Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng misrepresented by CNA

An article by the Catholic News Agency on Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng didn't 'scan' very well with me, so I decided to read the GQ article they were referencing to see if their story accurately reflected the sentiment of the original. There were - as is so very often the case with religiously motivated news sites - a couple of worrying journalistic traits that I would like to point out. 

In the opening paragraph, it was pointed out that;

A secular men's magazine has praised Chinese anti-abortion advocate Chen Guangcheng in its December 2012 issue, placing him on the list of “Man of the Year.”

Chen was not listed as "Man of the Year", but was one of many "Men of the Year". Their headline (GQ magazine names pro-life activist 'Rebel of the Year') was a more accurate description of the honour bestowed upon him. Reassuringly, CNA does note further into the article:

Chen is a self-educated human rights attorney who spoke out against China's one-child policy and the coerced abortions and sterilizations that are often used to enforce it.

This 'Rebel' title was awarded not - as CNA would have us believe - for his advocacy of a pro-life or anti-abortion position, but for his stated position of human rights and social justice. Indeed, it is not clear whether or not Chen is pro-life or anti-abortion at all; he states (to the effect) that he was brought up in no particular religion, but cultural references to Buddhism were practical guidelines for his position. All the evidence points to the fact that he is against forced/coerced abortion and sterilization. The two are not mutually exclusive. Of course, it may well be the case that Chen is, in fact, pro-life and anti-abortion, but having never personally heard him make such a claim, CNA is at best being disingenuous and at worst lying outright. 

In the penultimate paragraph CNA states;

Chen told GQ that his work opposing China’s one-child policy is not only a fight to protect the “rights of the unborn children” or of women, but of all people.

However, the use of the quoted "rights of the unborn children" is nowhere to be seen in the three-page GQ article, and any allusion to journalistic integrity has been thoroughly shunned. But there is more.

Interestingly, should any of CNA's readership care to read the original article, there is a quote that didn't make it in to their final draft. From GQ;

I had read Daniel C. Chung's article in The New York Times after my arrival in the United States, where he says that I should be careful about letting people exploit me to represent their interests. I appreciate his opinion, but I already have my own thoughts on this. If any person, organization, party—whatever—works to promote human rights and social justice, I will cooperate with them. Don't call that exploitation. Because exploitation would be for individual benefit.

Indeed, the very exploitation Chung had envisaged has begun to take shape in the CNA's article. It is clear to all but the most conservative Catholic that the Church does not have the best record on human rights and social justice, yet they are happy enough to co-opt this brave man to represent their own interests.

If in general you feel like you can't accomplish anything because someone tells you to do something, then what will you ever do?

It doesn't sound to this observer like Chen is the type of person that has much respect for authority, and if he has the cajones to stand up to the Chinese government, it is unlikely he will have much respect for the authority of the Roman Catholic Church's positions on human rights and social justice. But CNA is never one to let misrepresentation cloud the 'truth' of their own agenda.

New wheelz donated to Pope Benedict XVI

Pope Benedict's previous ride, bought for $244,590.83 by
Golden Palace Casinos as an advertising gimmick

Not everything the Catholic News Agency reports on is dogmatic and dour. According to a recent report, the Vatican took the keys to a brand new vehicle donated to Pope Benedict XVI by the NWG autos by the founders of the company, Francesco D’Antini and Antonio Rainone.


The event included a blessing of the car and a prayer to St. Christopher, the patron of travelers, that it would always be driven safely.


Never heard of them? No, neither had I. And for some reason, they didn't think it intersting enough of a story too print any details about the vehicle beyond how much it costs to 'top-up' (2.50 USD, btw)


Now for that price, the car is either a model, or it is an electric road vehicle. It turns out, it is the latter. Let's see what Ratzo will be darting around the Vatican in.

More Catholic News Agency misrepresentation and obfuscation

Those of you that are familiar with me both here on my blog and Google+ will be all too aware of my past run ins with the Catholic News Agency. 

If I blog more frequently on their stories than others, this is explained by virtue of their obvious and blatant disregard for journalistic rigour, and their apparent obsession with 'moderating' my comments into forms that I do not recognise (i.e. they are deliberately editing my comments to better reflect their own agenda).

Today, Catholic hacks have reported on a recent survey conducted by ComRes on behalf of Catholic Voices that apparently suggest that there is "low support for 'gay marriage' legalization".

Catholic News Agency misrepresents same sex parenting study UPDATED

I have come to expect CNA will twist the news to support its agenda, this article on same sex parenting is no exception.

In it, they quote research done by other groups which may lead one to believe that this study condones same sex parenting as a statistically significant factor in the adult problems faced by the children that are its products.

However, this is not the remit of the study at all, as its conclusion - which is not mentioned at all in the CNA article - makes very clear (slightly edited for ease of reading. high-lights my own).

An intellectually honest and secular Catholic? Who'd ha' thunk it?

Professor Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo is a Washington Post blogger, American scholar of religion and retired Brooklyn College professor emeritus.

A staunchly traditionalist Roman Catholic, he cuts a curious politicised figure on a range of issues, not least his position on the canonisation of Queen Isabella - who signed the decree that created the Spanish Inquisition - and Pope Pius XII - who signed the Reichskonkordat between the Vatican and Nazi Germany.

It's not all autos-da-fé and pogroms, though. In fact you may be quite heartened to read what he thinks about the role of the church in providing health care, universities and other agencies that serve the public welfare.

Should governments recognise any marriage?

Source: Catholic News Agency

Considering that religious types are so opposed to same sex marriage, and that it is a violation of religious principles, is it time we accepted them at their word and separate the church and state further by calling on our governments to not recognise marriage at all?


From the Catholic News Agency;

Thirty sex religious leaders joined together against redefining marriage in America, warning that such a move would have “far-reaching consequences” for religious freedom.

In their statement, they said that marriage is a universal and foundational institution that “precedes and transcends” any government, society or religious group. This, they explained, is because it is rooted in the nature of the human person as male and female and the children that are born from their union. 

The religious leaders argued that changing the civil definition of marriage changes hundreds or even thousands of laws that are dependent upon marital status, including taxation, housing, property, employment discrimination and benefits, adoption, education and health care.

It would certainly make taxation, housing, property, employment discrimination and benefits, adoption, education and health care more transparent and less bureaucratic. It would also fit well with the letter and application of the first amendment to the US constitution not letting government establish a religion.


If we are to treat religious freedom with the respect it so unswervingly demands, the only conceivable way in which to do this is to separate marriage - and all that that implies - from matter's governmental. 


Churches would then be free to continue refusing same sex marriages, or not, as the case may be. Quite why someone would want to marry in a church that opposes the very premise of their union is beyond me. I am sure they could find a more suitable venue where their choice in partners is catered to, and if not, I am equally sure such an enterprise would become available in the Land Of The Free.

I welcome this position on the separation of marriage from government in the interests of religious freedom.


Edit: Here is another post on Slate covering the same subject.

Archive: Bishop Conley sees ‘atheocracy’ as major threat to pro-life cause

Source: Catholic News Agency

This blog post was originally posted elsewhere. I am currently in the process of transferring all my favourite posts here. Apologies if you have already seen these.


Secularism in America is openly hostile to religion?


There is only one openly atheist member of Congress. State Houses have introduced hundreds of Bills that propose religious privilege in abeyance of the Constitution. Ninety two percent of the population believes in God. The good bishop stands in his pulpit preaching to the 24% Catholic population of the US [1] - about 1/3 of the Christian population - claiming religious hostility. A Christian president, in a long line of Christian presidents.

Archive: Bishop Conley article - Reponses to comments

Source: Catholic News Agency / Earlier post

This blog post was originally posted elsewhere. I am currently in the process of transferring all my favourite posts here. Apologies if you have already seen these.

True to generic religious website policy, after having vetted my comment on the above article, and letting three people attack my position, the site disabled my ability to reply to my interlocutors responses. Here follows my response.

Part of the reason I started this blog, was so that I could counter censorship, and continue a debate where others would not allow me to do so. So, without further-a-do...

I have already made a post about this subject here. It is not identical to the comment I made on the CNA site, because here, on my site, I knew I was able to provide links to back up my claims. Far from having to reign in my claims, I found that my original comment was a tad too conservative, so I make no apologies for the slight discrepancies between the two.

For the purpose of clarity, though, I shall post the debate so far, as it appears on the CNA site.