When a 375 Word Rebuttal is just not Enough – UPDATED

Last updated on: March 2, 2017 at 9:02 pm by Elizabeth Scalia

When a 375 Word Rebuttal is just not Enough – UPDATED 2017-03-02T21:02:51+00:00 Elizabeth Scalia

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Image courtesy of shutterstock.com

A few days ago I received an invite from a major US newspaper (one I like and even count among its contributors a friend or two) asking if I would be interested in writing a 375 word rebuttal to an editorial; its publication next week will apparently identify the problems within the Catholic church, as this editorial board sees them, and would proceed (I presume) to make its recommendations as to what the church should do in order to (again, I presume) get into the good graces of the world.

I say presume because, while the editorial board wanted my very brief rebuttal, they chose to send me only an excerpt of their piece.

An excerpt was enough for me to realize that accepting this invite would be at best a futile endeavor and at worst, a sucker’s bet. The former assumes invincible ignorance on the part of the paper’s writers, which can be taken in good faith; the latter assumes malice.

I have no idea whether the editorial meant to be malicious so I will prefer to think the best and believe that the writers meant well, but were overwhelmed. After all, it is a daunting (impossible, really) thing to attempt to both diagnose the ills of the Roman Catholic Church and also prescribe the remedies — with anything resembling real wisdom — in 700 words.

So try doing a rebuttal in 375.

I wrote 600 explaining why I would not be accepting their invite, and decided to post it here, for the sake of everyone who writes about the church (either for secular or religious venues) because a great deal of the friction between the church and major media stems from a simple fact: the history, reasonings, profound sins, and unappreciated accuracies of the church are such that volumes are required to expound on even their most minute points, while television allows three minutes to break it down, and print media likes it under 1,000 words.

Anyone interested in understanding Catholicism, in all of its faults and all of its greatness, needs to invest time in serious readings from many sources; the New Testament, the Catechism, the documents of the Second Vatican Council; the writings of the Church Doctors and the lives and writings of the saints. One cannot understand the Catholic church — not in the least — unless one can comprehend how persons as disparate in background and outlook as G.K. Chesterton and Dorothy Day would willingly refer to themselves as Catholicism’s “obedient” children, and be beloved within it.

That’s just to start. More modern overviews like Father Robert Barron’s Catholicism would help. Any of the writings of layfolk like Alice von Hildebrand, Paul Claudel, Elisabeth Leseur or Heather King would help. Some time spent amid the writings of Joseph Ratzinger would help.

Absent that, the press — really all media venues — cannot help but fall short. But an absence of knowledge should not preclude a fair attempt at understanding or, at the very least, a few cursory nods to the notion of balance.

It was the absence of any evidence of the slightest attempt at balance, in the excerpt the newspaper provided, that prompted this response:

Thanks for inviting me to participate in this, but I’m not sure how I could take it on with any sense of personal integrity. Quite honestly, I don’t think 375 words, no matter how clearly or artfully written, could be useful in response to that excerpt, the very first line of which so overgeneralizes and pollutes the discussion that it would require the full word limit you’re offering me to begin to rebut it.

Then there is the next line. And the rest of it. I couldn’t possibly convey in 375 words why Catholics understand — as do Buddhists, by the way — that while a monk or priest might be in a sinful state, the sacraments and duties he participates in are not rendered void because of his personal flaws and faults, because his office is something separate and beyond the natural man; it is supernatural, as is our belief that the Holy Spirit has a say in these proceedings, however slowly we may understand.

Would it be better if someone like Cardinal Mahony withdrew from the conclave, as O’Brien did this week? Sure, but Mahony’s ego (burnished all these years, btw, by a press that adored him) isn’t having any of it. Neither a pope (nor the camerlengo who is now nominally in charge) are CEOs who can just fire these guys. The church does not operate like the world. I could attempt to explain to you, from a supernatural point of view, how the holy and the profane are always side-by-side, or even suggest to you that, in a way of thinking, the presence of some dubious Cardinals in the conclave might well be a very good reminder to the college that our messes and penances are not behind us, which could both keep the Cardinals humble and be the impetus for deep prayer before they make their votes. But not as part of a 375 word rebuttal.

Do you see the problem? I would need 375 words to rebut almost every line of this excerpt!

I’m not sure what your writer means by “fresh start” but the suggestion that immediately follows those words (that the church has apparently done nothing to “confront the sex abuse scandal”) is so dishonest and demonstrably false that it illustrates how little good faith exists in this editorial — or at least in what you have shown me; if there is nothing of good faith here, how could anyone possibly respond in good faith — which is how I would want to — or to any fair effect?

“Nothing in these cardinal’s histories…” seems to imply that none of the Cardinals are worthy (something none of us could possibly know) and if it’s not implying it, then it’s painting, once again, with such a sloppily over-generalizing brush as to not mind leaving that impression. And the whole “restore her moral authority” bit is laughable because for secularists, at least on pelvic issues, her moral authority has been discredited since approximately 1968.

I’m not trying to be rude; I’m actually trying to demonstrate that it’s much easier for you to assert something in a single line than it is for anyone to (in rebuttal) foment understanding — not agreement, mind you but simple, clear understanding — in a corresponding sentence. This editorial appears to be seeking reaction, not genuine response. It is an attempt to throw every sin, fault and failing of the church into the mix, sentence-by-period-hammered-sentence with no attempt at balance. I imagine the rest of the editorial consists of the writers telling the church what she needs to do to become relevant and acceptable to the secular culture, and that it’s the usual stale stuff. That I have to make that assumption because you would not offer me a chance to read the whole is yet another reason I wonder about good-faith. I prefer to assume accident to malice, but there it is.

So, with all due respect, I think I will take a pass; I have a very full plate and frankly didn’t need to stop everything to write a 700 word response to you, but I thought it fair to explain my thinking, and perhaps I am hoping that your editorial writers will take a second look at what they’re putting together, find perhaps one or two urgent issues on which to give balanced address, and save the rest for another time.

The conclave, after all, will not be over in a day. You could probably pull one sentence a day — from that excerpt alone — and build an interesting, more thoughtful and useful editorial out of it.

All the best,

UPDATE:
Remember the part where I wrote, “an absence of knowledge should not preclude a fair attempt at understanding or, at the very least, a few cursory nods to the notion of balance“?

Well, Father James Martin, in a rare rant, expounds on a similar theme on Facebook:

…the number of misinformed articles I’ve read about celibacy, the priesthood, the papacy, the church in this country, the causes of the sexual abuse crisis, church authority, papal infallibility, the role of the magisterium, life in a religious order, the vow of chastity, and Benedict XVI, just boggles the mind. Or at least my mind, which perhaps is too easily boggled. Needless to say, I don’t expect commentators to know everything about the church. (I sure don’t.) But I think it’s a reasonable to expect that people should refrain from commenting (especially publicly) on stuff that they clearly don’t know much about.

In response, I’m going to start writing pieces and submitting op-eds about the most recent developments in quantum physics, the challenges of the last three months of pregnancy, the most efficient way to install a dishwasher…

There’s more, and you’ll likely enjoy it.

Catholicism

Saints

The Fourth Estate

Previous Post

March 1, 2013

Taking Down Benedict; Taking Down Woodward

Next Post

March 4, 2013 Did Mahony Crib a Joseph Notion from a Patheos Blogger?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category "Remaking" Ourselves 'Remaking' America 9/10 Mindset 9/11 trials Abortion ACORN Adoration Advent Advent 2008 Advent 2009 Advent 2010 Alternative Energy Alternative Media America American Catholic Church American Church American Genius Ameridolatry ANCHORESS BOOKSHELF Anglican-Roman Reconciliation Answers & Questions Anti_Semitism Archbishop Hilarion Ayn Rand Bad Mass Barack Obama Baseball Benedict Benedict & Islam Benedict in UK Benedict XVI Benedictine Bill Whittle Birth Control Blogs and Blogging Blogs and Blogging Bloodless Coup Bobby Jindal Bookchat Breitbart Bride at every wedding... Bride at every wedding... Buckley Bullies Bush Bad? Bush Good Buster Capitalism Catholic Fiction Catholic Vocations Catholicism Celibacy Chaput Charitable Stuff Chesterton Chile Chris Christie Christians in Exile Christine O' Donnell Christmas Christmas Gift Ideas Church Hates Science? Church hates women Communion of Saints Compline Conclave 2013 Confession Constitutional Stuff Conversion Crisis & Opportunity Critical Thinking Crooks and Liars Crucible of Faith Cuba Culture of Life Culture of Life/Death Culture of Treason? Dancing Death Dialogue re Islam Dick Meyer Divorce and Remarriage DOJ Domestic Terrorism Dominican Order Don't try me too high Dowd Dumb Democrat moves Dumb GOP moves Economic woe Education Egregious Harry Reid Elder Son Elder Son's Sweet Girlfriend Elderly Election '10 Election '12 Election '16 Election 2004 Election 2006 Election 2008 Election 2010 Election 2016 Elena Kagan Elitism Embryonic Stem Cell Research End Times? English language Enhanced Interrogation Erosion of Rights Eucharist Euthanasia Exorcism Extraordinary Synod Facebook Faith Faith and Reason Faith Friday Faith Perspective Faithful Friday Fascism Again Fascism in America Fatima FCC Feminism Film First Things Forgiveness Fr. James Martin Francis and Islam Francis in America Frassati Fred Thompson Free Speech? Freedom of Worship FutureChurch Global Pandemic GOP Congress Haiti Head Covering Health Care Here and Queer Hermits Heroes Hitchens Holy Spirit Holy Week '09 Holy Week '10 Hoo-Hah & BS Hoo-Hah & BS Icons Illegal Immigration In The Arena Interviews Interwebz Iran Uprising Iraqi Christians ISIL ISIS Islamic State Islamification/Islamofascism Islamification/Islamofascism Isra-El It's all about me! Me! ME! James Burke Jerry Lewis Jesus Christ Joblessness John Boehner John McCain John Paul II John XXIII Juan Williams Just Words Katrina/Rita King is a Fink Latin Mass Leadership Lectio Divina Lent Lent '08 Lent '09 Lent 2010 Lent 2011 Limbaugh Listen to Lizzie Litigious Society Liturgy Liturgy of the Hours Mainstream Media Manliness Marriage Mary Media Excess Medical Merton Michelle Obama Mighty John O' Connor Misc. Miss Ella Missionaries Mitt Romney Monasticism My brother S My Irish Aunties Mystic Monks Nanny Statism Nature NEA Neri New Media Newman Noonan Notre Dame NPR Stuff Nun News Obama Bad? Obama Good? Obama White House Oil Spill Online Retreat '08 Online Retreat Days Oratory Orthodoxy Our Hillary! Parenting Passionists Patheos Patheos Book Club Patrons Paul Ryan Penance Penn Jillette Philosophy PJTV Podcasts Poetry Politics-free zone Pop Culture Pope Emeritus Pope Francis Prayer Predictions Priesthood Pro-Life Public Sector Unions Purgatory Questions about Catholicism Quotes of the Day Quoting the News Race in America rants Recipes Remarried Catholics Reposts by request Retreat thoughts Rome Rudy Giuliani Russia Saints Sarah Palin Scandal Scott Brown SCOTUS Scriptural stuff Secularism Send in the clowns Serving up hot links Sexuality Sherrod Shroud of Turin Sisters and Nuns Social Entrepreneurship Social Media Social Security Socialism doesn't work Sports and Faith Stem Cells Strange Gods Suffering Synod Tea Parties Tea Party Terri Schiavo The 9/11 Commission The Catholic Answer The Constitution The Desert The Fourth Estate The Pelosi The Perpetual Adolescents The Rosary Third Party? Timothy Dolan Touch of evil TSA Tsunami TV/Pop Culture/Music TV/Pop Culture/Music Twitter Uncategorized Unemployment Unintended Consequences US Military Vaginal Musings Vatican Vespers video faves Vile Joe Biden Voter Fraud War by Litigation War on Terror War, What it good for? Why can't weeee be ... World Youth Days Year of Faith Year of the Priest

Select a Month August 2016 July 2016 April 2016 March 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Old Testament prophet confronted King Ahab about worshiping Baal?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Jeremiah Ezekiel Elijah Isaiah