Andrew Sullivan spins and spins

Avatar

Erik Kain

Erik writes about video games at Forbes and politics at Mother Jones. He's the contributor of The League though he hasn't written much here lately. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

9 Responses

  1. Avatar John Henry
    Ignored
    says:

    “…call them on it when they rush to judgment before all the facts are in.”

    That’s not even what’s going on here. The facts are in. They’re either just beeing selectively presented by biased sources ( Weakland and the NYT) or completely misrepresented (Sullivan and his talk of a cover-up). Does anyone really think that Benedict’s deputy cancelling a trial for a guy who was about to die (and did die two days later) is a scandal? I don’t see it.Report

  2. Avatar John Howard Griffin
    Ignored
    says:

    I understand your point about Sullivan using sinister looking pictures. But, aren’t you using favorable looking pictures for similar reasons (to cast the Pope in a more favorable light)? Or, at least, aren’t you avoiding using pictures of the Pope that you think look sinister for similar reasons?Report

  3. Avatar Barry
    Ignored
    says:

    Sullivan has been a lost cause for some time now. He clearly lacks the proper disposition – thoughtful, reflective, resistant to the onrush of heated emotions – to be a good blogger. He’s basically everything that someone like Douthat isn’t. Sullivan needs to get away from blogging and write a book (maybe he’s working on something and I’m just unaware).Report

  4. Avatar Ryan Davidson
    Ignored
    says:

    Yeah, I’ve been frustrated by Sullivan–who is engaging in person even if still prone to derangement on certain issues–for years now. He seems incapable of forming a dispassionate argument about almost anything anymore.

    Sometimes, when he’s talking about friendship, for example, this is a good thing, because it’s an inherently emotional issue which treating without personal engagement would be unsatisfying. But politics–and this is a political issue–is not one of those times. Sullivan hasn’t been a credible voice about Catholicism for a while now.

    Oddly enough, I’m also finding that he isn’t a terribly compelling voice about homosexuality, either. He didn’t always accuse everyone who disagrees with him of homophobia, and time and again he’ll bring up that canard when there are far more obvious and relevant explanations ready to hand.

    It’s disappointing, really. I love his prose, and his earlier work manifests the possibility of careful, deeply human thought. I wish that Sullivan would resurface.Report

  5. Avatar Michael Drew
    Ignored
    says:

    E.D., you have the core of a strong case here: that the evidence is not all in and the Benedicts role in scandals present and past is far from clear or proven malevolent. I disagree about where the presumption should lie in this kind of case, but that is neither here nor there.

    I also understand why you respond directly to Sullivan as he is a high-profile and leading accuser of the Pope. What I don’t understand is how it is you think imputing particular motives for his accusations, or the reporting of the paper of record for that matter helps your case at all.

    “Once again I am forced to conclude that the New York Times and Andrew Sullivan (et alia) are using this story as a political weapon against a Pope who they view as a cultural enemy.”

    You think this is about the culture wars? You think Andrew Sullivan, a vocal and committed Catholic by all accounts who struggles with the difficult place his identity puts him in within that church openly nearly daily, is not giving us his views on this matter straight but rather is just using this as a political weapon? Get a hold of yourself. As far as I can judge based on these blogs, on the topic of commitment to faith and Catholicism, which you have now made a very public and open question here, he puts you to shame as a Catholic, sir, if you even are one. On top of all of this, you think it matters what kinds of photos are used, and go so far as to say that the Pope’s accusers have a problem with his appearance that leads them to their position, and then complain when this mind-boggling accusation becomes the focus of their responses. Perhaps it’s manipulative to use unflattering pictures, but the power of this institution to manipulate images to its advantage is probably unparalleled in history. I think they can take whatever Sullivan has got on the images front. Get a hold of yourself.

    You do hold the reasoned side on the narrow question of this argument for now, I have come to believe. I cannot understand why you so undermine your case by trivializing and personalizing as you have your approach to a matter as serious as this. You, and the arguments available to you, are better than this. If you want to look down your nose at Andrew Sullivan, then you need to get yourself on a higher plane than him. Right now, you are not there.Report

  6. Avatar trizzlor
    Ignored
    says:

    This was a poor decision, but it hardly amounts to a conspiracy.

    This statement seems completely at odds with the rest of the evidence you present. At this point it’s clear (I hope) that the trial should not have been halted because:

    (i) The purpose of this kind of investigation is not just to punish a single guilty party but to make sure that everyone involved is brought to justice and the victims compensated.
    (ii) Punishment is not biased in favor of the infirm; Murphy’s status as a priest should have been revoked regardless of his physical condition. The fact that this decision, at least in part, was made to avoid scandal is even more damning.

    As it stands, several of Ratzinger’s subordinates were involved in unethical decisions and a cover-up – that’s about as text-book definition of conspiracy as you can get. While it’s unclear how involved Ratzinger was himself (and Sullivan is clearly emphasizing that possibility) I think it’s quite fair to say, as Sullivan has, that Ratzinger was either involved or had completely abdicated responsibility of his position. In either case his role cannot be dismissed.Report

  7. Avatar Carolyn Disco
    Ignored
    says:

    Corrections of fact in your story, FWIW:

    1) “Police and other civil authorities had failed to act”

    The district attorney was prohibited from indicting Murphy because of the statute of limitations. The lack of action had nothing to do with any belief in Murphy’s innocence. Another good reason to eliminate criminal statutes of limitation for sexual offenses.

    2) “Weakland claims he sent Father Brundage, who was in charge of the trial, a letter on August 19th, 1998 telling him to halt the trial.”

    Weakland made no such claim. The August 19 letter was to Tarcisio Bertone, Ratzinger’s assistant at the CDF, reporting back what had been done on Murphy’s case to implement Bertone’s directive to halt the trial and set up a “pastoral” approach to deal with Murphy’s case.

    Brundage was not a recipient, and acknowledged today in the NYTimes that Weakland probably did not tell him of the Vatican directive because of the pain it would cause Brundage. Weakland knew how much Brundage was committed to a trial.

    My accurate analysis of the actual minutes of that CDF meeting are available of all places on Andrew Sullivan’s blog at

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/father-brundage-is-wrong.html#more

    Hearty congratulations to the NYTimes for its coverage, and to Andrew Sullivan.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *