CMTV: Journalists, Story Tellers, Judges or Tale Bearers? How to decide! (aka Catholic Principles for Assessing Accusations of Wrongdoing)

+

JMJ

Is CMTV a reliable source of Catholic news? Are they journalists, Story Tellers, Judges or Tale Bearers?

This are good questions given their approach.

With regards to their reliability as a Catholic News source, we know that their audience is more 'conservative' than Catholic (see this article).  The New York Times is just as reputable a source of news and just like CMTV there are practicing Catholics within their ranks. So CMTV, based on their audience can't make the claim that they are a 'Catholic' news source, even if its members are practicing Catholics and they have a private chapel in their studios.

For years I have been ignoring Michael Voris because his story was always the same. After a while the "sky is falling" becomes a little redundant. Frankly, when Michael Voris made his vow of consecration in 'public' on his video channel - I was turned off and this was solidified when he started attacking the SSPX with various allegations since his spat with Louie Verrecchio.

Ironically, their recent spurt of articles on the SSPX has been beneficial in my assessment since I know or have known many of the accused people. This has given me the impetus to pay a little more attention to what they are saying after years of ignoring their continual focus on the worst of the members of the Catholic Church.

My over all perspective is that it is shoddy journalism that is masking an attempt to link the SSPX to socially abhorrent themes: Nazism, child abuse. I also noted actual mistakes in their story telling, particularly concerning Fr. Lucas, and I have begun to wonder if, at least in regard to the SSPX they aren't simply tale bearers.

Churches historically have been soft targets for people who either are or become abusers. This is because they are largely organizations of trust.  Also organizations that have a set of principles that can be leveraged by those of malicious intent - including Mr. Voris.  Strong words, but keep in mind that this isn't journalism, this is a campaign the is mixing truth, hyperbole and falsehood.

This is the first thing that jumps out at me when I read Ms. Niles articles, they paint the SSPX with a fairly wide brush. This appears to be an attempt to see where the paint will stick.  Hence the reason for including the 'nazi' accusation.   Even Dr.Lamont's May 16, 2020 article of branches off into this area of speculation.

In my research for this post, I did some dredging into the various Nazism allegations made by others against the SSPX and in particulate Fr. Angles. I found that the CMTV articles have regurgitated some of these decade old allegations.  These were denied by those accused, including Fr. Angles, and while helpful what was even more useful was that I knew the accusers personally and based on that knowledge would have simply dismissed their accusations.  In other words, I know them to not be credible witnesses.  Fr. Rizzo is another issue, but my knowledge of the situation is second hand so I'll leave that one lie where it is.

Catholic Principles

What principles should be followed in the discovery of alleged and actual wrong-doing such as abuse by a person in a position of authority? 

These are two very different situations and the distinction needs to be upheld even in the face of a media campaign being executed by CMTV.  I know of a case where allegations were made that would have left physical evidence of abuse.  When clinicians did the check, no evidence was found. The result is months of anguish for the accused and the proof of lies from the accuser.

So when an accusation is made, it may or may not be true.

Principle #1: While trying to determine its credibility, both in Religious and Legal matters, confidentiality needs to be maintained in order to preserve the privacy of both the accused and the accuser. In my experience, when an accuser has recourse to the 'court of public opinion' the story "grows in the telling".

Principle #2: You cannot unjustly damage another's reputation by accusing them of a crime they did not commit. This is the sin of calumny.

Principle #3: You cannot unjustly damage another's reputation by accusing them of a crime that they have either actually or most probably committed.  This is the sin of detraction.

So 'going public' is not the Catholic way to handle alleged cases of abuse.  Going to the authorities is the right way, attempting to preserve the reputation of those involved.  As noted these stories sometimes grow in the telling and automatically believing the accuser without giving the accused the benefit of the doubt is wrong. 

Principle #4: If the seal of confession is involved, a priest cannot protect himself unless released by the accuser.

Hitchcock's move "I confess" is a good example of how a priest can be trapped. Interestingly I saw it at St. Mary's.

Some of the cases have their roots in the confessional and this is where I begin to become critical because the priest cannot defend themselves unless the accuser gives them the permission which they are likely to withhold.

Principle #5: People have rights to privacy and very few people have a 'right' to know about abuse that has occurred. In one case the SSPX was criticized for not revealing the name of an abuse victim.  Those in authority who are investigating the allegation have a right, because they have a duty.

Principles #6: There is more than one side to the story.  There is a reason why the police get as many witnesses as possible.  Everyone sees events through their own perceptual window and have less than perfect objective recall of events. In cases of cognitive dissonance and mental health (to name a few) a person may skew and alter a story, leaving out information that undermines their perspective, emphasizing their perspective and sometime make stuff up.

Principle #7: Situations and people change.  A decision made in 2000 may be altered due to a change in circumstances and / or the persons involved.  To understand this change it is necessary to know the rationale for the change. 

Principle #8: Personal opinion is not fact. This is a universal opinion applying to everyone and especially to those who venture to offer an opinion in an area outside their knowledge domain.  This applies to revered theologians, scientists and laity.

So, looking at the CMTV stories, do they or their sources violate these principles? 

Yep, in various stories they have collectively violated  most if not all.

So is CMTV an acronym for 'Church Militant Television', with Church Militant being a synonym for "Catholic".  Given that they lack adherence to Catholic principles, I think not.

Fundamentally, CMTV doesn't have a 'right to know' and to answer the original question - they are Tale Bearers.

P^3

Key definitions from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

1. Calumny:In its more commonly accepted signification it means the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty.

2. Detraction: Detraction is the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer.

3. Seal of Confession: Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

4. Allegations: Allegedly is a term that is an adverb meaning according to what has been alleged or claimed; according to something claimed to be true but not yet proven.

5. Hearsay:

5.1 Evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them (Duhaime.org - sadly now a deadlink)

5.2 Written or oral statements, or communicative conduct made by persons otherwise than in testimony at the proceeding in which it is offered, are inadmissible, if such statements or conduct are tendered either as proof of their truth or as proof of assertions implicit therein

5.3 Hearsay evidence may be admitted where its admission is necessary to prove a fact in issue and the evidence is reliable.

5.4 The law does not permit a man to give evidence which from its very nature shows that there is better evidence within his reach, which he does not produce.

6. Tale Bearer: one that spreads gossip or rumors. Google: a person who maliciously gossips or reveals secrets.

7. Journalist: a person who writes news stories or articles for a newspaper or magazine or broadcasts them on radio or television