Thomas Reese ousted as Editor in Chief of America weekly magazine

[eleny]

I'm just now listening to Bernie Ward's weekly "God Talk" show on KGO radio. He has the daily nighttime talk show in San Francisco. The shows are all archived at KGO for 24 hours after the end of a program and also archived by Ben Burch at his whiterosesociety.org web site.

Bernie was just now discussing the Vatican's ousting of Thomas Reese, SJ as Editor of America magazine - a national Catholic weekly. Bernie was saying that the weekly was viewed a "loyal opposition" type of Catholic publication. It was not appreciated by Ratzinger when he was the Vatican enforcer.

Here is the web site for the weekly http://www.americamagazine.org/ourstaff.cfm

[Matilda]

1. It is disapppointing for those of us who decided to give Benedict XVI

the benefit of the doubt, because it certainly looks as if Reese's
resignation has come after pressure from Rome.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4526221.stm


While I think there's no possibility of the Church changing its view
on abortion or euthanasia, I do find it troubling that Benedict
seems to be determined to continue his hard line on all dissent.
Discussion on a number of issues is overdue, and probably essential
if the Church is to be a leading force in the 21st century.

Dissent is healthy in a free society, no less in the Church than in
government. We must have the right to question and criticise; the
Church is strong, it can take it. Nobody expects the Church to
follow all the whims of modern society; we know that any change has
to be carefully considered, but if it doesn't adapt to changing
times, it will cease to be relevant. The old case of Galileo is
still one of the best arguments for dissent - he questioned the
Church's teaching, and he was right. Were we all supposed to wait
until we had a scientist pope who could figure out the relationship
between Sun and Earth for himself, and give it to us as a revelation?
The Church then failed to take account of a gifted astronomer, and
because of it has been held up to ridicule.

A mature Church can evolve without compromising its basic message,
and it is more likely to evolve by listening to the voice of
informed dissent of Catholics living in the world than by the inward
turning vision of a group of clerics living sheltered and separated
lives in the Vatican.

The Jesuits in the past have always set their own agenda and with
great success, and it saddens me to see them buckling under the
heavy hand of Rome. I am in a Jesuit parish, and I've seen the
interference from Rome and its deadly effect at close quarters over
the past couple of years, and I'm afraid a great deal of it has
probably come from then Cardinal Ratzinger.

[DemBones DemBones]

2. But did Pope Benedict pressure Reese to resign?

As you know, the BBC article you cite is primarily a recounting of the new pope's sermon at the Basilica of St. John Lateran during his installation as bishop of Rome on Saturday. At the end of the article, it is mentioned that Fr. Reese, a US Jesuit priest, "has resigned after seven years as editor of the prominent American Catholic monthly, America," and continues

"His magazine had frequently commissioned articles critical of Rome on such controversial subjects as same-sex marriages, the paedophile priest scandal and whether Catholics who support abortion rights should be refused communion.

Father Reese announced his departure in a statement, but gave no reasons for going.

Jesuit sources in Rome say he had come under fire from the office of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, when he was in charge of Catholic doctrine and before his election to Pope.

Leading Jesuits rarely remain in the same job for more than seven years, says the BBC's David Willey in Rome."


Perhaps this is all much ado about nothing?

Perhaps Fr. Reese simply thought it was time for him to move on, after seven years as "America"'s editor?

Or perhaps Fr. Reese thought he should resign now that we have a new pope? ( Every Vatican official officially resigns when a new papacy begins so that the new pontiff can appoint people of his own choosing, so there is tradition that might have inspired him.)

[eleny]

3. According to Bernie Ward

Ratzinger was already issuing warnings when he was "the enforcer". So, I presume so, although I didn't research it myself.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. I don't doubt that Cardinal Ratzinger had some problems with some of

what Fr. Reese published and that they had discussions about those issues over the years. That doesn't prove that he forced Reese to resign, however.

[Matilda]

4. Of course it's all couched in diplomatic language,

and we have to read between the lines.

I'm judging it to a degree by what has been happening in Sydney
over the past couple of years - one priest/writer, Fr. Paul Collins,
wrote a number of books that questioned the direction the Church
has been taking, and somebody reported him to the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith. He was never told who reported him, but
he believed it was George Pell. He was "examined" I think is the
word they use, and because he refused to recant what he'd said, he
was forced to resign as a priest. There's no proof it was Pell,
but everybody who knows of the case believes it was him.

Our priest and his curate were also transferred, privately telling
their friends that it was Pell's doing, and neither of them wanted
to leave. They were just way too progressive for Pell's tastes,
and the p.p. in particular was very encouraging of women playing a
greater role in the Mass and in church affairs. In earlier days,
I know priests were never left too long in one place, but these days
there is such a shortage that longer tenures are becoming the norm.
It more often happens that extra parishes are added as older priests
retire or die. I'm sure it happens with all priestly functions
nowadays, whether it be teaching, writing, or whatever.

So you're right, there's no proof at all, just an uneasy feeling
that if you don't follow the official line in all things, you will
be shunted aside. I don't necessarily agree with everything that's
on the progressive agenda, but I think we should be able to discuss
it all openly without fear of secret reports going to the Vatican.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. In your example, though, Fr. Collins had to choose between

recanting and resigning, and your telling of the story suggests that this was known to be the case. Fr. Reese has not said why he resigned so it's all speculation at this time.

We don't want people in the Democratic Party if too many of their beliefs are beliefs shared by the GOP so I don't have a problem with the Church not wanting priests and theologians to get too far out of line with the Church's beliefs and teachings. Every political party and every church has to stand for something and offer some clarity of beliefs, unless the desire is to function as an organization for the benefit of the perpetually muddled. ;-)

[Matilda]

9. Agreed - in the end, if we can't agree we have to leave,

and that's what happened to Paul Collins, but in his case I think
they (read Archbishop Pell) had made up their minds that he was too
troublesome to have around. His rebuttal does make interesting
reading, if you'd like to take a look - he's not saying anything
that many others, before and since, have also said.

http://www.usao.edu/~facshaferi/collinscdf.htm


I think there are purely spiritual things that we have to accept to
call ourselves Catholic - the divinity of Christ, the Real Presence,
etc. But other things, such as women's ordination, birth control
and married priests are more political in nature, and I think we have
every right to voice our opinions. Nobody, but nobody, has a right
to tell me what I can discuss, and I have no hesitation in ignoring
such a ban. Of course, I'm nobody and they're unaware of what I
might be saying, but a priest has a higher profile, especially if he
goes about writing books to advance his theories.

I don't think saying, for example, that you favor the ordination of
women amounts to sleeping with the enemy - it is simply looking at
women in a different light from the traditional Church teaching. I
truly believe their objections are based on their fear of female
sexuality, and also on an aversion to sharing their power. The
Vatican hierarchy are not saints, they're human and fallible, subject
to anger, greed, bigotry, fear, pride and intolerance just like
anybody else, and all these things can color their thinking whether
or not they're aware of it. They're certainly not alone in their
attitudes, but that doesn't make them right or fair.

[regnaD kciN]

7. FWIW, here's Commonweal's take on the matter...

It is hard to judge what is more appalling, the flimsy case made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)--apparently at the instigation of some American bishops--against Reese’s orthodoxy and stewardship of America, or the senselessness of silencing perhaps the most visible, and certainly one of the most knowledgeable, fair-minded, and intelligent public voices the church has in this country. As a political scientist who has written extensively on how the church’s hierarchy works, Reese has for years been a much-relied-on source for the mass media in its coverage of Catholic issues. During the recent conclave, his visibility increased exponentially, with millions of television viewers being introduced to him on PBS, CNN, and other networks. Not surprisingly, he showed himself to be lucid, succinct, and nonideological. In a church with a more confident and magnanimous hierarchy, Reese’s prominence would be seen as a great asset, not a threat. Instead, Reese’s dismissal, following so closely his increased exposure during the conclave, has become front-page news. As a consequence, the first thing many Americans are now likely to associate with Pope Benedict XVI’s papacy will be yet another act of Vatican repression. Does this mean that the zeal with which then-Cardinal Ratzinger harried theologians while head of the CDF will continue during his papacy?

For those who had hoped that the pastoral challenges of his new office might broaden Benedict’s sympathies, this is a time of indignation, disappointment, and increased apprehension. For those who know Reese and his work, the injustice of the CDF’s action is transparent. No intellectually honest person could possibly claim that Reese’s America has been in the business of undermining church teaching. If the moderate views expressed in America, views widely shared by the vast majority of lay Catholics, are judged suspect by the CDF, how is the average Catholic to assess his or her own relationship to the church?

It is even more troubling to learn that the CDF insisted on Reese’s removal despite his compliance with the congregation’s own demands that America publish articles of a more apologetic nature defending controverted magisterial teachings. In 2003, apparently, the CDF informed Reese that he had indeed corrected whatever imbalance it had detected in the magazine’s content. According to news stories, more recent articles in America questioning the church’s position on same-sex marriage and the status of prochoice U.S. Catholic politicians precipitated the latest CDF action. Both of the articles cited, however, were in response to other pieces in America defending magisterial teaching. Evidently, the CDF insists that any church-sponsored publication aimed at the educated faithful confine its activities to catechesis.

The reaction to the CDF’s removal of Reese has been widespread and impassioned among the Jesuits and in the Catholic academic world. Certainly the church’s reputation has been badly damaged, especially among those in the secular media who knew and had every reason to respect Reese. As a consequence, it will be even harder for the church’s views to get a fair hearing. Those who love and cherish the Catholic priesthood are equally appalled, seeing how callously someone like Reese, who has devoted his life and contributed his enormous talents to the church, is treated. It is possible to ascribe the incredibly maladroit timing and handling of this decision to Vatican incompetence, arrogance, or obliviousness. More worrisome, however, is the suspicion that Reese’s dismissal was carried out in precisely this way to send an unmistakable message. If that is the case, then the self-defeating demand for unwavering docility coming from those now in charge in Rome--and increasingly from members of the American episcopate--is only exceeded by their insensitivity and recklessness.

Read more here.

[Matilda]

8. An interesting comment from Fr. Reese made some years ago ,

after interviewing Ratzinger in 1996:

"I think most theologians would find him a delightful dialogue
partner - if he didn't have the bureaucratic power to silence them
or get them fired."

Little did he know, as the saying goes ....

[eleny]

10. Well said

I was raised Catholic and went through 12 years of Catholic school.
The church seems to enjoy it only when the faithful are sheeple. Reese is a big loss.