« Faith-Based Goodness | Main | Our man, N.T. »
September 24, 2005
Now it can be told
Believe it or not, I'm on the Sunday NYTimes op-ed page.
(Or at least the "Week in Review" section - somewhere....)
The piece is okay - it's really, really, really short - 150 words shorter than I originally wrote (per instructions). So, it's not real deep, but..WHO CARES?!!!! This is how it happened:
Actually, I'm not sure how it happened. Wednesday, I got a call from someone at the Times asking me to write this. Yeah. I got invited to write this. I'm still flabbergasted. So that's what I did the rest of the day on Wednesday and on Thursday morning. Took my cel to Columbus, consulted with my "boss" at the Times on the way, he told me he was sending edits, and I really, really needed to do them Thursday night. So, I got back after 11 from Columbus, sat down, exhausted, and tried to think through the edits. Many more phone calls on Friday morning, meat-grinding the thing so it got shrunk from its original 750 to less than 600 words (and if you want to quibble with the depth of analysis in the piece, you try to make serious points on a complex issue in less than 600 words.). I haven't said anything about it up to this point, because I'm so superstitious, I just knew that if I did, it wouldn't get published.
Oh, and the fellow at the Times - I'm not sure of his title - couldn't have been nicer. He is a blog reader, understands the issues, and was very, very helpful, and hopeful about getting the piece in. In other words, even though I wished the piece could have been longer, I felt he was totally on my side, and I appreciated it. So there you have it. We can hope that more are in the future - hopefully on topics that I'm a bit more of an expert on,to tell the truth...
Sincerely yours,
Still Shocked.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8342b8c8753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Now it can be told:
» Amy Welborn makes the NYT from Ephemeris
New York Times that is. She’s been published in the Op-Ed section. She talks about the upcoming seminary visitations down in the States. She broke the news on her own Blog today... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 24, 2005 10:46:38 PM
» Amy Welborn on the Vatican seminary visitation from Noli Irritare Leones
Catholic blogger Amy Welborn makes the Sunday New York Times op ed page (and its actually even in the part that you can read without paying) on the Vatican seminary visitation.
... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 24, 2005 11:20:13 PM
Comments
Hmmm ... how long before this generates 300+ comments?
Posted by: Victor Morton at Sep 24, 2005 9:01:41 PM
Amy,
Extremely well done. A great piece of writing with a great take on the facts. The whole subject of how the seminaries have fallen down on their duty to screen out problem priests-to-be deserves more examination.
Posted by: Jim at Sep 24, 2005 9:02:01 PM
Great article, as always. Congratulations! Hope you get published in the NYT more often... that paper could do fine with a little more objetivity towards the Church in general, instead of the radical anti-clericalism it shows most of the time.
Sincerely,
Glad to Be Surprised
Posted by: Veronica at Sep 24, 2005 9:08:38 PM
ITA with Jim -- an excellent job all around, Amy, and with such a small amount of room to work in! I'm sure you are presenting aspects of the seminary visits that never would have occurred to the general public. Since it's unlikely that a media "regular" would be able or willing to discuss the seminary visits as a positive things, your piece is really performing a wonderful service.
Posted by: Joan at Sep 24, 2005 9:10:18 PM
What Joan said.
I hope you got paid for this, Amy.
Posted by: Anne-Marie at Sep 24, 2005 9:28:24 PM
Excellent job in giving a broader perspective in a short space.
One humble quibble: I wish you could have included these 9 words (or their equivalent):
There are excellent seminarians who become wonderful priests, however...
Posted by: penitens at Sep 24, 2005 9:31:15 PM
I did have a sentence much like that, penitens. It got cut. Along with a lot of other sentences...Ah, well.
Posted by: amy at Sep 24, 2005 9:32:48 PM
Bravo! Encore, encore!
Posted by: Todd at Sep 24, 2005 9:36:04 PM
Excellent! Too often a Catholic response to events like this in the MSM would sound defensive or holier-than-thou, but you tell the truth and disabuse the misinformed without apology or arrogance. Very, very cool.
Posted by: Bob at Sep 24, 2005 9:39:03 PM
Huzzah!
Posted by: Angus Dwyer at Sep 24, 2005 9:44:06 PM
Now when can we get you into the Boston Globe? Although you'd have to post it for me to know, since I refuse to buy and usually don't read the thing...
Posted by: scotch meg at Sep 24, 2005 9:47:22 PM
Excellent, especially given the constraints. Thank you for writing this - and thanks also to the person at the Times who decided to call you.
Posted by: Aristotle A. Esguerra at Sep 24, 2005 10:08:15 PM
Congrats, and I hope it's just the first of more to come there. Also congrats for not being locked behind that stupid New York Times Select paywall.
Posted by: Christopher Fotos at Sep 24, 2005 10:11:56 PM
Well done! Thanks
Posted by: Paul Pfaffenberger at Sep 24, 2005 10:14:05 PM
Christopher -
I know - I thought that all editorial would be behind the firewall, so I didn't think anyone would be able to read it, anyway. I guess on Sunday, they just have more stuff in that "Week in Review section" so they set some of it free...
Posted by: amy at Sep 24, 2005 10:29:08 PM
Way to go!
Good points, concisely made.
Ya done good.
Posted by: Mary Kay at Sep 24, 2005 10:44:40 PM
Nicely done!
Posted by: PMC at Sep 24, 2005 10:47:24 PM
That's a pretty great 600 words. I'm gonna buy a hard copy tomorrow to see how it looks on the Gray Lady's printed page.
Posted by: Bernardo at Sep 24, 2005 10:52:21 PM
Your column was perfect! I hope the seminary reviews are done well. It is nice to see a published opinion of those of us in the pews with a love for the Church and an impatience for some well needed seminary and clergy cleansing. AMEN!
Posted by: Pam at Sep 24, 2005 10:55:52 PM
Cool! Congratulations!
Posted by: Lynn Gazis-Sax at Sep 24, 2005 11:20:40 PM
Excellent article -- very well put.
Posted by: Christopher Blosser at Sep 24, 2005 11:20:48 PM
Great article. I can only imagine how it felt to get that call from the Times! And I think you did a great job of condensing it down into an intelligible 600 word piece.
One quibble (but having been forced to distill a difficult point into a brief article myself, I understand you didn't have the space to make the point I would have liked to have seen):
The same goes for the presence in seminaries of gay subcultures that draw their identity from secular values rather than the Catholic moral vision. Why is it considered unfair to expect priests and seminarians to live by the values of the institution they serve? Others may call it a purge, but I call it truth in advertising.
At issue in the proposed ban on same-sex attracted seminarians is not whether or not seminarians live by the values of the institution they serve. I fully agree that same-sex attracted seminarians who "draw their identity from secular values rather than the Catholic moral vision" or who violate their commitment to chastity should be removed from the seminary.
At issue, however, is the fate of seminarians who, to paraphrase the words of the rite of ordination to the diaconate, believe the Church's teaching on sexual morality, teach what they believe, and live what they teach--who have successfully resisted the temptation to violate that teaching. Should such men be barred, solely because of their sexual orientation?
I have a friend who is in the seminary. I expect he'll be a great priest. But when he was in his teens and early twenties, he was sexually active a couple of women. He now sees the error of his ways, has repented, and is zealous for promoting chastity. Should this disqualify him? Of course not: such a standard would have disqualified St. Augustine.
But when I hear him rant about how homosexually attracted men have no place in the seminary, even if they are chaste, I cannot help but wonder how qualified he is to cast the first stone.
I do not think it is unfair for priests to be expected to live by the values of the institution they serve. But the ban is more complicated than that. It accepts one class of men who have committed and repented of mortal sin; it excludes another class even if they have successfully resisted a particular temptation all of their life. Is there a prudential justification for it? Perhaps. But there is more than mere truth in advertising at work.
You are quite right to point out that the visitation deals with many issues not related to homosexuality, and that there are many pressing needs for seminary reform that do not touch on the sexual attractions of seminarians.
But I doubt it is controversial, even at the New York Times, to think that seminaries have good reason to crack down on (for example) seminarians who are driving under the influence.
The focus on the question on homosexuality stems in part, of course, from the degree to which the secular ethos of the gay rights movement permeates society. But I also think that it stems from the perception that there is an injustice here, even judged by the Church's own teaching as articulated over the last several decades:
The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life. -- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," October 1, 1986.
Is the perception that the ban represents a change in the way the Church sees men and women with same-sex attraction accurate? Or is it a fair prudential judgment to remove those with same-sex attractions from the seminaries? I do not know, and I am not privy to nearly as much information about the situation as those who have made this decision.
I accept, of course, the Church's authority to make this kind of determination, and I will abide by it and encourage others to do so. But at a gut level, I cannot see the removal of chaste seminarians with same-sex attraction as nothing more than "truth in advertising."
I apologize for taking up so much comment space on what is a minor point in the article. I am very happy for you that you have had this opportunity and wish you many future opportunities like it.
- Ron
Posted by: Ron Belgau at Sep 25, 2005 12:50:27 AM
Amy, I'm not surprised about the Times editing out good stuff about the Church.
Posted by: penitens at Sep 25, 2005 1:18:08 AM
Loved it, and may your book that got mentioned at the bottom sell many, many copies today.
Posted by: Anna at Sep 25, 2005 5:54:21 AM
Awesome! Congratulations!
Posted by: Tim F. at Sep 25, 2005 6:17:57 AM
