It seems to me that the key to your question about whether CE should run articles like this, which are “anti-Vatican” in some way, is whether the subject is doctrine itself or prudential judgments about how Catholic principles or doctrine should be applied.

In a nutshell, I have never seen any evidence that CE supports an attitude contra doctrine itself. Quite the contrary, this site consistently supports the authentic deposit of the Catholic faith.

In another nutshell, the article in question was on Catholic leaders’ comments on matters other than doctrine itself. One could say the comments were sort of how principles should be applied. Catholics in good faith can and do regularly disagree on such matters, as for example, those who support nationalized health care and those who oppose it–each based on a judgment of how Catholic principles ought to be applied in this case.

Vatican officials and other leaders do this as well. When Obama is praised by a Catholic leader for receiving the Nobel prize, or is praised for certain of his aspirations, this represents a judgment about an application of principles. These judgments could be in error, but such errors do not themselves mean that the Catholic principles or doctrine behind the judgments are wrong.

However, when a Vatican official or any Catholic leader makes such an error it does tend to undermine doctrine by “association.” For this reason, these leaders need to be very careful about their public pronouncements on “applications” of principle. For the same reason, when we see them in error on any of these public statements, it is beneficial to the Church to expose the error and call them to account.

Praise for the Obama Nobel prize was an embarrassing mistake. Even many of Obama’s supporters recognized the prize as a sham. It was “an empty gesture given to emptiness” as one commentator put it. The Church looks foolish when one of its spokesmen participates in such foolishness, and we are right to rebuke the official who did.

The others who express support for certain aspirant policies of Obama also goof, in my opinion. They may be enamored of his “peace and justice” persona, but when he spectacularly flouts the fundamental peace and justice principle, that is the right to life for each individual, such praise by a Catholic leader seems foolish as well. Given that Obama has not accomplished anything concrete in the peace/justice arena, the best we can say of such praise of him by Catholic leaders is that it is premature.

In this light, Russell Shaw has contributed positively to the life of the Church by his criticism, and CE has done so as well, by posting the essay.

Thus I am concerned with this article, as it has an anti-Vatican slant.

Are there many Catholics “who’ve been confused by things happening at the Vatican since early this year”?

I read:
“Inevitably, this has had the look of policy. But if it’s that, the roots of such a policy on the part of the Holy See are not immediately clear. What exactly does the Vatican expect to get from Obama? An Israeli-Palestinian settlement?”

Does the author believe that the Holy See teaches ideas that have political aims rather than Jesus Christ and is motivated by secular, rather than religious, interests?

I would like to hear from Mr Shaw about where he stands with regards to loyalty to the Pope, the hierarchy and the Holy See.

Is it responsible of Catholic Exchange to discourage Catholic loyalty to the Church.

Lest we get blue holding our breath, for those with eyes to see the answer is clear enough already.

Because he has given no such promises about abortion funding or conscience clauses. What he has given us on these, and most of what else he has asserted about federalized health care (call it socialized medicine if you like) is lies, not promises.