David Gibson of the Religion News Service has responded to the questions that I raised—in an article for the Federalist and another here at First Things—about his reporting. He replies:
As you can see in the story, I cite many of the critics repeatedly, and provide links to themcontrary to what Matt states. He is especially exercised over the following sentence:
“Critics of the CUA gift say it is ironic that the school would seek such massive support from a social liberal when Catholic charities are not allowed to take any money from any person or group that supports abortion rights or gay rights.”
Matt believes that this is something I made up on my own. In fact it was a fairly commonplace comment in the discussions surrounding the gift, and I linked to one of them, by Michael Sean Winters of NCR.
For whatever reason, Matt chose to overlook that as well.
The problem here is that Winters said something different. He noted (correctly) the objections some have to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development giving to groups that support positions counter to church teaching:
I will note, in passing, the irony that groups like the American Life League and the Lepanto Institute get people all riled up when the bishops' anti-poverty program, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, makes a grant to organizations that are affiliated with groups that promote issues like same-sex marriage or abortion rights, but they have been strangely silent on CUA taking money from Mr. Koch, who announced to the world, or at least to Barbara Walters (the effect is the same), that he is both pro-same-sex marriage and pro-choice on abortion.
This differs from Gibson's quote in two ways: First, Winters notes that the issue with CCHD is over the grants it makes not the donations it receives. Second, he does not suggest that there is a universal rule governing donations to “Catholic charities” from “any person or group” as Gibson does. Let's look at Gibson's claim again:
Critics of the CUA gift say it is ironic that the school would seek such massive support from a social liberal when Catholic charities are not allowed to take any money from any person or group that supports abortion rights or gay rights.
This passage does not describe the one from Winters, at least not with any accuracy. It does describe the position Gibson himself articulated on a show recorded the day before his article was published. It is also inaccurate—a fact Gibson admits in a strangely roundabout manner:
But anyone familiar with (or who cares to Google) the longstanding controversies surrounding issues related to Catholic donors and donees. The Catholic Campaign for Human Development is criticized for funding groups with even the remotest association with gay rights or abortion rights can get a sense of the depth and breadth of this controversy. Catholic Relief Services is often dinged (from rightwing groups) for either funding groups or for taking government money with strings that would require engaging immoral practices, and CRS, like CCHD, has policies to safeguard against both possibilities. The bishops of North Dakota are one example of those who have a “Do Not Donate” list of groups that they want parishioners to avoid supporting in any way.
This is all very interesting but not at all to the point. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “even the tone of voice you're using is changing.”
The claim that “Catholic charities are not allowed to take any money from any person or group that supports abortion rights or gay rights” is a false one. Will a correction be forthcoming?
Gibson does rightly note one point on which I was wrong. I wrote, “the week before he published his story on the Koch gift, Gibson participated in a debate where one critic had this to say . . . ” In fact, the story was published only one day, not one week, after the debate. The impropriety of attributing to anonymous critics in a news story (factually incorrect) assertions that you claim for your own on talk radio remains, but since I have been calling for an honest accounting of facts I'd like to acknowledge this mistake.
Gibson also complains that I seek to “sit in judgment” over him:
Naturally, we could have all been spared much of this if Matt had bothered to take the basic—and professional and ethical—step of contacting me with his concerns, or simply allowing me a chance to respond before he went on a public campaign to accuse me of “unethical and irresponsible” behavior. That he didn’t do that really undermines his effort to sit in judgment, almost as much as his spurious charges do.
I know Matt and we have been on friendly terms in our collegial way. Apparently he has another mode of operating when he gets to his keyboard.
I find David Gibson to be civil in person and see no reason not to act likewise. In print, he regularly smears conservative bishops, sneers at conservative women, and otherwise unfairly treats those with whom he disagrees. I make no apologies for pointing this out.
As for the claim that I should have contacted him, well, I repeatedly did. Let me press the question to Gibson one more time:
If critics in fact have said that “it is ironic that the school would seek such massive support from a social liberal when Catholic charities are not allowed to take any money from any person or group that supports abortion rights or gay rights” please say who, when, and where.
Thus far, I have seen evidence of only one critic who has done so, and his name is David Gibson.
Matthew Schmitz is deputy editor of First Things.
