Talk:National Catholic Reporter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Referring to Joan Chittister as "Catholic"

I'm not a subscriber of NCR but I have read many of Joan Chittisters NCR articles. I have noticed she always criticizes those Catholics or other Christians who adhere and defend Catholic positions on abortion, homosexuality, contraception etc. In some articles I noticed she labels them as "right wing" or "extremists". Since these topics are usually discussed in her column, it is fair to add them in this article since NCR is also a so-called progressive periodical, and usually takes the liberal position on these topics.

Eaglehawk

It's also fair to call her not Catholic. -- Jbamb 14:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes very true, but since she calls herself a catholic and calls us "extremists", maybe "catholic dissident" is also fair. -- Eaglehawk

Regarding the possibility of calling Joan Chittister "not Catholic": There are completely confessional religions, such as being a Baptist or being a Marxist: you are a Baptist if and only if you believe in a certain list of doctrines. But you are not a Catholic if you believe everything the Church believes but have not yet been baptized. And you remain a Catholic if you have been baptized a Catholic, have never formally left the church, and have never been excommunicated, even if your beliefs change. If Joan Chittister disagrees with any infallibly-taught doctrines (even those taught infallibly by the ordinary magisterium), she is subject to excommunication, and might even be self-excommunicate, but until the pope, her own bishop, or a court of canon law declares this to be the case, Catholics must consider her to be a Catholic -- albeit, a Catholic who disagrees with several Catholic doctrines. Lawrence King 22:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting theological position, one unsupported by canon law. For instance, if you don't hold the Creed (either one), you can't really call yourself Catholic. Being Catholic is more than just being Baptized, particularly since we don't consider Protestant baptisms invalid. Is every baptized Protestant Catholic? Surely you could say she's Christian, but if you deny essentially teachings, are you really Catholic? In any case, it was an aside anyway. -- Jbamb 17:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't just say "being Baptized", I said "being baptized a Catholic." Sacramentally, Protestant and Catholic baptism are the same. But in canon law, they are distinct. Someone who was baptized as a baby in a Lutheran church and who wishes Confirmation in a Catholic church must formally join the Catholic church by a profession of faith along with promising to hold to the dogmas of the Catholic church. Someone who was baptized as a baby in a Catholic church does not; they are considered "Catholic" in canon law even though they were too young to have any beliefs.

It is true that by denying a dogma, a person is materially guiltly of heresy. If they are aware that this is a dogma, this is formally heresy. If they are aware of the canonical penalties, this leads to excommunication latae sententiae. But look at this quote from the article Excommunication:

Unless an ecclesiastical court finds that the offense in question occurred, the obligation to observe an automatic excommunication is on the excommunicated and not the rest of the clergy (Can. 1331 §1). Thus, even though an automatic excommunicant is forbidden to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, the excommunicant still retains the offices and all such acts are still valid acts under the law unless there has been a trial and finding of fact. Once this occurs, all subsequent acts become void and all offices lost (Can. 1331 §2).

Therefore, although you or I might believe that Chittister has denied a defined (or undefined) dogma (or dogmatic fact), and that she has done so knowingly. This would make here a heretic and self-excommunicated. But no ecclesiastical court has stated this; it is at most your and my opinion. Therefore we should not, in a public forum such as Wikipedia, declare her to be excommunicated or otherwise non-Catholic, because individual members of the clergy (see quote above) or laity don't have the right to make such a public judgment on someone else's canonical status. In my opinion, we can make this judgment on this discussion page, but not in the main Wikipedia article, which is essentially a published document.

Another example is Hans Küng, who by denying both papal infallibility and conciliar infallibility, is guilty of material heresy. Since his writings clearly show that he understands these dogmas and their status, it seems obvious he is guilty of formal heresy. But no court or bishop has declared him to be in fact excommunicated, and thus he continues to exercise his sacramental rights as an ordained priest in the Catholic church to this very day. Lawrence King 23:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall saying she was excommunicated. It's certainly less than clear whether most of them are, in fact, baptized Catholics. -- Jbamb 00:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Every now and then I read quite a few editorials and articles on NCR concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is obvious their views are openly pro-Palestinian and this is unique for a Catholic publication to be for one side on such a complex issue, often denouncing Israel and the USA, although as in the case of the death of Arafat, NCR publishes their own article with a counter article from an outside source to give the impression of balance. I see no harm in adding "support of the palestinian cause" or thereabouts (better than anti-Israeli) to the article as it is NPOV.

Eaglehawk