the entire column.

Personally, despite all of the turmoil that took place in that momentous year, I think 1968 was great for another reason: I was born in April 1969.

More Archbishop Chaput!

And that, in my opinion, is a very good thing. Here is a transcript of the Archbishop's recent appearance on  Hugh Hewitt's radio program. And here is an excerpt:

HH: Now Archbishop, let’s dive into the book. Again, for the benefit of people tuning in, it’s Render Unto Caesar: Serving The Nation By Living Our Catholic Beliefs In Public Life. And I want to emphasize, it’s not just for Catholics, though that’s obviously the intent of this. I was trying to figure out your motive, and then I came across a quote from a Vietnamese bishop, later made a cardinal, which was, “The greatest failure in leadership is for the leader to be afraid to speak and act as leader.” Is that part of the motive, Archbishop?

CC: Well, I have a responsibility as a bishop to clearly proclaim the Gospel in its entirety, even when people don’t want me to do that, and even when it’s difficult. So I wouldn’t claim to be particularly courageous, but I feel responsible. And if I don’t speak on the issues that I think the Lord calls me to speak, I feel guilty about that. So for me to be quiet on these issues would have been a harder burden for me to carry, perhaps, than speaking about it. Actually, I mentioned two reasons why I wrote the book. One is some Catholic political folks asked me to, people who ran for office, and were having struggles because of that. But more importantly, I’ve grown tired of so many people in our culture saying to believers that they ought to be quiet, that there’s no place in the public square for the voice of faith. I wanted to make a distinction between separation of Church and state, and separating our faith from our politics. You can embrace the concept of separation of Church and state, but that’s not at all the same thing as separating our faith from our actions, from our political actions. 

HH: Was it times to appear prior to the presidential election consciously?

CC: Well, people have asked me that. You know, I finished the book a year ago this month, and gave it to Doubleday, and it takes a long time for it to get through the process of being published. I personally had hoped that it would come out in the early spring so it wouldn’t be seen as something that was aimed particularly at this election. But the publisher is the one who controls that. And some people have told me they think it’s a blessing both in terms of the message of the book, and for the people of our time, for the people of this moment, that it’s coming out this close to the election. 

HH: You know, I think it’s going to discomfort not just liberals, but a lot of conservatives as well. I don’t think you could pigeonhole this as a conservative or liberal book, and I’ve been through it in quite detail. I hope that’s what your assessment is.

CC: Well, you know, people sometimes pigeonhole me as a conservative, and I hope what I am is a Catholic. And I preach the Gospel honestly without compromise, and that cuts to the right and to the left, because the Truth is supposed to set all of us free from our parties and from our prejudices or whatever. So I think people who want to follow the Gospel will offend people on all sides of the political spectrum.

Read the entire transcript.

Order a copy of Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life.

Archbishop Kurtz stirs up "controversy" by....being Catholic?

Apparently so. According to the Courier-Journal (Louisville, Kentucky), "A year after taking over as spiritual leader for 200,000 Louisville-area Catholics, Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz has become known as an energetic, gregarious leader who doesn't shy away from controversy."

His "controversial" actions include:

• Praying outside abortion clinics
• Lobbying Govs. Ernie Fletcher and Steve Beshear against the death penalty
• "[R]equiring all churches to begin adhering to liturgical reforms approved by Pope John Paul II in 2000." Which includes (hold your breath) requiring some parishes to put in kneelers, since "parishes have different practices on such things as when  --  and if  --  they stand, sit or kneel."

Outrageous! Inconceivable! Despicable! Catholics kneeling during Mass? What next? Praying during Mass? Encouraging regular confessions? Talking about sin and hell? Trying to get men to consider the priesthood? "Yep" on the last one:

Kurtz, known for his success in recruiting new priests while in Knoxville, has built on those efforts in the Louisville archdiocese, which has seen the number of men training for the priesthood rise to 14 from four two years ago.

Admittedly, I don't know much about Archbishop Kurtz aside from what I've read in this newspaper article. But, from what I've read, I say let's have more controversial bishops like Archbishop Kurtz who are doing "controversial" Catholic things.

Agnostic Australian blasts "sneering secularists," defends Catholic Church

I've only caught a fraction of the Australian coverage of Benedict XVI's visit, but I've noticed that some of it is openly hostile. Gerard Henderson, executive director of the Sydney Institute, comments in the Sydney Morning Herald on the hostility:

The sneering secularists in our midst oppose all the Judeo-Christian beliefs. However, Catholicism cops much of the ridicule because it is universal and the strongest of the Christian faiths. In Australia the sneering secularists - a combination of proselytising atheists and Green Left Weekly reading leftists - have indicated their opposition to the Pope on the occasion of his visit to Australia for World Youth Day. Hence the formation of the NoToPope Coalition.

So far the award for the leading sneerer goes to The Age columnist Catherine Deveny. Writing on June 18, she declared: "It's official. The Catholic Church is fully sick. And so is George Pell." Apparently this was some kind of joke. She depicted World Youth Day as a "week of prayer, trust exercises and rosary bead trading". And Deveny went on to advise that, since the Pope will be celebrating Mass at Randwick racecourse, "all the Bernadettes and Gerards will be able to chill out with The Main Dude". It is inconceivable that The Age would have run a similar article mocking Islam and slagging off all the Aishas and Muhammads.

Although a professing agnostic, I was brought up a Catholic and attended a Catholic school where I received a fine education. Like all organisations, it had its strengths and weaknesses. Yet I retain admiration for the priests involved in my upbringing. Most were fine, intelligent men who gave up material pleasures - including sex and family life - for the God in which they believed. I readily acknowledge that some of the cleverest men and women I have met, or read about, were believers in one of the great religions. They do not warrant mockery.

Read the entire column.

And who are the Mysterious Many?

The Aussie newspaper The Age has a lengthy piece, "Out of John Paul's shadow" (July 12, 2008), that talks about how perceptions of Benedict XVI have changed in three years:

When Joseph Ratzinger was elected the 266th pope on April 19, 2005, and took the name Benedict, there were many in the church who thought he would be just a speck on the stage. They expected a pale shadow of John Paul II, mimicking his policies and priorities but without the charisma or the charm. Nicknamed "God's rottweiler", "the Panzerkardinal" and an ecclesiastical "Darth Vader", as Ratzinger he was seen as the church's mailed fist.

Hmmm....and who are these mysterious MITC (many in the Church)? Multiple choice time:

1. Most journalists.
2. Christopher Hitchens
3. Catholic dissenters
4. The former editor of America
5. Pre-2005 John Allen, Jr.
6. All of the above

As Benedict, the reality has been more velvet glove, and he has proved very much his own man. There have been continuities, but in many ways he has been a stark contrast — more self-effacing, gentle and intellectual — to the previous pope, for whom he was chief adviser and doctrinal watchdog. There have been no heresy hunts, few confrontations, a much less visible presence and much less travel. His writings, including encyclicals on love and hope, have been optimistic. A profound and subtle theologian, he has sought to engage and to persuade — inside and outside the church.

And who, if we had to wildly and blindly guess, would not have been surprised by any of this back in 2005?

1. People who actually read Ratzinger's books
2. People who read Ignatius Press books
3. Fr. Joseph Fessio
4. Fr. D. Vincent Twomey
5. Monsignor Joseph Murphy
6. All of the above

The article actually goes so far to suggest that it was John Paul II who was the mean, nasty pope, while Benedict is the warm, accessible pope:

An anecdote highlighting the difference in the cat-loving and Mozart-playing pontiff's approach is the treatment of the great progressive theologian Hans Kung, a former colleague at Tubingen University. In 1979 the Vatican stripped Kung of his licence to teach as a Catholic theologian after he challenged the doctrine of papal infallibility. For 26 years, Kung wrote repeatedly to John Paul II seeking a meeting, and never even received a reply. When Benedict got the same request, he quickly met Kung in a friendly four-hour discussion of common ground. "Pope Wojtyla (John Paul II) wanted to be the big high priest and reduced the bishops to film extras who have nothing to say but who have just to applaud," Kung told British Catholic weekly newspaper The Tablet last month. "Benedict would tell you he talks to the bishops all the time. He's very attentive. He doesn't bang the table like Pope Wojtyla and say, 'I don't want to hear about the lack of vocations.' But he is different in tone, not substance."

Well, I have a simple theory about Hans Küng: he's mostly full of entertaining nonsense. It's just a theory, but it makes a lot of sense of what he tells the MSM.

OSV: Thousands of sterilizations took place in 23 Catholic hospitals...

... in Texas between 2000 and 2003. Ann Carey, writing for the July 13th issue of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper, reports:

Texas Catholic hospitals and their parent health systems are engaging in intense conversations with their local bishops and scrambling to examine their records in light of a new whistleblower report alleging that thousands of sterilizations, and possibly some abortions, took place in 23 Texas Catholic hospitals between 2000 and 2003.

These charges come at a critical time, when Catholic health care is battling pressures on many fronts to compromise Catholic ethical principles, and bishops have been working to strengthen their national code for Catholic health care, "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" (ERDs).

The report is based on detailed data available from the state of Texas, which requires hospitals to file information from inpatient records. The whistleblowers, who remain anonymous but were contacted through an intermediary by Our Sunday Visitor, compiled diagnostic and procedure codes to determine 9,684 instances of allegedly unequivocal "sterilization for contraceptive purposes." Data indicating 39 abortions, however, was subject to interpretation and may involve morally acceptable procedures, like removal of a stillborn baby or emergency services for an abortion performed elsewhere.

Andrew Rivas, director of the Texas Catholic Conference, the official public-policy voice of the state's bishops, told Our Sunday Visitor that the bishops had begun a process of verification of the data and had sought information from hospital administrators. He would not speculate on when the review might be completed. Ten dioceses have hospitals named in the report.

Read the entire article. John Norton, editor of the OSV newspaper, has some additional comments on the story.

Steve Ray guest hosts "Kresta in the Afternoon" today...

...and will be talking with Gail Buckley about studying Scripture as a Catholic and with Rosalind Moss about the new religious order,  the Daughters of Mary, Mother of Israel’s Hope, she is establishing in Saint Louis with the permission of Archbishop Raymond Burke.

"Kresta in the Afternoon" airs from 4:00-6:00 p.m. EST, and can be heard online. The show is also archived.