For BBC czar, race always trumps religion

April 1, 2012 By

It’s the question that gets asked whenever an alleged comedian on HBO goes a bit nuts on the subject of religious believers.

It’s the same question people asked when some NFL players mocked Tim Tebow’s love of public prayer.

It’s the same question conservative Catholics, and others, asked when the hierarchy at The New York Times made the decision to run a full-page anti-Catholic advertisement that urged liberal and nominal Catholics to pack up and quit their church.

It’s the question that tends to draw mocking laughter in the GetReligion comments pages whenever a reader dares to ask it.

The question, of course, is this: Would the powers that be in mass media have dared to approve x, y or z if this particular advertisement, comedy routine, cartoon, Broadway show, movie, music video or whatever had focused its attack on Muslims?

It’s a question that is not — for me — directly connected to the journalism work that we do here at GetReligion. Please hear me say that.

However, there was a headline the other day in The Daily Mail linked to this controversial topic that was just a bit too close for comfort, for me. I am referring to the one that, with its stacked sub-headlines, proclaimed:

Christianity gets less sensitive treatment than other religions admits BBC chief

* He suggested other faiths have a ‘very close identity with ethnic minorities’

* But added that religion as a whole should never receive the same ‘protection and sensitivity’ in the law as race

I don’t know about you, but I had a simple reaction when I read all of that: The head of BBC said that near an open microphone?

Here’s the top of that Mail report:

BBC director-general Mark Thompson has claimed Christianity is treated with far less sensitivity than other religions because it is “pretty broad shouldered.”

He suggested other faiths have a “very close identity with ethnic minorities,” and were therefore covered in a far more careful way by broadcasters. But he also revealed that producers had to consider the possibilities of “violent threats” instead of polite complaints if they pushed ahead with certain types of satire.

Mr. Thompson said: “Without question, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms,’ is different from, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write.’ This definitely raises the stakes.”

But he added that religion as a whole should never receive the same ‘protection and sensitivity’ in the law as race.

Now the minute I read that — especially all of those short, edited, punchy quotations — I immediately assumed that Thompson had been quoted out of context. What kind of journalist could say things like that, especially one who is committed to accurate journalism, free speech, religious liberty and various other values and rights that tend to be cherished in free societies?

I told my GetReligion colleagues that I really wanted to see the whole interview, or a transcript, or both. As it turns out, that information was a few clicks away on a site linked to a rather authoritative educational brand name — Oxford. Click here for the .pdf of the interview or watch the video that is attached to this post.

By all means, read it all. The give and take is rather complex, at times, but I think that the triple-decker Mail headline is accurate, if rather blunt (in the style of Fleet Street). I immediately asked my fellow GetReligionistas if we could hold off on this story long enough for me to write a Scripps Howard News Service column based on the full interview. My goal was to put some of those blunt snippets into a broader context, if I could.

So, here is a sample of what came out of that. I began with the New York Times decision to run the anti-Catholic advertisement from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, but not the mirror-image anti-Muslim advertisement that was immediately cranked out by Stop Islamization of America.

Should Catholics have been shocked?

Truth be told, the offended Catholics had little reason to be shocked if members of the Times hierarchy based their decisions on convictions similar to those recently aired by the leader of the BBC, another of the world’s most influential news organizations.

For BBC director-general Mark Thompson, the key is to understand that Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews and believers in other minority religions share a “very close identity with ethnic minorities” and, thus, their beliefs deserve to be handled with special care.

Meanwhile, he said it’s acceptable to subject Christians to more criticism and satire, to treat their beliefs with less sensitivity, because Christianity is a powerful, secure, majority religion — even in an increasingly secular age.

“I think it is very different to talk about Christianity in the United Kingdom: a very broadly, literally established, but also metaphorically established, part of our kind of culturally built landscape,” said Thompson, in an interview recorded for the FreeSpeechDebate.com project produced by St. Antony’s College, Oxford.

Christianity, he argued, is a “broad-shouldered religion, compared to religions which in the UK have a very close identity with ethnic minorities, where, you know, it’s not as if as it were Islam is randomly spread across the UK population. It’s almost entirely a religion practiced by people who may already feel in other ways isolated, prejudiced against, and where they may well regard an attack on their religion as racism by other means.”

The bottom line, said the BBC leader, is that Muslims tend to be literalists on matter of faith and they are much more likely to be offended by criticism or satire of Muhammad than most Christians are of similar media products about Jesus. At least, that is what Thompson thinks, as a self-identified moderate, practicing Catholic. Thus, he said:

“For a Muslim, a depiction — particularly a comical or demeaning depiction of the prophet Muhammad — might have the force, the emotional force, of a piece of a grotesque child pornography. One of the mistakes seculars make is, I think, not to understand the character of what blasphemy feels like to someone who is a realist in their religious belief.”

And that stunning AK47 quote?

Here’s the context. You will not be surprised to know that it follows a reference to Salman Rushdie, his “The Satanic Verses” novel and a global fatwa calling for his death.

Historian Timothy Garton Ash, who conducted the Oxford interview, said this threat of violence is a “rather nasty ace” that can be played by those who are willing to say, “I feel so strongly about that; if you say it or broadcast it, I will kill you.”

Thompson responded: “Well, clearly it’s a very notable move in the game, I mean without question. ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms’ is different from ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms and I’m loading my AK47 as I write.’ This definitely raises the stakes.”

So there you go. How does this Thompson proclamation apply to the work of journalists who want to do accurate, balanced reporting on religion-news stories linked to blasphemy, heresy and sacrilege?

It seems to me that, much like that advocacy journalism sermon delivered last October by former New York Times editor Bill Keller, the BBC leader is essentially saying that there is one set of rules for news and then there is a different set of rules for religion news. In the end, race trumps religion.

And one more thing: Did Thompson actually say that it doesn’t matter if Christianity is no longer, on a typical weekend, the majority religion in England in comparison with Islam? It still deserves harsher treatment?

Read it all. Please.

Filed Under: Announcements, Catholicism, Islam, Journalism, Radio & TV, World, World Religions

Someone’s confused about Santorum

February 25, 2012 By

An editor, whose religion I don’t know, sent this Associated Press story along with the note, “Maybe I’m too sensitive to these things, but this strikes me as kind of a vile headline if you think about it–not that some people mistake him for a Protestant, but the implication is that they wouldn’t support him if they knew he was Catholic.”

What’s the headline?

Santorum benefits from mistaken religious identity

Here’s the lede:

Rick Santorum’s political good fortune in the Republican presidential primaries has come about in large part because of his appeal to evangelicals. A Roman Catholic, he is a beneficiary of more than two decades of cooperation between conservative Protestants and Catholics who set aside theological differences for the common cause of the culture war.

Doctrine – and anti-Catholic bias – once split Protestants and Catholics so bitterly that many evangelical leaders worked to defeat John F. Kennedy because of his religion. When Kennedy sought to confront suspicion about his Catholicism, he made his now-famous faith speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of evangelical Protestants in Texas. Five decades later, when some prominent evangelical leaders gathered at a Texas ranch to discuss backing a 2012 GOP candidate, Santorum was their choice.

The headline and the lede are just weird, aren’t they? First off, the people who seem particularly confused about Rick Santorum’s religion are the media, right? In one breath, they call him an evangelical, in another, they deride him for (for instance) wearing his Catholic faith on his sleeve.

In August Bill Keller, then executive editor of the New York Times, was telling us that Rick Santorum is part of a “fervid subset of evangelical Christianity.” Only a few months later, he tweets:

@nytkeller A friend poses this GOP debate question: Wasn’t yesterday Ash Wednesday? Aren’t Santorum and Gingrich devout Catholics?

When a couple of reporters pointed out that it’s not a holy day of obligation for Catholics and that you’re not obliged to wear your ashes all day, he responded:

@nytkeller No, it’s not an obligation. But these guys wear their faith on their sleeves. Why not on their foreheads?

Which is it, Bill? Fervid subset of evangelical Christianity or a Catholic who wears his faith on his sleeve? By the way, it’s just been a banner week in religious bigotry at the New York Times. There was the Charles Blow nonsense (no, not about sex or his eliminationist rhetoric about conservatives but, rather, his mockery of Mormon garments. He did apologize for the mockery.). And then there’s this Dick Cavett nonsense that begins with some bigoted discussions of Catholic teaching and Rick Santorum before speaking utter nonsense about homeschooling, trotting out just about every ill-informed prejudice out there.

OK, but back to the point of this Associated Press piece. He “benefits” from “mistaken” religious identity. What’s the proof? Well, there is none. So I guess that settles that. Actually, the proof is just a mention of a Christian Post article headlined “Catholic Politicians You Thought Were Evangelical.” It is more like a blog post and I kid you not that three of the five folks “you” thought were evangelical are Justice Clarence Thomas, Newt Gingrich and Bobby Jindal. I don’t even think that Bill Keller thought any of these folks was evangelical. The justification for thinking Santorum was evangelical? A link to that Time story saying he was.

The headline oversells a piece that should have been about how Santorum appeals to evangelicals. But the story struggles, too. I’m not even sure I think the “good fortune” language is right. Fortune is “chance or luck as an external, arbitrary force affecting human affairs.” Not even a majority of evangelicals are behind Santorum (it still being a four-way race) but is whatever large portion of them he holds due to chance or luck? That Roman Catholics and Protestants have become cobelligerents on some of the major issues of the day may have as much to say about those external forces as it does about them. Perhaps much more, in fact.

The piece could also have benefited from some additional facts and figures. Even just this part:

The high regard extends to Santorum’s personal life. His seven children have been home-schooled, a practice much more common among conservative American Protestants than Catholics, who have a network of parochial schools built over centuries.

I know many home schoolers and while many of them could be described as Protestant (they’re Lutheran), that doesn’t mean they’re evangelical — sort of the point of the story. I also know many Catholic home schoolers, atheist home schoolers, plain old hippie home schoolers, etc. Is there data on the practice of homeschooling relative to a religious population? I’m sure there is, but maybe some specifics would help us see how disparate the practice is. Heck, I’d love to know how many Catholics send their kids to parochial schools.

We’re told that Santorum frequently questions the authenticity of other Christians but the first substantiation for it is a reference to when Santorum criticized Obama’s drilling policy. If he does it so frequently, at the very least we could have an instance that’s not such a great example of what happens when the media take things out of context to support a political agenda, right? Again, I get that every reporter I know loathes Rick Santorum with the fire of a thousand suns. But that’s no excuse.

The only other example is a reach back to 2008 when Santorum gave a speech as a private citizen to coreligionists about how academia, and the liberal Christianity had been ravaged by a liberal agenda. It’s not the best example of his current public campaign, as much as the Drudge Report and various other media have tried to make it so.

Another area where data would have been nice is here:

Romney, Santorum’s main rival for the nomination, struggles with conservatives not only because he once supported legalized abortion, which he now condemns, but also from distrust of Mormon teaching among some Christians. He rarely speaks directly about his faith or any other.

Now, the list of why various conservatives don’t trust or like Mitt Romney is pretty long and goes far beyond his former support for abortion. That should be mentioned. But how do we know that he suffers from distrust of his Mormon teaching? I mean, I’m familiar with this Gallup study showing that self-identified Democrats are more hostile to Mormons than self-identified Protestants. And I know that the percentage of folks who say they would be hesitant to vote for a Mormon has remained pretty constant since at least the 1960s. But are there studies showing that Romney’s struggle to connect with conservative voters is because he’s Mormon? I’m sure there must be, in order for this report to assert it so steadfastly, but why not mention which study it is? Inquiring minds and all that.

The story includes some mention of Evangelical and Catholic efforts over the year and then ends with a quote from a Republican who is critical of Santorum.

Like I said, it’s just kind of a weird piece. Perhaps it would have been better to speak to some actual Santorum supporters of the evangelical variety in a story about them and about how they’re so confused about his religion.

Picture of confused man via Shutterstock.

Filed Under: Catholicism, Evangelicals, Journalism, Politics, Social Issues

The Times lets the big man speak for himself

February 16, 2012 By

In light of his upcoming elevation into the red-hat crowd, I thought it would be good to dip into my GetReligion folder of guilt and take a look at that recent New York Times mini-profile of New York Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan.

Of course, it is also important that the Cardinal-designate Dolan — as leader of the U.S. Catholic bishops — has been in the headlines throughout the religious-liberty battles between the Obama White House and a coalition of traditional religious groups over the new Health and Human Services regulations.

Here is my main comment about this solid feature story, other than one or two points about the accuracy of some language about doctrinal issues: It’s hard to write a nasty, unbalanced profile of a man who is an effective, unapologetic communicator, one who is not afraid to state his viewpoints clearly and with a touch of zip. It’s hard for reporters to do fair, informed coverage of religious leaders who — either through design or lack of talent — surround their most important statements with clouds of boring fog.

The bottom line: It’s much easier to accurately and fairly quote a religious leader who is not hiding, who is not terrified of being quoted in defense of his or her faith.

This comes across quite clearly in the Times article through its emphasis on Dolan’s often earthy sense of humor. Here’s what that looks like in practice, describing the soon-to-be cardinal’s radio show:

Since arriving in New York from Milwaukee, Archbishop Dolan, who was raised in Ballwin, Mo., has most often caught the public’s attention as the traditional unyielding Catholic voice of “no” — to same-sex marriage, to abortion and to sex education in public schools. His show, “A Conversation With the Archbishop,” which is broadcast on Sirius XM satellite radio, is an attempt to change that. It uses a modern talk-show format, with an Ed McMahon-like sidekick and guests, and features the archbishop’s booming bass voice and interest in subjects as varied as the Sept. 11 attacks and exorcism, along with jokes when the tone gets heavy. …

There is trendy theme music (“City of Blinding Lights,” by U2). And after his regular sign-on, “Praise be Jesus Christ,” the 6-foot-3, barrel-chested archbishop finds ways to work in regular jabs about his own weight (“I’m the only guy that breaks a sweat while he’s eating”), his ratings (“my mother is my only listener”) and his Irish heritage (“I tried to trace my family roots in Ireland, but I got so embarrassed that I had to stop. It was not a pretty picture.”).

His humor is both authentic and strategic, as he readily acknowledges. His hope is that by highlighting the ebullience he finds at the heart of the faith, he will win back some of the nation’s millions of straying or ex-Catholics. “Happiness attracts,” he often says.

The key question, of course, is whether it is possible to communicate the basic facts — as opposed to opinions — of Catholic doctrine in a way that would be winsome in any context defined by the Times.

Now, please understand that when I say “facts” I am not saying that Catholic doctrines are facts for those who have not chosen to be part of the Catholic Church. I am saying that these doctrines are the facts on the ground — for centuries — for those who want to take part in the sacramental life of the Catholic faith. Thus, a man like Dolan is not simply expressing his own feelings and opinions when he defends basic Catholic doctrines in statements to his fellow Catholics.

So, it probably is true that Dolan is the voice of “no” in relation to the Manhattan public. He is much more than the voice of “no” when talking to Catholics who genuinely seek to be in Communion with the Catholic Church, which is not a democratic, public institution. The Times is not the only publication that struggles to grasp the difference between these two roles, often struggling for reasons openly articulated by it’s former editor Bill “collapsed Catholic” Keller.

Take, for example, any statements that Dolan might make on — pick an issue — “sex education in public schools.” Dolan is speaking with one level of authority when he talks to practicing Catholics about that issue, perhaps suggesting that they should seek tolerance for their beliefs when wrestling with school administrators. He is speaking with a different, and less authoritative voice, when he speaks to those very administrators as part of an open, public debate.

With this distinction in mind, note this crucial paragraph in the Times mini-profile:

Pope Benedict XVI plans to make Archbishop Dolan a cardinal at a ceremony on Feb. 18 in Rome, giving him the red hat that signifies his new stature as a prince of the church. But even now, two and a half years after Archbishop Dolan arrived at the helm of the New York Archdiocese, his personality is not well known outside of religious circles. And the question remains whether this distracted, liberal, scandal-weary city is willing to listen to a conservative voice even as entertaining as his. …

Archbishop Dolan’s style is a striking shift from that of the man he replaced, Cardinal Edward M. Egan, who was known as a no-nonsense and at times aloof administrator during his tenure overseeing the New York Archdiocese, from 2000 to 2009. The last charismatic figure to lead the archdiocese was Cardinal John J. O’Connor, from 1984 to 2000, whose eloquence in expressing the church’s views made him a major figure in the life of the city and beyond.

Key word there? That would be “eloquence.”

By all means, read this whole piece. It’s worth the effort, because the Times lets Dolan speak for himself as much, or more, than is the norm. Readers can make up their own minds when it comes to accepting what the archbishop has to say.

Filed Under: Catholicism, Humor, Interviews, People, Radio & TV, Same-sex marriage, Worship

Blind spots breaking out all over

February 8, 2012 By

Last night, I pointed out the Washington Post media writer Erik Wemple’s rather odd attempt to defend mainstream coverage of the Planned Parenthood PR and fundraising campaign of the Komen foundation. One of the things he’d said was that Ross Douthat’s New York Times column critiquing bad media coverage was “bunk” because you could find good coverage, too. Specifically, he pointed out, this Dallas Morning News story (“which carefully laid out both sides of the dispute”). How carefully, you ask? This carefully. Here’s the lede:

The backlash Wednesday was swift and strong — coming by phone, email and every form of social networking.

Women were angry, disappointed and worried that Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a Dallas-based foundation, had withdrawn its funding from Planned Parenthood’s nationwide organization.

Yes, that lede carefully lays out both sides of the dispute — not just the women who were angry at Komen but also the women who were disappointed and worried. It may have gotten better if you read beyond the lede (which few readers do, of course) but it’s behind a pay wall now.

Anyway, Wemple’s defense of the Dallas Morning News isn’t even accepted by a member of that paper’s staff. Editorial writer Rodger Jones has a piece headlined “Media’s blind spot on abortion, Obama’s contraceptive edict and church issues.”

He begins by quoting MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe today. He apparently said, “The media has a blind spot on social issues.” Former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller might say it’s not a blind spot at all but, rather, an intentional bias on moral, cultural and religious issues.

Jones gives six examples of his paper’s blind spots, including.

1) There has yet to be any news coverage of Bishop Kevin Farrell’s pledge to defy the White House on its HHS mandate.

2) There has been no news coverage of how North Texas Catholics or employees of Catholic institutions think about the HHS mandate.

3) And yet a handful of people who invited the press to their protest at Komen got a front page picture and more inside the paper. But, then again, why didn’t the 8,000 marchers in Dallas at the previous month’s March for Life get even a single mention in the paper?

4) painting the dispute between HHS and religious liberty as a partisan issue.

A sample:

There has been no news coverage about what North Texas Catholics in the pews or employees of Catholic institutions think. I have no doubt that many workers would welcome free contraceptives, and I wonder how they square that with church teachings. That’s a story to approach with sensitivity, and it’s worth the trouble by thoughtful journalists.

Catholics in the pews are not hard hard to find. The typical church has several Sunday masses. At some churches they run from Saturday afternoon to Sunday evening. There’s one to fit any reporter’s schedule. The location of the nearest church is just a click away, on the diocesan website’s Parish Finder. Put in a ZIP code and take your choice.

Within walking distance of our offices downtown are the Cathedral Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe and, even closer, St. Jude’s Chapel on Main Street. Both have noontime masses.

It is easier to wait for the interest groups to call and deliver your points for the story, but Jones is correct that this reporting isn’t that difficult either — even if it does require some knowledge of church teachings and some sensitivity.

In many ways, the coverage we’ve seen in the last week is a powerful reminder of how important the religious and values beat is to covering a story fully and accurately and with added value.

Wasn’t it Chesterton who said “In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don’t know it.” I would argue that if any beat understood the truth of that quote, it would be people who get to talk to those who know they accept dogma every day. This is one of the many reasons why the religion beat is so important. The errors we saw in the last week could be chalked up to a group of people who accept a particular dogma fervently and just had no awareness that their views weren’t universal.

Anyway, the last week has also seen wonderful comments here at GetReligion (as well as many kind notes from reporters and others). I wanted to highlight this one from Kris D. that made a great point:

Here is a link to an old NYT Magazine column, “The Ethicist”. In it, Randy Cohen states that to support Curves if one is pro-choice is basically an unethical thing to do since your membership dollars support pro-life causes that you don’t believe in. Contrast this with the “apolitical” funding of PP by the Komen foundation as the MSM reported it & you really do have to wonder why the media’s blindspots aren’t recognized. Sauce for the goose apparently isn’t sauce for the gander.

Sometimes you can see the dogma you accept and sometimes you need to have it pointed out to you. If reporters know where their blind spots are, they can work to avoid missteps in the future.

Blind spot image via Shutterstock.

Filed Under: Catholicism, Journalism, Politics, Social Issues

The Times, the White House & “Catholic colleges”

January 30, 2012 By

As faithful readers of this weblog will know, your GetReligionistas are convinced that it is stunningly simplistic for journalists to talk about the “Catholic vote,” as if there was one mass of Catholics who agree on how they should apply centuries of Catholic doctrine to their actions in voting booths.

About a decade ago, an elderly priest here in Washington, D.C., told me that he is convinced that — at the very least — there are four competing camps of “Catholic voters” here in postmodern America. As a reminder, here is the typology as I have shared it in the past:

* Ex-Catholics. Solid for Democrats. Cultural conservatives have no chance.

* Cultural Catholics who may go to church a few times a year. This may be one of those all-important “undecided voters” depending on what’s happening with the economy, foreign policy, etc. Leans to Democrats.

* Sunday-morning American Catholics. This voter is a regular in the pew and may even play some leadership role in the parish. This is the Catholic voter that is really up for grabs, the true swing voter that the candidates are after.

* “Sweat the details” Catholics who go to confession. They are active in the full sacramental life of their parishes and almost always back the Vatican, when it comes to matters of faith and practice.

As noted, the final camp — the depressing world of confession statistics are the key — represents a very small piece of the American Catholic pie.

Now, on to the current headlines. You see, it helps to keep that “Catholic voters” typology in mind while reading mainstream media coverage of the escalating conflict between the Obama administration and the world of religious education and non-profit ministries. Since clashes with the Catholic hierarchy have received the most ink, it helps to remember that not all “Catholic colleges” are “Catholic colleges” in the same sense of the word. The same statement is true of “Catholic hospitals.”

Thus, one would expect various kinds of Catholic institutions to have different policies when it comes to defending church doctrines on controversial issues — such as birth control.

This brings us to the following headline in The New York Times: “Ruling on Contraception Draws Battle Lines at Catholic Colleges.”

The only appropriate response? Well, DUH. Of course this fight is drawing battles between the White House and Catholic institutions, as well as spotlighting preexisting fractures in the world of Catholic higher education. Simply stated: These schools are not preaching or practicing the same faith. Why shouldn’t they clash when it comes time to react to a government action affecting religious liberty?

Here’s the summary language in this story:

Many Catholic colleges decline to prescribe or cover birth control, citing religious reasons. Now they are under pressure to change. This month the Obama administration, citing the medical case for birth control, made a politically charged decision that the new health care law requires insurance plans at Catholic institutions to cover birth control without co-payments for employees, and that may be extended to students. But Catholic organizations are resisting the rule, saying it would force them to violate their beliefs and finance behavior that betrays Catholic teachings.

“We can’t just lie down and die and let religious freedom go,” said Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Now hold your breath. Here’s the payoff punch:

In an election season that features Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who have stressed their Catholic faith, scientific thinking on the medical benefits of birth control has clashed with deeply held religious and cultural beliefs.

Once again, science on one side vs. blind religion on the other. That’s the magic formula, it seems. Right Bill Keller?

Also, note that this entire matter is simply political, not theological. There are no real doctrinal issues to debate. The folks who see a religious-liberty crisis in all of this — often liberal Catholics, as well as conservative — are only doing so because of a political agenda. You know, like the right-wingers at the liberal National Catholic Reporter (and the editorial board of The Washington Post, while we are at it).

But enough about the predictable political framing in this story. Back to the Catholic colleges in the headline.

Some Catholic colleges are likely to ask for a yearlong delay in implementing the rule on birth control coverage, said Michael Galligan-Stierle, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities. In the longer run, he predicted in a statement that either Congress or the Supreme Court would invalidate the rule. Belmont Abbey College, which is Catholic, and the interdenominational Colorado Christian University have already sued the Department of Health and Human Services, arguing that the birth control requirement violates the right to freedom of religion.

Birth control is considered a “preventive service” under the new health care law, but Mr. Galligan-Stierle said such services should be limited to preventing disease, not pregnancy.

“We do not happen to think pregnancy is disease,” he said. “We think it’s a gift of love of two people and our creator.”

The most important word comes right at the beginning of that passage — “some.”

In other words, there are Catholic schools that defend Catholic teachings and strive to recruit students, faculty and staff who join in that effort — or at the very least seek to recruit those who will not oppose these teachings. Then again, many Catholic schools openly reject the teachings of their church.

Thus, we read:

At Catholic universities, some students support the right of the schools to uphold religious doctrine. But others, particularly professional and graduate students, have found the restrictions on birth control coverage onerous. …

One recent Georgetown law graduate, who asked not to be identified for reasons of medical privacy, said she had polycystic ovary syndrome, a condition for which her doctor prescribed birth control pills. She is gay and had no other reason to take the pills. Georgetown does not cover birth control for students, so she made sure her doctor noted the diagnosis on her prescription. Even so, coverage was denied several times. She finally gave up and paid out of pocket, more than $100 a month. After a few months she could no longer afford the pills. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically — along with her ovary.

“If I want children, I’ll need a fertility specialist because I have only one working ovary,” she said.

A spokeswoman for Georgetown, Stacy Kerr, said that problems like this were rare and that doctors at the health service knew how to help students get coverage for contraceptives needed for medical reasons. Asked if Georgetown would begin covering birth control under the new rule, she said, “We will be reviewing and evaluating the new regulations, ever mindful of our Catholic and Jesuit identity and mission.”

I kept waiting to see if this story would recognize the wide diversity that is found Catholic education. I was expecting, frankly, to hear from qualified, experienced Catholic educators who want to defend their faith on this matter — which would mean resisting government actions to force them to financially support actions they believe are sinful. Instead, we get this accurate, yet rather bombastic quote:

Senior Catholic officials said that students at Catholic universities should know what to expect, and that those who disagree with the policies can choose to go elsewhere. “No one would go to a Jewish barbecue and expect pork chops to be served,” Mr. Galligan-Stierle said.

That’s a valid quote and it’s valid for the Times to use it.

My question is simple: Is this one of those urban, sophisticated Times stories in which the editors (if they agree with their newly retired editor) believe that they do not need to cover both sides of an issue? Is it enough now that they quote the valid, powerful anecdotes and arguments on one side and then reduce the other side’s convictions to rumblings about politics and a punchy soundbite?

Just asking.

The key to future coverage is to find out if the government will find ways to honor the convictions of Catholic schools that want to defend Catholic doctrines and will openly and legally state that in all contacts and legal covenants with students, faculty and staff. In other words, can the government find ways to treat these religious private schools — Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, etc. — like the religious institutions that they are.

And the rest of the Catholic schools? The leaders of those schools are free to kneel to the state on this matter. They have ever right to do that, if the Vatican decides to let them do it — while remaining “Catholic colleges.” Then again, there is this.

Filed Under: Academia, Catholicism, Politics, Sex

Dangerous wives of priests? Not going there folks …

January 19, 2012 By

So what we have here is precisely the kind of editorial, op-ed, slanted, European-style, advocacy New York Times piece that makes many GetReligion readers spew their coffee and exclaim, “What in the %#@$%^ *&^$ is going on here? This is terrible! I can’t wait to see what the GetReligion gang has to say about this!”

The problem, of course, is that it isn’t a news piece at all. It’s an opinion piece.

Thus, it’s precisely the kind of piece that your GetReligionistas avoid writing about unless it directly addresses religion in the news or is about journalistic attitudes about religion and or religious people (in other words a piece of interest to professionals on the so-called Godbeat).

There is no shock or scandal when op-ed writers and guest columnists spout their opinions. It’s important when they make mistakes, however.

But there are other journalistic issues involved in the publication of these kinds of pieces. For example, what if the newspaper dedicates a polemical, slanted, advocacy piece to a truly newsworthy subject that deserves serious, accurate, balanced coverage? What if — because it’s in the Times — many readers nationwide assume that this advocacy piece is a complete statement on this particular issue?

What we have here is one such story and, well, here I am writing about why we are not going to write about it. Which means that I still feel driven to write about this essay by Sara Ritchey, who is an assistant professor of medieval European history at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette (an interesting academic source for a piece in the nation’s most famous newspaper).

The headline on this highly editorial essay: “For Priests’ Wives, a Word of Caution.” The subject is the long-awaited Vatican Personal Ordinariate that allows Anglican parishes and their married male priests to enter the Catholic Church. The purpose of the Times essay is to warn priest’s wives that they are entering dangerous territory. Here’s a sample:

While the early Christian church praised priestly chastity, it did not promulgate decisive legislation mandating priestly celibacy until the reform movement of the 11th century. At that point, the foremost purpose of priestly celibacy was to clearly distinguish and separate the priests from the laity, to elevate the status of the clergy. In this scheme, the mere presence of the priest’s wife confounded that goal, and thus she incurred the suspicion, and quite often the loathing, of parishioners and church reformers. You can’t help wondering what feelings she will inspire today.

By the time of the First Lateran Council, the priest’s wife had become a symbol of wantonness and defilement. The reason was that during this period the nature of the host consecrated at Mass received greater theological scrutiny. Medieval theologians were in the process of determining that bread and wine, at the moment of consecration in the hands of an ordained priest at the altar, truly became the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The priest who handled the body and blood of Christ should therefore be uncontaminated lest he defile the sacred corpus.

The priest’s wife was an obvious danger.

OK, let’s stop right there — since I am determined not to write about this op-ed piece.

However, an academic who is a regular GetReligion reader wrote your GetReligionistas to note:

Here I thought this would be by a real priest’s wife (Orthodox, Protestant, Eastern Catholic) talking about how this was a difficult calling and no panacea.

In other words, he expected a Times op-ed written by someone who has been living — for years or even decades — in this allegedly dangerous liturgical territory. Also, there was this little problem in the text:

Here’s a good one: “Medieval theologians were in the process of determining that bread and wine, at the moment of consecration in the hands of an ordained priest at the altar, truly became the body and blood of Jesus Christ.”

Uh, maybe the precise Scholastic language of transubstantiation was evolving, but I’m pretty sure that small-o orthodox Christians were sold that the Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood. Look up “anaphora” — the ancient Liturgies were pretty emphatic.

Etc., etc. So what’s my point? My main one is that important, powerful news organizations Times should produce serious, accurate, balanced news stories on serious topics such as this before they serve up incomplete opinion columns that allegedly cover the same ground.

Why not write news about serious issues and events in the news?

Unless, of course, the ultimate goal is not to produce news, but to produce something else. After all, this is a topic best described as a matter of culture, morality and religion. Does that place this subject (paging Bill Keller, paging Bill Keller) outside the boundaries of Times journalism these days?

Just asking.

PHOTO: An Eastern-Rite Catholic priest celebrates the Divine Liturgy.

Filed Under: Anglicanism, Catholicism, Godbeat, Journalism, Worship

Is candidate Rick Santorum an “evangelist”?

December 15, 2011 By

The first word that a journalist needs to think of when writing about former Sen. Rick Santorum is “conservative” and the second is “Catholic.”

Yes, I am well aware that in 2005 Time magazine named him one of America’s 25 most influential evangelicals, which simply makes no sense at all in terms of doctrine and heritage. Ah, but who cares about religion when you can use “evangelical” as a political label? Thus, Time noted that Santorum “may be a Catholic, but he’s the darling of Protestant Evangelicals.” Conservative, daily Mass Catholics tend to think highly of him, too, but nevermind.

Readers may also recall that former New York Times editor Bill Keller memorably twisted the senator’s faith, as well, in his essay that sort of compared traditional believers with those who embrace space aliens. The correction dutifully noted: “The essay also erroneously includes Rick Santorum among politicians affiliated with evangelical Christianity. Mr. Santorum is Catholic.”

Cable television watchers may have noticed that Santorum continues to seek the GOP presidential nomination and, this time of year, that means courting Iowa evangelicals. Alas, there appear to be no Catholics in Iowa.

‘Tis the pre-primary season. Thus, the DC bureau of the McClatchy Newspapers recently produced this news feature about the candidate, with the headline, “Rick Santorum’s presidential ambition is rooted in his faith.”

One would assume that the words “his faith” in that headline refer to the faith that is practiced by Santorum.

The story opens like this:

WASHINGTON – For former Sen. Rick Santorum, it’s always been about faith.

Deep religious faith fuels Santorum’s conservative politics. It’s what propelled him into becoming one of Congress’ leading opponents of abortion, same-sex marriage and wrongdoing by fellow lawmakers, regardless of party affiliation. Faith is the key ingredient that also powers Santorum’s long-shot drive for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

The story accurately notes that Santorum continues to stress moral and cultural issues in a year in which most Americans are worried about the economy. However, social issues remain crucial in GOP primary season (ask Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney) and Santorum soldiers on.

The top of the report is dominated by politics and then, at last, 10 paragraphs or so down, readers are returned to the main subject:

A devout Catholic and father of seven children, Santorum was elected to the House of Representatives in 1990 at age 32. He was a member of the so-called “Gang of Seven” House GOP freshmen who rankled House leadership in both parties by highlighting check-writing abuses by their fellow lawmakers at the now-defunct House bank. …

In the Senate, Santorum became known for his social conservatism. … Santorum’s stances earned him a solid following among religious conservatives and a spot on Time magazine’s 25 most influential evangelists list in 2005. It also earned him the enmity of many Democrats, women’s groups, abortion rights advocates and gay rights supporters, who disliked what they considered Santorum’s holier-than-thou attitude.

The 25 most influential WHAT?

Oh my, was that word “evangelists?” Would that be “evangelists” as in Christian men and women who evangelize nonbelievers, often in large public rallies?

So the conservative Catholic is an “evangelist” as well as, in political terms, an “evangelical.” One cannot help but flash back to 2004 and that edgy Books & Culture essay by sociologist Christian Smith of the University of Notre Dame, the piece entitled “Religiously Ignorant Journalists: In search of Episcopals and evangelists.”

All together now, let’s read aloud this ever memorable passage near the top:

As a scholar of American religion promoted to journalists by my university’s PR department as an alleged expert, I constantly receive inquiries from reporters wanting background, quotes, and contacts for religion stories they are writing. Usually they have one or two days to complete the story. As often as not, the journalist mispronounces the name of the religious group he or she is covering.

“Evangelicals” is one of their favorites to botch. Often in our discussions, journalists refer to ordinary evangelical believers as “evangelists” — as if the roughly 70 million conservative Protestants in America were all traveling preachers like Billy Graham and Luis Palau — or, more to the point, televangelists like Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggert. Hey, aren’t all evangelicals really pretty much like these last two, or rather as many reporters tend to see them — scandal-prone limelight seekers with ambitions to impose a repressive Christian moral order on all America? Other journalists simply cannot pronounce “evangelicals” at all. They get confused and flustered, and after a few uncomfortable tries at “evangelics” and “evangelicalists” they give up and resort to referring to evangelicals simply as “them.”

So, to the McClatchy bureau, we must say, “Correction please.”

NOTE: In your comments, please discuss the journalism issues in this post, not your opinions of Santorum or his candidacy.

Filed Under: Catholicism, Evangelicals, People, Politics, Social Issues

David Carr’s faith; a duet with Terry Gross

October 31, 2011 By

During one of my college newspaper internships, the reporter who sat next to me told me nearly every day to flee journalism to find a more stable profession. He shares plenty of angst with others in the field, many of whom were watching their colleagues drop like flies in newsroom after layoffs and buyouts.

Anyone with a journalism background seems to have an opinion about the future of publishing, one that tends to be overly positive or terribly negative. In a new interview with Terry Gross on NPR’s Fresh Air, New York Times media columnist David Carr seems to strike a nice balance between someone who sees the incredible possibilities for reporting but also see the economic realities in newsrooms. Here are some quotes from the transcript:

We are entering a golden age of journalism. I do think there has been horrible frictional costs, but I think when we look back at what has happened, I look at my backpack that is sitting here, and it contains more journalistic firepower than the entire newsroom that I walked into 30 to 40 years ago. It’s connected to the cloud, I can make digital recordings of everything that I do, I can check in real time if someone is telling me the truth, I have a still camera that takes video that I can upload quickly and seamlessly.

…I think that the ability to sit at your desk and check everything against history and narrative, it’s part of how newspapers ended up becoming … daily magazines. All the analytics are baked in because the reporters are able to check stuff as they go. … Now the business model has not kept up with that.

Those interested in the future of media might chuckle at his line about panels being the future of journalism. “The future of journalism is wearing badges and talking on panels, as far as I can tell,” he says.

Carr has been pretty open about his former drug and alcohol addictions, revealing a conversation he had with former executive editor Bill Keller about his memoir. “You know what, we don’t hire nuns. We have no problem with your book,” Keller told him. Gross finds a way to ask him about his faith, though she prefaces it by saying “This question will probably get too personal.” At about minute 28, she asks, “For a lot of people who are giving up an addiction, they’re encouraged to find a higher power … where it’s a religion or something else that will function in that way. Was there such a thing for you?” Carr says he’s in the middle of a struggle with religion.

I’m a churchgoing Catholic, and I do that as a matter of, it’s good to stand with my family. It’s good that I didn’t have to come up with my own creation myth for my children. It’s a wonderful … community. It’s not really where I find God. The accommodation I’ve reached is a very jury-rigged one, which is: All along the way, in [substance abuse] recovery, I’ve been helped without getting into specifics of names, by all of these strangers who get in a room and do a form of group-talk therapy and live by certain rules in their life — and one of the rules is that you help everyone who needs help. And I think to myself: Well, that seems remarkable. Not only is that not a general human impulse, but it’s not an impulse of mine. And yet, I found myself doing that over and over again. Am I, underneath all things, just a really wonderful, giving person? Or is there a force greater than myself that is leading me to act in ways that are altruistic and not self-interested and lead to the greater good? That’s sort of as far as I’ve gotten with the higher power thing. I’m kind of a pirate, kind of a thug. I’ve done terrible things, and yet I’m for the most part able to be a decent person. … I think something else is working on me.

How are you thinking about it, Gross asks. Are you reading things you haven’t read before? How do you figure that out?

One of the things I’m doing is praying, which seems like an uncomfortable, unnatural activity for me. It’s to whom, to what, about what? I have a prayer in my wallet that I’m saying. (chuckling) I feel like a complete fraud while I’m doing it, but it’s the act of acknowledging that there may be something else out there. I haven’t really thought it through, but I think the behavior and the activity will lead to something good. Anything that gets me into a place of something less than self-obsession and gets me into a place of some humility, not even acknowledging a higher power but that other people exist and they’re not here as an extension of my world. Part of the reason I got into journalism is I love the stories of other people.

Gross gently nudges him to get specific, asking him to pull out the prayer he has in his pocket.

Sure, let me look at it. It’s really full of like thees and thous. I think it’s the prayer of St. Francis. What it would be known programmatically, again, no names mentioned, is kind of a third-step prayer. I’m not comfortable reading the whole thing but what it talks about is to offer yourself to God to build with you as God would see fit. The important part to me is to relieve me of the bondage of self, so that I may better do thy will. It goes on to say, take away my difficulties; of course everyone prays for that, we all do. And that victory over them will bear witness to a power greater than yourselves. And it says may I do thy will always. I don’t really know who I’m talking about when I say those words, but it sort of feels good when I do.

Gross: I can understand that.

Carr: Yeah, I think it’s okay to have a superstitious belief of God and not really have thought it through. I think there’s freedom in allowing for the possibility of it. I don’t have a presence, I don’t have some idea in my mind a woman or a man figure or anything like that, but I find the spaces between people whether I’m making a newspaper with them or in recovery or living with them as family or friends I find something really godly in that. I don’t have trouble acknowledging that.

Gross: You found something godly but there isn’t a theology that you’re following.

Carr: Yeah, I’ve been watching this debate over Mormonism … people making fun of their theology. I think, I’m a practicing Catholic. We suggest in churches all over the world that there’s a metamorphoses of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ which we proceed eat and drink, which when you take a step back is sort of creepy, but that’s who I’m running with. Whether it’s the underwear people wear, the hats they wear on their head or turbins, again I make no judgment. I find comfort in those traditions.

After listening to the interview, it was amusing to see parallel comments on NPR’s website:

Adrianne Wadewitz (wadewitz) wrote:
I turned this off once the focus turned to religion. Carr’s views on this topic are of no particular interest and I was unsure why the interview went in this direction. It was disappointing, as there was substantial time left that Gross could have used to talk about the changing face of media in the US and Britain.

Mark Nowak (marknowak) wrote:
Excellent interview, Terry. And I enjoyed the church stuff!

If you’re only looking information, for Carr to predict the future of media over his crystal ball, the part about his faith might seem a bit off topic. But if you’re looking to understand more about Carr as a human being, how he processes his faith and beliefs is fascinating, and Gross does a nice job of pulling that out of him.

Newspapers image via Shutterstock.

Filed Under: Catholicism, Journalism, Radio & TV, Religion