Who is John-Henry Westen Trying to Fool?
Many readers are aware that Lifesitenews is being sued by Father Raymond Gravel. This recently was the subject of a full page spread in one of Canada’s national newspapers. Here’s the story. There are all kinds of interesting things that could be debated in the piece. To me the most fascinating paragraph was the following:
Mr. Westen [Lifesitenews editor-in-chief] said he does not consider his approach to be confrontational. “I wouldn’t say we are stirring up trouble nor would I say it’s a hard-line approach,” he said. “I feel, honestly, nothing but love for Fr. Gravel. I pray for Fr. Gravel. I feel no hatred, ill will or anything for Fr. Gravel in the least.” Asked why it was considered relevant to repeatedly mention Fr. Gravel’s past as a prostitute, Mr. Westen said he did not consider it to be disparaging. “Anyone who comes from a bad past and leaves a bad past is to be celebrated for that reason,” he said.
Now, it is one thing to maintain that Lifesitenews is not confrontational. But does anyone really believe that Lifesitenews’ repeated references to Father Gravel’s history as a prostitute are celebratory in nature? Does John-Henry Westen really believe that?
Here is the Lifesitenews response to the piece in the National Post.
If Lifesitenews is to be exempt from the kinds of criticisms made by faithful Catholics like Father Thomas Rosica, a little self-reflection is in order. Tu quoque is too easy.
Brett Salkeld is a doctoral student in theology at Regis College in Toronto. He is a father of two (so far) and husband of one.
Comments are closed.
I am just going to add this to the list of things that have alienated me from most of the pro-life movement. I am reminded of the Testament of St. Francis:
Besides, the Lord gave me and still gives me so great a faith in priests who live according to the form of the holy Roman Church, because of their sacerdotal character, that even if they persecuted me I would have recourse to them. And even though I had all the wisdom of Solomon, if I should find poor secular priests, I would not preach in their parishes without their consent. I desire to respect them like all the others, to love them and honor them as my lords. I will not consider their sins, for in them I see the Son of God, and they are my lords. I do this because here below I see nothing corporally of the most high Son of God if not his most holy Body and Blood, which they receive and they alone distribute to others.
In reading this, it is worth remembering the depths into which some members of the priesthood had slipped during the Middle Ages.
Brett, I think John Henry Westen is attempting to fool himself into believing he loves Father Gravel. I wonder if they ever had a face to face talk.
This reminds me that the phenomenal polarization and atomization of the American Catholic Church is not an isolated phenomenon nor is it something particular and exclusive to the United States of America.
Cain and Abel had their differences. Hopefully we have come a long way and should now understand that attacking one another in a fraternal relationship or in a family context is never a beneficial solution to animosity.
Fifty years ago, Catholicism managed to renew itself through the process of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican.
Remarkably gifted and talented Progressives and Conservatives squared off and worked through their differences in a sustained process of respectful dialogue, seeking consensus for the good of the whole world, not just for Catholicism. Humanity has benefited from the event, and its implications for civilization will still reverberate across the globe for centuries to come.
Sometime later, faced with tensions in the Church of America, Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago gathered people from diverse viewpoints and perspectives of Catholicism in a process or program which he called “Common Ground”.
That approach resonates superbly with the conciliar dynamics promoted at Vatican II.
Perhaps because our Canadian differences were not so severe or apparent, we never had such a program for bringing opponents together to seek common ground, for the good of the whole community. But this scandalous example of Lifesite News and Father Raymond Gravel taking shots at each other, with Father Rosica meanwhile tugging at the seething conflict, really begs the question that we dearly need a way of working through our differences.
However, we apparently lack a gifted leader like Bernardin at this time in Canada. Sometimes we just have to acknowledge that we are living in a vacuum of talented leadership. This incident certainly proves that to me.
Rather than suing one another and taking one another to court, we should be looking for pastoral leadership which can gather the best and brightest of our community to seek a constructive dialogue where the dialectic of thesis and antithesis can be explored, sustained and resolved with a view to constructive synthesis of the best of both positions.
This is not exactly a novel approach to an ancient problem of conflict resolution in a dynamic commmunity of human persons guided by the grace of God and loving respect for one another, regardless of our differences.
(Rather than suing one another and taking one another to court, we should be looking for pastoral leadership which can gather the best and brightest of our community to seek a constructive dialogue where the dialectic of thesis and antithesis can be explored, sustained and resolved with a view to constructive synthesis of the best of both positions.)
Is there a dialogue in LifeSite news? Wasnt it already discussed that they chose to ratchet up events for ratings? Is that really their best and brightest move that they could have chosen to do? While I think most of your points are novel, I really see that loving respect for one another is becoming entirely lost. I feel like these days, we live in a world where we have one side who feels it’s their place to call out the sins of others, while they themselves feel they walk with no sin. Of if they admit they too sin, they still push their agenda at all costs, no matter whom it hurts, because they feel by behaving this way, it’s some sort of test of loyalty that they are giving all in the name of Life and church. It’s like the culmination of decay that goes on in our world is to be brought out into the light for all to see. No more shadows out there, it’s their job to bring those shadows into the light, even if it’s wrong. Even if it’s terrible.
Brett, how do you think that LSN and the Church ought to have dealt with Fr. Gravel?
Austin,
To take your second question first, if I were his bishop, I’d never have let him run for office. I wouldn’t let even a priest that was unlikely to be a public scandal run for office, let alone someone with Father Raymond’s views.
Now, I don’t know enough about what kind of work he does in his home diocese, but if I had reasons to believe he was misrepresenting Church teaching or causing scandal, I would investigate. Such an investigation could lead to the removal from certain ministries or even suspension of priestly faculties, depending. My first hope, however, would be to help Father Raymond be a faithful servant to the Church.
As for LSN, I certainly think that a priest politician who votes for pro-choice legislation is worthy of an article here and there. I have no problem that they covered him. He is newsworthy. I wouldn’t fill my articles with sloganeering and editorializing as LSN is prone to do. I certainly wouldn’t try cover my tracks after the fact by such patently transparent nonsense as claiming that my intentions in highlighting his scandalous past were motivated by my admiration for his ability to overcome adversity.
I basically agree with your approach here. And according to Code 285 of Canon Law, clerics are “forbidden to assume public office whenever it means sharing in the exercise of civil power.” So what was he doing running for office in the first place?
That sounds about right. How do you feel about excommunicating people who persist in holding pro-choice views? Do you think it could ever be appropriate under these sort of circumstances?
Just out of curiosity, did they ever lie about him? He claims that their editorials had a devastating impact on his career (and I’m not willing to say that this is necessarily a bad thing), but did they ever tell any outright lies about him or his past? From what little I’ve been able to gather, it doesn’t seem like they did.
Austin,
Excommunication is possible in extreme cases. I wouldn’t excommunicate someone for privately holding pro-choice views, but if someone in ministry and/or leadership continued promoting pro-choice views after reasonable warnings that could be appropriate.
As for whether LSN ever straight-up lied, I doubt it. That’s not their style. When they have blatantly false information it’s usually the result of carelessness and presumption rather than intent to deceive.
I don’t know about you, but “never straight-up lying” doesn’t cut it for me either in terms of journalistic integrity or Christian charity.
I do think that mentioning his past as a prostitute really took it too far. That isn’t something Fr. Gravel is proud of, it’s in his past, and it’s really just an ad hominem anyway. And instead of just apologizing, Westen lied about why the information was posted. I don’t know very much about the legal merits of the lawsuit, but to be completely honest, I really wouldn’t mind seeing LSN go down in flames.
I wouldn’t even be so upset if they mentioned it once or twice if relevant. But to make it a standard part of any story?
As for going down in flames, that would be less than ideal. In a perfect world this lawsuit would lead LSN to a period of renewal and self-reflection in order to better serve the world and the Church. The problem is, when you construct a narrative in which every obstacle is proof of your own righteousness, self-reflection becomes nearly impossible.
Beware the impulse to resort or even rush to declare excommunication, regardless of circumstances.
That is an archaic remnant of the old constantinian model of christianity, which sought power and
influence regardless of the impact on human rights.
Why would we even consider such an option, except perhaps as a last resort, in a community which is supposedly guided by the gospel of Jesus the redeemer and saviour of humankind who is known as the Good Shepherd?
The chronic tendency to authoritarian, arbitrary and autocratic abuse of power is precisely what has inflamed much of the middle east recently, and the entire human family has to take a lesson from it. Even Christians who declare profusely that they are simply committed to protect the sanctity of life.
Yes Larry,
Excommunication should only be used as an absolute last resort. It must be preceded by serious efforts in the way of discussion, consultation, less overt discipline, etc.
This is a very interesting discussion. I, too, have been wondering if LSN ever did print false information about Father Gravel and, indeed, if Father Gravel will succeed in his lawsuit. And, as far as I’ve been able to find out, LSN has not.
What I find saddest is that the secular media found this internecine struggle interesting enough to report. I’m not sure it was wise for anyone to describe it as the “two extremes”; it gives the impression of “Why can’t they both lose?” Sadly, we all lose. All the wonderful things going on in the Canadian Church, and this is what makes the papers.