The bishop on the "bullies" of the blogosphere

From Catholic News Service, a report that the pastor of Most Holy Redeemer parish in San Francisco is offering assurances that, as CNS states, reactions to "San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer giving Communion to two men in mock nuns' garb during an Oct. 7 Mass has been overblown":

"It is most unfortunate this incident has clouded the fact the archbishop came to meet with his people and celebrate a beautiful and reverent Mass together -- and that is what really happened," said Father Stephen Meriwether, pastor of Most Holy Redeemer Parish.

"This incident has been blown way out of proportion," he told Catholic San Francisco, the archdiocesan newspaper.

Not surprisingly, the two "Sisters" involved in the incident—"Sister Delta Goodhand" and "Sister Edith Myflesh"—expressed "dismay" that their somber engagement in sacred worship has been politicized:

The two members of the group who received Communion from the archbishop did not respond to e-mail requests from Catholic San Francisco to be interviewed.

But in a commentary posted on the group's Web site, "Sister Edith Myflesh," described as the "current abbess of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, said: "We are dismayed that a moment of genuine Communion during sacred worship is being twisted for political gain by the forces of hatred and dissension."

Hey, if "Sister Delta Goodhand" and "Sister Edith Myflesh" don't know "genuine," who does?

And, finally, the Archbishop:

Asked about reaction he had received, Archbishop Niederauer expressed concern about the impact of Web logs, or blogs.

"The blogosphere is a kind of dangerous, endless recess in a global schoolyard," he said, "where the bullies with the biggest bullhorns can shout whatever they want."

The message, apparently: beware of those bullying bloggers, but don't be overly concerned about homosexual activists, cross-dressing "sisters," and pro-gay parishes that ignore and/or mock Church teaching while supporting "gay pride" parades filled with nudity and depravity. Forget the bullies, where are the teachers and schoolyard monitors?

Yes, there have been some strong, even harsh, comments written about Archbishop Niederauer by Catholic pundits and bloggers. Yet the majority of the comments appear to have been written by folks who are distressed that mockery of the Eucharist and the Mass has not only taken place but seems to be downplayed by those whose primary focus should be to defend the Blessed Sacrament from any such mockery and protect the faithful from scandal, especially in the midst of the Liturgy. Mark Brumley, writing about those who have, in fact, insulted (as opposed to criticized) the Archbishop, makes several valuable points:

Of course extremists who are declaring Archbishop Niederauer "apostate", "false shepherd", etc. are off the deep end. This is unacceptable. Can we all agree about that here? Can we agree that this repudiation of such rhetoric stands as we discuss other issues here?

If we can all agree on that point and if we don't have constantly to repeat it, perhaps we can confront the important issue of whether in giving Holy Communion to men dressed as women and wearing clown white face and ruby-red lipstick and high heels the Archbishop made an error in judgment.

He says he did. He has apologized for giving them Holy Communion. What led the Archbishop, in hindsight, to think so? He said that the men in question mocked women religious and they turned out to be from the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

I think the Archbishop should be commended for admitting a mistake and apologizing for it, even though, initially, he defended his action by discussing the reverence of the celebration at MHF, describing the incident merely as involving "two strangely dressed persons" or words to that effect, and stating that women religious attending the Mass did not express concern afterward regarding the incident. Is the implication we are to draw from that statement that we shouldn't be concerned, either?

In any event, it seems legitimate to ask whether there isn't more to the matter to be considered, even after the Archbishop's apology. For instance:

1. If the men dressed as women and wearing white-face, ruby-red lipstick and high heels had not been Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, would it have still been wrong to give Holy Communion to such people? Canon 915, among other things, would indicate the answer is "yes".

2. Should a minister of Holy Communion, much less a bishop, under such circumstances be able to recognize that such persons ought not to receive Holy Communion, regardless of whether they are specifically mocking women religious or happen to be members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence? The answer, according to canon 915, among other things, would seem to be "yes".

3. Is it a reasonable inference that a person who has stressed that the judgment of whether or not someone communicates at Mass is a matter for the individual's conscience and who has said that he is not primarily a gatekeep with respect to the Eucharist, might tend to render the wrong judgment, according to canon 915, among other things, when he is caught by surprise and approached by two men in women's clothing wearing clown white-face, high heels, and ruby-red lipstick, seeking Holy Communion? It would seem so.

4. Is it legitimate for intelligent observers of the Church scene to note a likely connection between such a man's general outlook and attitude toward giving Holy Communion, as expressed in his published statements, and what he chose to do when confronted by two men dressed in women's clothing, high heels, white-face, with ruby-red lipstick seeking to receive Holy Communion? Canon 212 § 3 would seem to say so: "In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinions on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons".

Are some critics manifesting a lack of due reverence toward their pastors and a lack of consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons? It seems plain that some are. Does this mean that anyone who expresses criticism of the Archbishop's handling of this matter lacks due reverence and consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons? It is hard to see how this can be so, unless any criticism ipso facto amounts to that, which is absurd.

Some canons to keep in mind:

"Those who are excommunciated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (Canon 915).

Please note that 915 doesn't say simply that such persons may be denied Holy Communion. It says that they are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. That's the law of the Church, which is one of the points Archbishop Burke makes in his article. Everyone who opines on this question here would do well to read the article.

"A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing ..." (Canon 916).

We should all continue to pray for Archbishop Niederauer, but that does not preclude a charitable, even if in some respects uncomfortable and pointed, discussion of what he did and its implications for the Church.

Meanwhile, Thomas Peters of "American Papist" shouts the following:

Why exactly should the Archbishop be concerned about the impact of blogs? Can't the truth survive even when subjected to free debate? If blogging about this topic - on the whole - was malicious, isn't this about the state of affairs any Archbishop should expect to endure as part of his ministry? Isn't it an honor to suffer for the Church? And finally, if blogs have been writing in error, isn't it his duty to teach the faithful? I'm awaiting the Archbishop's firm, public and reasoned rebuke. Offhanded comments about bloggers being "bullies" neither enlightens the observers nor helps the (supposed) offenders.

There's another reason why I don't savor continually writing about this issue - I genuinely want to think the best about the Archbishop. I mentioned in my first commentary that I believed he might truly have been unprepared for the presence of the two transvestites in his communion line, panicked, and therefore went against his better judgement when he gave them the Eucharist.

Further still, I wanted to believe that his initial denial of culpability was in good faith, as unlikely as I could find such an hypothesis. Still further, I published his apology in full, without noting any of its grave deficiencies (e.g., that it lost a perfect teaching moment for the presentation of the Church's position on the sinful and harmful nature of the homosexual lifestyle. He is in San Francisco, after all, and it is probably the main challenge of the Church there).

I think there's really only one way to accurately describe the nature of the Archbishop's "concern" about the impact of web logs, namely, that the Internet is accessible from Rome.

Is recess over yet?

Comments

[joe]

Excellent post. Thank you. And while many blogs/bloggers are over the top, many are also reasonable, sane, and vital centers where Catholic truth is set forth. For me, these have provided a lifeline in an era when clear teachig and straight talk can be hard to find.

[Mark Brumley]

Ironically, I agree with Archbishop Niederauer about the excesses of the blogs. I also recognize that the quote attributed to him probably came in response to a specific question and that he may have said a lot more that many of us would have found more ad rem than his quoted remarks.

Nevertheless, the thrust of Tom Peters' comments stand. Those of us who are concerned about the objective insult to the Blessed Sacrament and the scandalization of the recipients and others in attendance at the Mass are left wondering why such a clear word of criticism can be uttered and disseminated in the Archbishop's name about the abuses of the blogosphere but such muddled utterances about the goings on at Most Holy Redeemer get promulgated. The result suggests a sensitivity about the blogosphere and about criticism, and relatively less sensitivity about two transvestites being given the Holy Eucharist by the Archbishop of San Francisco. The problems of the blogosphere are clearly explained, but the problem of two transvestites receiving Holy Commununion from the Archbishop and then MHR parish's bulletin publishing a "thank you" note from one of the men are not clearly explained.

It is very good that the Archbishop clearly and forthrightly apologized for giving Holy Communion. He did not waffle on the fact that he was apologizing and that he made a mistake in not recognizing the mockery of men dressed up as caricatures of nuns. That's much better than many other public apologies we have gotten in recent years. Even so, it is not good that he mentions only his failure to notice that the transvestites wore mock religious habits, when it fact the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence made a mockery not only of women's religious--as bad as that is--but of the Eucharist and the Church's teaching regarding chastity.

Here are two things that serious Catholics should be able to expect as a result of this fiasco at MHR:

1. Bishops throughout the US will think better and harder about canon 915 and their obligations as, among other things, "gatekeepers" of the Eucharist (for they are this, whether they like it or not), and what the implications of that responsibility are for their dealings with those who are publicly at odds with the teaching of the Church and yet who seek to be identified as Catholics.

2. The Archbishop of San Francisco and his chief pastoral collaborators will scrutinize MHR parish and make whatever changes are necessary to ensure that the pastoral leadership of the parish fully and joyfully embraces the teaching of the Catholic Church, including the teaching of the Church regarding homosexuality and chastity.

We'll see what actually happens.

[Mark Brumley]

One more thing: We read about how terrible it was that this whole sad event was captured on video. If that had not occurred, we are told, this would not have been a problem since only the people in attendance would have known about it. What's more, the fact that it was recorded shows that critics were out to get the Archbishop, we hear.

Well, it is true that fewer people would likely have known about the incident had it not been video recorded. But that is not necessarily a good thing. More people knowing about it means more people understanding the assault on the Eucharist and the Catholic faith, and more people praying and acting to not allow this sort of thing to happen again. And it doesn't require a great deal of cynicism to suppose that the availablility of the video helped the Archbishop to see the importance of his apologizing for his mistake. Moreover, the national news cobverage may well help other bishops to think about how Holy Communion is distributed in their diocese.

Finally, I think it fair enough to suppose that if the Archbishop had done the right thing and denied Holy Communion to the two men dressed as caricatures of nuns, in high heels, lipstick, and white-face make up, that the video record would now be used to show how courageously and rightly the Archbishop had acted.

[Robert Miller]

Can anyone doubt, at this point, that the "right" thing for the Archbishop to do is to suppress MHR "parish"?

[caine]

I think taking a swipe at those who exposed the embarrasing incident somewhat diminishes the sincerity of the apology. It's not a stretch to believe the Archbishop was sorry only because he got caught - and that is the saddest part of the whole affair.

It's also sad to compare the video from MHR with that of Bishop Tod Brown refusing Communion to a woman for showing too much respect to the Eucharist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0yfdbxr7qM

The Gospel for today hits this right on the mark: "There is nothing concealed that will not be revealed." The last thing a Bishop should worry about is someone airing video from a Mass on the internet. Nothing should take place there that he might be ashamed of if the whole world were watching.

[Jeff Grace]

Actually, the issue of the videotaping is most odd. Who taped it... the "sisters?" Friends of the "sisters?" It seems odd that someone "happened" to videotape an incident set up to embarrass our archbishop. And it's a damned shame that some Catholics see it as honorable to comply with and aide in the ambush of their archbishop. Or maybe whomever videotaped it wasn't Catholic?

[caine]

People videotape because no one ever admitted to this stuff in the past.

If I wrote a letter to a Bishop saying Fr. John Doe was riffing on the Eucharistic prayer (using cookies, ad libbing, talking to his barking dog, etc.) it may be months before I get a response saying the matter "will be looked into". Depending on your Bishop, that's pretty much a dismissal.

Have video proof of Father saying an invalid mass and you're more likely to get a response. Transparency is a very good thing! Didn't the Bishops agree with that a while back?

[John Herreid]

Hm. Jeff, do you think perhaps there wasn't a malicious intent in videotaping the Mass?

[Jeff Grace]

So, Caine... you have no problem with aiding and abetting groups like the "sisters" of perpetual indulgence in ambushing an archbishop in order to create a confrontation meant to ridicule and embarrass the Church?

[Jeff Grace]

I don't know, John. I guess whomever videotaped it would have to tell why they did it... and then one could determine if that seems malicious, or not.

[John Herreid]

I guess whomever videotaped it would have to tell why they did it... and then one could determine if that seems malicious, or not.

So otherwise, you're content to construe it in a malicious way.

Hm.

[Mark Brumley]

Finally, I think it fair enough to suppose that if the Archbishop had done the right thing and denied Holy Communion to the two men dressed as caricatures of nuns, in high heels, lipstick, and white-face make up, that the video record would now be used to show how courageously and rightly the Archbishop had acted.

One correction: "could now be used". The Church's enemies would not use it that way. They would characterize it negatively, had the Archbishop denied Holy Communion, just as they think it's great that he gave the Sisters the Eucharist. But those who now criticize him for not having denied Holy Communion to transvestites in mock nun attire and heels, etc., certainly would now be praising the Archbishop as courageous. It was his action that has determined the character of the video, not the sheer fact that he was recorded. If the Archbishop had done the right thing on video, would the recording of it have been "an ambush"? Maybe for those who would use his denial of Holy Communion to two men dressed in mock nun attire with white face, heels, and lipstick to criticize the Church. But certainly not by those who see such an action as an obligation of the minister of Holy Communion.

What's more, everyone should remember that this was a public event, with lots of people taking pictures, including pictures later posted on MHR's website. If clergy don't want problematic things they do in public recorded, the simple solution is not to do them. And if a clergyman does something wrong in public, he should acknowledge it and apologize for it, as the Archbishop has done.

It was, therefore, what the Archbishop did in public, or what he failed to do, not the fact that this public event was recorded, that is the problem. His apology, as good as it is, would probably have silenced and even impressed most of his orthodox critics, had it addressed all the relevant issues, rather than focusing only on the insult to women religious. And of course his orthodox Catholic critics would now be singing his praises had he done the right thing--which he now acknowledges would have been the right thing--by denying the transvestites Holy Communion.

By the way, almost all of the coverage of this event I have seen on Fox News has focused on the wrongdoing of the Sisters, not the Archbishop. True, he and other Catholic leaders were eventually criticized by Bill O'Reily for not standing up to the Sisters. But the focus at Fox News has been on the Sisters and their offense.

Yes, there are Catholics who criticize aspects of the Archbishop's apology because, as I say, they think it misses some important points by focusing on the offense against women religious, rather than on the profanation of the Eucharist or the scandal given--in the theological sense, not the media frenzy sense. And there are Catholics who are uncharitable and any number of other wrong things. Let's all condemn that, ok? Let's try to avoid becoming them, ok? Including becoming them through uncharitable characterizations of others who aren't them, ok?

[Jeff Grace]

John said: "So otherwise, you're content to construe it in a malicious way."

Lets' see.... a bunch of thugs decide to embarrass the archbishop and someone decides it's a good idea to record it... and then post it on a website and on Youtube... hmmm.... I guess they could really have meant no harm.... yeah, that could happen.

[John Herreid]

Like I said before, Jeff... I really don't get you on this. It's like blaming the Boston Globe for the priest scandal.

[Joe]

"It's also sad to compare the video from MHR with that of Bishop Tod Brown refusing Communion to a woman for showing too much respect to the Eucharist."

Wow. I had not thought of the parallel. You can be a transvestite and receive communion, but not someone who wants to bow. UNbelievable.

[Jeff Grace]

Not quite, John. The BG simply reported on what had happened. That's not anywhere near the same as an archbishop being assaulted in an effort to embarrass him and someone recording it rather conveniently. Judging from the website it first appeared on, some might wonder if this was a "strange bedfellow" deal with the "sisters". Why? Because it sure helped them accomplish what they intended.

Look, no one disagrees over the fact that, given the "message" of these "sisters", they should not be recieving communion, period. What has raised my hackles on this is quite simply the mean and bitter spirit I've seen emerge as people circle the archbishop and accuse him of violating canon law... even after he has said he didn't realize who these people were when he gave them communion. Should he have anyway given the strange way they were dressed? You can make a good argument that he shouldn't have, but again... he did hesitate and start to give a blessing, but then some words were exchanged. Whatever was said, this seemed to have been enough for the archbishop to change his mind and allow them to receive. I think the best way to look at this is to assume he knew what he was doing and let it go at that, since he has apologized after finding out who these folks were.

I just don't see any good coming from a concerted effort to aide and abet the humiliation of our archbishop. If you have other issues with him, then deal with those honorably... stop taking this shameful assault on the Church as an oppotunity to chase our archbishop into a corner where you can kick the stuffing out of him.

[Soledad]

Jeff, There are a few things I think you're missing:

(1) The intemperate comments are not necessarily the result of a "mean and bitter spirit". More likely, the people making those comments feel deeply outraged and powerless to correct the many abuses in the church.
(2) It makes sense to be wary of any attempt to divert attention away from the real issues toward videotapers and bloggers.
(3) The notion of a "strange bedfellow" deal between the videotaper and the two men is gross speculation.

[Mark Brumley]

Let's try to eliminate hyperbole, intemperate accusations and tendentious characterizations of people's actions. These things aren't helping.

[Soledad]

Jeff, This is the website that is displayed in red letters in the video. Take a look and see what you find there: http://www.qdomine.com/ Note that it asks for videos, tapes, etc. as proof of abuses only after other efforts to address the abuses have been exhausted.

[Victoria]

The abp did not question the second transvestite. Has anything been done about the priest who kissed a male who attended the Mass on the mouth?

[Spirit of Vatican II]

But bloggers are bullies, aren't they? And "men dressed as women" are a favorite target of bullies.

[Ed Peters]

MB, JH: Right.
Jeff: I don't think replies to JG on this matter are serving any constructive purpose.
RMiller: One does not suppress a parish for the sins of its pastor. The people in the territory need to be in a parish of some designation by canon law. Address the pastoral problem, not the parochial symptoms of the problem.

[Michael]

To be clear and protect the flock from error, the Archbishop of SF should publically denounce immoral lifestyles as 'on road to hell.' 'Hell' and 'fear of the lord' is missing from the lexicon of Catholic teaching in SFAD and (USF pc police). Belief in hell is not pc and therefore cannot be uttered in public.

[ToddV]

It seems to be an unlikely "conspiracy theory" to believe that the videotaper was working with the Sisters. It seems more likely that the videotaper was an orthodox catholic that wanted to document what he/she considered an abuse (the visit of the Archbishop was known ahead of time and it was reasonable to assume some in the Activist community would take advantage of his presence).