Censorship casts dark shadow over church - Catholic press - Editorial

National Catholic Reporter, May 28, 1993

The views of Benedictine Sister (and NCR columnist) Joan Chittister, it seems, are no longer "orthodox" enough to appear in a diocesan newspaper. A local theologian found them to be "theologically incorrect," so the associate publisher, over the objections of staff, killed the Chittister interview (column, page 14). That is censorship.

It matters not that Chittister was "correct" enough to have headed her religious community. It matters not that she was correct enough to have been chosen to head the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, umbrella network of U.S. women religious communities. It matters not that she is one of the most sought after U.S. Catholic speakers.

Chittister will survive. It is the Catholics of a local diocese who end up the losers.

Broader issues are involved here. Let us consider two: Catholic attitude and journalistic professionalism.

Attitude: The question comes down to whether we Catholics treat each other as thinking adults. Or not. Either we consider ourselves mutually engaged in an ongoing faith conversation, thinking and speaking, sharing and reflecting. Or not. Either we challenge each other. Or we sit back and "let Father tell us" what to think and do.

This is not to say we stop looking to our bishops as teachers. It is to point out that no single Catholic has all the answers. Our Catholic conversations, to maintain vitality, need to remain catholic.

Teaching the faith, passing it from generation to generation, is a challenging and complex matter, especially in Western society, where competing ideas and values come daily to the collective marketplace. All the more reason that Catholic ideas present themselves in open and engaging ways. The "don't think; listen to Father" variety no longer sells. Its days have passed and failure to recognize this only impedes the health and growth of the church.

Too often censorship in the name of "orthodoxy" has far less to do with gaining a greater grasp of the substance of belief than with preserving the coziness of the status quo. Welcome to the world of self-serving, small-mindedness, the intellectual "Bosnia" of religious cleansing. It is a dark place where truth-seekers roam and suspicion reigns. It is a place were speaking your mind could cost you your family's livelihood. It is a world where Christianity gets turned on its head.

If Catholic religious cleansing were the rare exception, we would somehow learn to live with its advocates, make peace with them, much as one makes peace with an eccentric uncle. There must be, we say, room at the alter for all. The problem is, however, the cleansers seldom share that view. In their eyes, "purity" is seldom ever achieved and more and more of the "unorthodox" find themselves outside the inner circle. Chittister is only the latest on a long list of victims.

Journalistic professionalism: Eventually, each Catholic bishop must choose. He must decide whether to publish a diocesan newspaper or a chancery house organ. Never the twain shall meet.

The former, the newspaper, abhors censorship of any kind. It reports and comments on the life of the church honestly and openly, blemishes and all. The bottom line is to inform readers about the church and the world in which it operates. It supplies accurate information, including the official teachings of the church.

It also provides a reflective forum for a multitude of views, including, at times, what might be perceived as dissenting views. The theory rests upon the assumption that an open flow of information is vital to the formation of sound judgment and the growth of faith.

A house organ, on the other hand, regularly censors itself. For the most part, it offers one view, the official view. Through editing decisions, it presents the church not as it is, but as one person -- most often the bishop or someone representing him -- might want it to be, cleansed of blemishes and controversy. It portrays official teachings while largely or entirely excluding other Catholic views.

Throughout the world, the peoples of struggling nations are making great sacrifices, often with their lives, to gain a free press. Without it, they know, they live in bondage. Censorship is not a small matter.

Robert G. Hoyt, NCR's first editor, working toward greater freedom for the Catholic press, wrote in 1963: "Freedom of the Catholic press is not an end in itself; it is instrumental to the freedom of the reader, without which he cannot be a responsible participant in the life of the church."

Will we take our participation seriously? Will our diocesan newspapers be allowed freedom from outside censorship? That depends on their bishops. Unfortunately, recent trends indicate freedom within the diocesan press is waning. Recently, editors who have resisted restrictions have lost their jobs.

Take the case of Joe Michael Feist, former editor in chief of thie Texas Catholic. Last January, his bishop, Charles Grahmann, told him he had one day to clean out his desk and leave.