Fear Strikes Back ! The National Catholic Reporter Finally Replies

By Jerry Slevin
Christian Catholicism
September 3, 2014

http://christiancatholicism.com/fear-strikes-back-the-national-catholic-reporter-finally-replies/

National Catholic Reporter (NCR) editor, Dennis Coday, evidently with NCR’s lawyers’ help (possibly on my prior advice), has finally replied to me today with a one paragraph “fait accompli”. This is after my four years of making thousands of NCR comments and writing two NCR columns. Coday told me “we” had reached an “impass”, even though he never discussed this either with me or with the general NCR blogging community that supports my right to comment, which of course he should have done. Does he think he is Cardinal Mueller or that I am Sister Elizabeth Johnson?

Coday’s approach here is a bit like “one hand clapping”. It had been almost three weeks since NCR banned me suddenly, without any prior notice or warning, subjecting me to needless and unnecessary grief and even reputation damage that could have been avoided or at least minimized by NCR’s sending Coday’s  limp one paragraph three weeks ago.

See below our full e-mail exchanges and a link for more background.

Coday’s response, in effect, indicates that some unspecified person or persons and/or unspecified editors and/or Coday, without any discussion with me,  concluded:

1. Some of my NCR comments were too “aggressive”, without specifying which ones or in what way they were too aggressive;

2. I made too many comments when I commented;

3. I made too few comments when I took breaks from commenting;

4. I had earlier been suspended once for a brief period for unspecified reasons from commenting; and

5. I should take a hike and comment elsewhere, without even a chance to delete my present comments or adjust my future comments. “Father knows best”, it appears.

During this almost three week period of unnecessary delays, I have been subjected in NCR comments, without any opportunity to reply, to bloggers’ endless speculation as to the reasons for my being banned. Some of this speculation was personally offensive and insulting and most of it was inaccurate. That still troubles me.

I am not the LCWR or some cleric or a child. I am a Catholic grandfather who cares about my Church and all children, who also happens to be an experienced lawyer who values my reputation and is not accustomed to being treated so shabbily or highhandedly. Nor do I have to accept such gratuitous and poor treatment passively.

Apparently, according to Coday, some anonymous persons (likely directly or indirectly including some unnamed large donors and/or bishops) thought I made too many NCR comments, and made some too aggressively.

Amazingly, Coday is also barring me because I had taken a couple of breaks from commenting awhile ago! Really! I am damned if I comment and damned if I don’t comment, no?

So Dennis Coday, purportedly on his own (I don’t buy that for a minute),   decided to ban me publicly without notice or specific cause.

Coday has now replied only after considerable complaints from many NCR bloggers about NCR’s unreasonable and inconsistent censorship tactics, as well as about its continuing and selective toleration of strident homophobic NCR bloggers. But for these complaints, and likely my being a lawyer, NCR obviously never would have even proffered to me Coday’s lame defense.

Coday’s description of my brief earlier comment suspension is in my opinion materially misleading. NCR had earlier cut off my access to comments temporarily many months ago because by e-mail, not in comments, I called NCR out for lacking the courage to press for a US national commission to curtail institutional sexual abuse of children.

I had also copied my e-mail in to some of NCR’s competitors, including Bob Mickens and David Gibson (both of whom I have exchanged other e-mails with), which likely caused some discomfort for some at NCR. Again, so be it. Instead of banning me for my message, NCR should have at least responded to it substantively first by e-mail.

I make no apologies for my approach on behalf of defenseless people, especially children. Indeed, my Mentor, in two of the Gospels, had mandated I use “millstones”, not words, to protect innocent children. NCR has gotten off easy here!

In the interest of full disclosure, I set forth Coday’s reply and my original inquiry that he replied to, which had been sent almost three weeks ago to Pam Cohen and top NCR management.

I will now evaluate carefully all of my options. I now know that only the legal process can provide me with the real facts about who is really calling the shots at NCR, and why and how that relates to barring my comments.

In the interests of protecting countless defenseless persons from Catholic hierarchical misdeeds, I now need to think more about what would be the most expeditious approach in these circumstances. It appears to me that Coday is likely only a front man for some of the right wing donors that seem to me too often to have captured NCR. We will have to see more about that.

In the meantime,  I  suggest that all NCR bloggers now must “watch what you say” or NCR’s Big Brother may suddenly bar you from commenting as well — also without any warning, or any opportunity to know what you said wrong or to confront your accusers or to appeal. When in doubt, henceforth, just praise bishops and Pope Francis relentlessly like Dennis Coday usually does, just to be sure. That should do it, but who knows?

Child protection can wait, as it has for decades, if not centuries.

Cardinal Mueller and his mentor. the German Shepherd and ex-Pope, would be proud of Coday’s inquisitorial swag. Of course, the two German Shepherds have unlimited resources and immunity defenses unavailable to NCR personnel.

My position on the absolute priority of protecting kids from priest predators has led me to challenge NCR on other related issues and at times to criticize NCR’s coverage and approach to many matters. Since I am a trained advocate, I had assumed this made some NCR editors uncomfortable at times. So be it. Protecting kids is more important.

For some time, I have been convinced that only a US national commission can get the Vatican and the US bishops to conform to the rule of law that is intended to protect defenseless children, but is now evaded by the Catholic hierarchy enabled by their unlimited lawyers, lobbyists and publicists. I hear, of course, often of other views as to alternate approaches, e.g., Pope Francis’ “miracles”, prayer, etc., but so far none of them seem as likely to succeed in curtailing abuse as well and as soon as a US national commission.

I no longer have to wonder if a US national commission is really the best approach. Australia’s national commission is making my case better than I ever imagined.  The Australian Royal Commission’s continuing and thorough investigation of, and hearings about, child abuse in various religious institutions, especially in the Catholic Church, show what can be done to protect children from priest perverts when politicians listen to their constituents. Over 90% of Australians in polls support the Royal Commission’s work.

NCR and SNAP have both given occasional favorable attention to the Australian national commission approach, but have failed, for no good reason I am aware of, to call for a similar commission approach in the USA. Why haven’t they?

NCR has, in my view,  clearly changed adversely under its new management likely brought in by some of NCR’s right wing donors. NCR is seemingly becoming more secretive and intolerant as the Church has been for centuries. Money apparently still talks.

This is not inevitable. Catholics need to speak out at NCR and demand accountability and transparency there, as NCR’s management demands it occasionally from the Church’s hierarchy.

This is not about me. It is about free speech and religious liberty. It is also about protecting defenseless children, comforting abuse survivors, respecting couples’ family decisions, treating women equally, acknowledging gay and divorced persons’ dignity, helping the poor and more.

Will NCR’s donors and advertisers, many with ties to the hierarchy, dictate NCR policy, or will NCR remain independent? That appears to be the central issue.

Or has NCR sold out its “soul”? You be your own judge, please. By now, you know where I come out.