Elena 
I don’t usually agree with Mr. Shea. However I think he was spot on in his defense of Mr. Hudson.
That such vindictive bullshit justifies itself as “Catholic journalism” is, in its own way, as contemptible as “pastoral oversight” that overlooks the sins of predator priests. In both cases, the Guardians of the Faith are guarding against the wrong things. Bad bishops have been guarding against children who might bother impenitent priests and impenitent bishops. Now the Reporter is guarding against a penitent man experiencing the mercy of God. It would be one thing if (like Ono Ekeh) Hudson had been lobbying to ignore the Church’s teaching with puff pieces in Crisis asking “What’s so Bad about Adultery?” as Ekeh used Church resources to do puff pieces for John “Abortion is My Main Sacrament” Kerry. But he didn’t. Nor did his work with Crisis or the Bushies amount to anything other than using his charisms and attempting to work out his salvation with fear and trembling like the rest of us. I disagreed with some of Hudson’s politics. But the idea of seizing on his forgiven sins–sins which concern nobody but his family, himself, his victim, and his God–and using them as a weapon against him *after* he has made his peace with all those who were truly involved… this is as satanic a violation of the sacrament of confession as a predator priest is of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Hudson didn’t claim to be a saint. He claimed to be a forgiven sinner. He simply tried to articulate, to the best of his ability, what the Church said and to live out, to the best of his ability, his political views. By their action, the Reporter has made the whole Church a less safe place for any of us to seek the mercy of Christ.
So what good was accomplished by the Reporter’s despicable act of detraction? Not one damn thing that I can think of. Nobody was “protected” from anything by it (as, for instance, the exposure of an undisciplined predator priest would do). A wife was made to suffer again. Some children were forced to endure humiliation and shame. A few gossips and members of the Amorphous Catholic Star Chamber of the Internet were thrown fresh meat. The sacrament of Reconcilation was, once again, shown to be applicable to Me and Those Like Me but not to one of those Awful People Over There, a “Catholic” journalist got thirty pieces of silver from the NY Times for making clear that “we believe in the forgiveness of sins” is one of those airy theological abstractions with no connection to real life and, oh yes, a minor political skirmish in the great battle for the Presidency of the United States was won by the Reporter. Big whoop.
I also think this commentor on that item said an interesting bit:
Mark, the NCR article was simply an attempt to defend its faith. Not the Catholic faith of course; NCR, despite its title, has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Its faith is the faith of political liberalism that has its latest avatar in Mr. Kerry. Mr. Hudson is an avowed enemy of this faith, and therefore he had to be attacked. I am sure the reporter regrets causing pain to the wife and children of Mr. Hudson, but the higher good of protecting the reporter’s faith was served. Expect much more of the same before this, the nastiest of all presidential campaigns since World War II, is completed.
Please feel free to leave a comment under the posting, or sign my Spiritbook (guestbook). You can chat with me on the tag board to the right!
