Talk:National Catholic Reporter

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)

Is the pope Catholic? She is a Benedictine nun. Maybe you think she is a bear? Pustelnik (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2009 (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

Readership statistics?

I just removed the sentence, "It has readers from all sides of the spectrum, including those persons who take issue with its viewpoints, as well as those who agree with its viewpoints.", from this article. I did so because there is no reference to support this statement. I have no doubt that there are conservative Catholics that read the NCR, but guesses should be be part of wikipedia articles. Ericsean (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Clean conscience?"

"...whose editorial position is entirely in line with Catholic teaching and which Catholics can subscribe to with a clean conscience"

Excuse me? Doesn't this suggest that dissident opinions CAN'T be "subscribed to with a clean conscience"?

Don't get me wrong: I am, for lack of a better category, a traditionalist Catholic, and I don't dissent from any authoritative, magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church (though this doesn't keep me from asking questions, or going one step further, realizing that we don't have the answers to every question that could conceivably be asked). However, I take issue with the way this is phrased. Some people believe that you can dissent with a clear conscience. No doubt these very same people can read the National Catholic Reporter, and agree with its content, with a clear conscience. I would have simply said "...whose editorial position is entirely in line with Catholic teaching" and put the period right there. But I'm not going to take it upon myself to edit something that is, by its nature, subjective. 20:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I will then. The way the sentence is phrased is inflammatory. If someone would like to reinstate the deleted passage, please do so with double quotes around the end (that is: "with a "clear conscience.""). I'd hate to start an edit war. Arynknight (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

Should there be a Criticisms section, or at least a mention. I know many people criticize National Catholic Reporter for being consistently out of line with Church teaching.--Minimidgy (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that if any criticisms are mentioned they need to be talked about, not simply listed. Ericsean (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Half of the article is now Criticisms. In my mind, that really slants this article.

U.S. Catholic

There is a similar review called U.S. Catholic which essentially covers the same issues as the NCR, except it is probably not as liberal as the latter. ADM (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material

The opening paragraph:

The National Catholic Reporter (NCR) is the leading independent Catholic newspaper in the United States. It is a non-profit, award-winning publication published since October 1964 by lay and religious of the Catholic Church in the United States. Its circulation reaches ninety-seven countries on six continents.

No sources are cited to back up the claims that the NCR is the leading independent Catholic newspaper in the US. No sources are cited regarding the reach of its circulation. Unless these claims can be backed up by NPOV sources, I will remove them. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reason to assume it is not? I did do a plausibility check a while ago and it appears correct, at least it has a high impact factor even outside the US. Richiez (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

These facts are not sourced, so I can assume nothing except that someone who is a fan of the NCR decided to do a little grandstanding. The burden of proof is not on me, it's on the person who put in the information. You're going to have to explain to me what a "plausibility check" is. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

For me a sufficient plausibility check is if a renowned newspaper across the ocean writes "National Catholic Reporter, ein Leitmedium des katholischen Amerikas" (http://www.zeit.de/2010/13/Papst-Missbrauchsskandal). Richiez (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Add it as a cite. :) --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It was just a plausibility check, if you think it should be used in the article it would be better to use a wording that better matches the citation, such as "Die Zeit, a leading German newspaper considers the NCR to be the constituent publicistic media of catholic America".. is there a better translation for de:Leitmedium? At which point we should find a source for the claim that Die Zeit is notable I guess. Richiez (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll get right to the point here. The information in the opening paragraph is not sourced. Nothing in the rest of the article goes back over the facts asserted in the opening paragraph to back them up and provide sources. Like I said above, it's up to the editors of the article who think that information should be included in the opening paragraph and is factually truthful to back it up with valid citations to reputable sources. Otherwise, I can only assume they're without substance and I would say the opening paragraph needs to be rewritten to have those sentences removed. If you want to insert something about what "Die Zeit" thinks about NCR, by all means. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not at your discretion to assume "they're without substance". Either you have reason to believe that the statement is actually wrong or you do not. If you believe it is wrong go ahead and remove the part, perhaps someone else will add back a reworded section, reads too much like an advertisement anyway. I think there should be a better reference than "Zeit" so I will simply wait and see if someone comes up with something better.

However removing stuff just because it is not sourced is borderline as long as it appears plausible so unless you have strong feelings about it I think it should be left with the cite tag pretty long before removing it. Richiez (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

There are some problems with this version:

• NCR describes itself as progressive or liberal but not dissident. Claiming that would require some recent sources.
• the "position of the church" section is apparently referring to some controversy from 1968. The position might have changed since then and the whole section is poorly sourced. The section might be reinstated if more/better sources are found under some other section name but the title should clearly say that it is not necessary the current position of the church.

Richiez (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

I gave the npov tag since the primary sources used in this article clearly focused on defending its own position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:3F:E75C:1B10:0:0:80:13 (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding quotes from John Zuhlsdorf

On behalf of Good Old Pete, I'm starting a discussion about adding a quoted section, which is said to be sourced to a blog by John Zuhlsdorf.

Good Old Pete (or others), could you please state why you think the information should be included, addressing any concerns editors have brought up? While we're discussing, I'm removing the content per WP:BRD. I ask that you please respect the BRD ("Bold, Revert, Discuss") cycle, and have a discussion first to gain consensus before adding content back in. This cycle is often used on Wikipedia when seeking consensus on adding content to articles.

Also, pinging Elizium23 and Pyramids09, since they were involved in the edit's removal or addition. - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

To kick things off, I think if Zuhlsdor is considered an "expert" in this field, a quote could be added per WP:RSSELF - I'm just not sure if he is one (since I haven't really heard of him), and I'm not sure how due weight a quote from him would be, so I would like to hear other's opinions.

Also, as an aside: I'm not discussing the second paragraph here because it really can't be added unless it's rewritten with a reliable, published source; original research (aka unpublished sources, which this seems to be) aren't allowed on Wikipedia. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for my tardiness in responding to you, I am not very active on Wikipedia as of now.

Neutrality is valued at Wikipedia, which would necessitate the presence of different perspectives and viewpoints, both for and against the subject in question, in order to present the whole picture and both sides of the arguments and not be biased towards or against any certain viewpoints.

Here in this article about the National Catholic Reporter, much is written about the positive aspects, such as the awards won, its founder's ideals, etc., but there isn't much written about the other viewpoints, such as the more current criticisms against the publication for being consistently out of line with various Catholic teachings and morals, so I thought it fitting to present here also the words of Father John Zuhlsdorf--an ordained Catholic priest well known(at least within the Catholic circles) for his blog and ideas, generally considered by many to be either conservative or traditionalist--a constant and strong critic of the publication, evident in his strong disdain for it through his blog. Putting opposing views would balance out the scale, enabling the readers to have a full and nuanced image of the publication through various perspectives. - Good Old Pete (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

climate change is the "No. 1 pro-life issue"

@FatalSubjectivities: Why did you delete the NCR assertion that climate change is the "No. 1 pro-life issue" facing the Church today:

===Specific issues=== ''NCR'' has asserted that climate change is the "No. 1 [[Pro-choice and pro-life|pro-life]] issue" facing the Catholic Church today.<ref name=star/><ref>{{cite news |date=May 20, 2014 |title=Climate change is church's No. 1 pro-life issue |url=https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/eco-catholic/editorial-climate-change-churchs-no-1-pro-life-issue |newspaper=National Catholic Reporter |volume=50 |issue=16 |page=28 |access-date=September 14, 2017}}</ref>

I have not been following NCR, but the issue seems to be substantially more pressing today than it was when the article cited was publishing in 2014. The URL given as a broken link. I found a more current one and created a reference in Wikidata, then reinstated that sentence without restoring your other deletions.

??? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)