Karl Keating's E-Letter of February 22, 2005

[dumbox1]

Karl,

While I admire (and envy) your forgiving spirit and your desire to see the best in everyone, I've got to think that someone doing a "good job journalistically" would have interviewed you before running the initial piece, not a week later.

And, in my opinion, would also have been considerably less snarky in the follow-up piece.

On the other hand, I was pleased to hear that the ranks of the world's Lucien Pulvermachers have now been joined by "the man critics derisively refer to as 'Pope Karl.'" If you need a crown, I have a friend who's a pretty good tinsmith.

Mark

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by Joe Kelley

Matthew 23:23-33
It is my impression that He is addressing a certain class of people who give equal weight to all issues. I'll leave you to draw your oun conclusions.

Thank you. Now I understand completely. And it is clear that some moral issues trump others.

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by Karl Keating

Yesterday I was interview by Joe Feuerherd of the "National Catholic Reporter." Nice guy, actually. He was doing a follow-up column that now is online at the paper's site, http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/washington. By going to the archive of his weekly columns you can read his piece from the prior week.

I sent him a note this morning, thanking him for quoting me correctly. Here's a guy with whom I disagree on many issues, both religious and political, yet he plays fair. Other reporters could take a cue from him.

Almost always when I have been interviewed, the resultant story has misquoted me. This includes not just the secular press but also the religious. Often it is a matter of sloppiness, but sometimes it clearly is a matter of ill will. You'd think the grossest violations would come from heterodox publications, but they have come instead from Traditionalist ones.

Isn't that an irony--publications that consider themselves defenders of the faith, even in contradistinction to "conservative" or (small-T) "traditional" Catholic publications, end up not playing fair, whereas a publication that few would label as orthodox does a good job journalistically.

I don't think it's a function of the publication as much as a function of the reporter. You happened upon a professional, honest one. How sad that is the exception and not the rule.

[IShawnM]

Someone forwarded to me Karl Keating's recent e-letter and I must say that it reads very well. As far as Catholic Answers (CA) being a "harasser" on voting issues, this is absurd. And far from being a blind parrot of CA, I have actually been very critical of them over the years where I deemed it warranted. This subject however is certainly not one of them.

In fact, I wrote a non-theological defense of the CA voting issues last September and among other things noted that the strengths of the CA guide compared to the USCCB guide was primarily in two areas: brevity and also properly focusing on truths in their proper hierarchial order. Congrats to Keating and company on a very useful and timely election product and may they influence even more voters in 2006, 2008, and subsequent elections after that.

[Jan2]

Does it bother anyone else out there that Mr. Keating chose to sit this one out? He didn't vote for President Bush or John Kerry or anyone else for that matter. What if we all took that approach? Any comments?

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by Jan2

Does it bother anyone else out there that Mr. Keating chose to sit this one out? He didn't vote for President Bush or John Kerry or anyone else for that matter. What if we all took that approach? Any comments?

Let's make a distinction between a moral choice and a correct choice. All correct choices are moral, but all moral choices are not necessarily correct.

The voters guide was a guide to making moral choices, not necessarily correct choices. It was left up to the reader to decide what he believed was the correct choice.

Voting for Kerry was an immoral choice. Voting for Bush or abstaining were both moral choices. I felt voting for Bush was the correct choice. Karl felt that abstaining was the correct choice.

My rationale was that abstaining benefited Kerry, therefore the correct choice was Bush. But I respect other opinions.

I would vote for a pro-abortion candidate over a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-gay marriage candidate, such as the choice for Senate this year in Pennsylvania. Others chose to abstain.

What do you and others think?

[Joe Kelley]

Originally Posted by qmvsimp

. . .
Voting for Kerry was an immoral choice. Voting for Bush or abstaining were both moral choices. I felt voting for Bush was the correct choice. Karl felt that abstaining was the correct choice.

My rationale was that abstaining benefited Kerry, therefore the correct choice was Bush. But I respect other opinions.

I would vote for a pro-abortion candidate over a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-gay marriage candidate, such as the choice for Senate this year in Pennsylvania. Others chose to abstain.

What do you and others think?

Agree.

[Karl Keating]

Originally Posted by Jan2

Does it bother anyone else out there that Mr. Keating chose to sit this one out? He didn't vote for President Bush or John Kerry or anyone else for that matter. What if we all took that approach? Any comments?

I didn't say that I didn't vote for anyone. I said I didn't vote for either Kerry or Bush. One of the reasons I didn't vote for the latter was that I felt it was important not to give people such as Frances Kissling even the remotest leg to stand on in claiming that Catholic Answers is a partisan organization that designed its voter's guide to be a clever endorsement of the incumbent.

[Jan2]

I misunderstood and took "I sat this one out" as to mean that Mr. Keating didn't vote and that is what I would have had the problem with.