And now, a word from Richard N. Ostling, one of the most celebrated religion-beat writers of the late 20th century.

Let us attend.

When the former Time and Associated Press veteran talks about gaffes on the religion beat, he often begins with a simple, yet common, example. Here is a brief discussion of that issue, taken from a Scripps Howard News Service column that I wrote (drawn from my chapter in the book “Blind Spot: When Journalists Don’t Get Religion):

… Mistakes are mistakes and it isn’t good for readers to keep seeing stories that, week after week, cause them to mutter, “Wait a minute. That’s just wrong.” Here’s a prime example, a mistake Ostling keeps seeing in reports about the declining number of ordinations to the Catholic priesthood. This mistake often shows up in news coverage of mandatory celibacy for priests or the scandals caused by clergy sexual abuse.

Journalists often report that Rome does not ordain married men.

“Now it would be accurate,” said Ostling, “to say that the overwhelming majority of men ordained as Catholic priests are not married. It would even be accurate to say that ‘almost all’ priests are not married. But what about Eastern Rite Catholicism, where you have married priests? Then there are the married men who have been ordained in the Anglican Rite, who used to be Episcopal priests. You have a few Lutherans, too.”

Now, this is probably not a “media bias” issue. When talking about this kind of error, we are probably not dealing with a question of “objectivity,” “fairness” or “balance.”

We are talking about a simple question of accuracy. Mistakes are bad. Correct?

So what does this particular error look like when you encounter it in its natural habitat? Consider the opening of the following Christian Science Monitor report on, yes, the clergy-abuse crisis and, yes, the claims that the dominant tradition of a celibate priesthood in the Catholic West might be part of the problem.

Vatican No. 2 Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone made headlines … when he appeared to ease the church’s absolute position on celibacy, telling Spanish radio the centuries-old rule is not an “untouchable” one. The prelate’s comment was part of a Vatican affirmation of celibacy and a strong view that there is “no direct link between celibacy and the deviant behavior of certain priests,” as Cardinal Bertone put it.

But even opening the door slightly on such a deeply cherished practice is a concession to persistent questions tied to revelations of child sexual abuse in the United States, Germany, Ireland, Belgium, Kenya, and Austria that has put the church in crisis, analysts say. From the start of the Catholic priest child abuse scandal, Vatican officials have pointedly sought to play down the role that mandatory celibacy may or may not play in the abuse and cover up surfacing this spring.

OK, let’s set aside that strange “Vatican No. 2 Cardinal” reference, which is most strange. Is there a scorecard somewhere containing these rankings?

This passage contains yet another reference to the Catholic church having an “absolute position on celibacy,” which is simply not accurate. Even the reference to “mandatory celibacy” needs to be linked — a tiny link is all that we need — to this tradition’s dominant, but not exclusive, role in the Catholic West.

As Ostling said, celibacy is clearly normative. But it is not an “absolute” doctrine in the churches that are in union with the Church of Rome. Period. That is an inaccurate statement. That’s bad and, in a few passages, the ripples from that error touch other parts of this story.

Come on, people. Read some church history. Get it right.

Photo: A married Catholic priest, a former Anglican, and his family.

Reuters is definitely my favorite source for international religious news. But this story out of Srinagar, India, could use some help. Headlined “Visitors banned from Kashmir’s Jesus shrine,” it tells about a local Muslim fight over a shrine. And in so doing, it gives terribly short short shrift to the most fundamental Christian teachings:

Renewed debate over whose remains are actually in the Rozabal shrine, which attracts hundreds of tourists to the capital of lndia’s only Muslim-dominated region, has led caretakers to close it to visitors after allowing access for several years.

A decades-old theory that Jesus survived the crucifixion and spent his remaining years in Kashmir had drawn many people to Rozabal, a single-storey shrine with a traditional sloping roof located in a congested residential area of the capital Srinagar.

Locals believe the shrine is the tomb of Muslim preachers and scholars Youza Asif and Syed Naseer-ud-Din. They don’t appreciate increased traffic. So where in the world did this Jesus idea come from?

“Some Christians from the West claim it is the grave of Jesus and they had approached us with a request to exhume the remains for carbon dating and DNA testing. But we refused,” Mohammad Amin Ringshawl, the shrine’s caretaker, told Reuters.

Really? Christians who reject the teaching of Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension? Who are these people? From the West? Okay, that’s a pretty big portion of the world. But the only actual name associated with the theory comes here:

The idea that Jesus survived crucifixion and visited Kashmir was first raised in the 1973 book “Christ in Kashmir,” by local journalist Aziz Kashmiri. Several other books followed it.

“Jesus Christ, after crucifixion, migrated from his native land, reached and settled in Kashmir, completed his mission, passed away, and was laid to eternal rest,” Kashmiri writes in his book.

Local Muslim scholars and historians, however, ridicule Kashmiri’s theory. Muslims revere Jesus as one of God’s prophets, but they do not believe he died during his crucifixion.

I think that last paragraph may be a bit too specific. It is true that Muslims don’t believe Jesus died via crucifixion. But some don’t believe he was crucified at all. They think that, well, something else happened. Such as that someone else was crucified in his stead. The relevant verse from the Koran would be:

And for their unbelief (are the Jews cursed) and for their having spoken against Mary a grievous calumny, and for their saying ‘Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of Allah!’ Yet they slew him not, but they had only his likeness. And those who differed about him were in doubt concerning him: No sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion, and they really did not slay him, but Allah took him up to Himself and Allah is Mightly, Wise!

In a sense, the Kashmiri tomb story almost sounds more like a heresy of Muslim teaching than of Christian teaching about Christ. But if a story is going to claim that some Western Christians deny Christ’s death on the cross, resurrection and ascension and, what’s more, believe he ended up in Kashmir … couldn’t we at least find one of them?

Every year, I usually take a few minutes to go through Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People package to Google a lot of names I’ve never heard before. It probably says more about the magazine’s editors and who they want as subscribers than anything else.

Look, I’m not against these lists. They’re fun. They’re interesting. They generate light-hearted bickering.

But it would be silly to think it accurately gauges actual influence. I suppose this Time’s service to the world: informing us who journalists are watching. If it does indicate journalists’ current obsessions, it’s an abysmal list.

Remember in 2007 when Doug counted 17 religion references? Then last year he lamented their disappearance. It’s hard to know how to really count these religious references. Do you count the person if he or she is known first and foremost as a religious leader? If the short description references religion? Either way, I count two people explicitly known for being religious.

First, we have Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the widow of Senator Edward Kennedy, writing on Sister Carol Keehan, leader of the Catholic Health Association of the United States and supporter of the health care law that passed.

Courageous and purposeful, Sister Carol Keehan, 66, is a deeply religious Catholic woman dedicated to carrying out the healing ministry of Jesus Christ on earth. Her leadership of the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA) has been defined by advocacy for the poor and an unwavering respect for human dignity. Her fight to reform health care was an extension of her concern for the most vulnerable in our society and was as integral to the mission of CHA as providing medical services. Undeterred by her critics, she refused to back down as she fought for reforms that would include prenatal and maternity care and coverage for uninsured children. She fought for those who couldn’t fight for themselves.

Then Sister Mary Scullion, a nun from Philadelphia who works on behalf of the homeless, makes an appearance on the alumnae list. Last year, Elizabeth Gilbert wrote about Scullion, and this year, she answered some questions.

Was there any specific event, in your life or in the world, that helped define you?
As a college student, I participated in an international gathering of Catholics in 1976 that included some of the Church’s most outspoken advocates for justice, peace, and compassion: Mother Teresa, Dorothy Day, Brazilian bishop Dom Helder Camara, and others. The latter gave me a clear direction for my faith and my life as a Sister of Mercy.

As you look ahead, what would you like to achieve?
I look forward to being part of a country and a world where homelessness is a thing of the past.

But in a list of 100, only two religious leaders make the list? USA Today’s Cathy Lynn Grossman wants to know, “Is this an oversight or reality in a secular world?”

So, overall, no preachers, no priests, no sign of the ubiquitous Bono or even Pope Benedict XVI, turn up on the most and least lists. Do you think the paucity of religious people on the Most list reflects faith voices losing clout — or it’s just oversight on the part of Time editors?

C’mon Cathy, Pope Benedict XVI only leads, what, 1 billion people or so. I guess he’s not as mesmerizing as Lady Gaga’s flaming breasts. Perhaps the Pope is limited because he can only have fashion-forward shoes.

Who else should be on that list? I’m going to go out on a limb and say the editors could have at least considered the Dalai Lama, T.D. Jakes, Rowan Williams and Rick Warren. Between health care and Proposition 8, would someone from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make sense? With all the relief efforts in Haiti, might someone like World Vision’s president Rich Stearns qualify?

Part of the problem is that religious leaders don’t fit neatly into Time’s list of leaders, artists, heroes, and thinkers, at least in the traditional way we think of those categories. And yet many religious leaders could probably be considered under each of these categories.

In many ways, the list seems more about issues that are newsworthy (social networking, for example) and people who might represent them. That approach doesn’t bode well for religious leaders who are trying to stand fast on centuries-old traditions. So is the issue really about influence?

Help me out. Who would you have nominated? At least we can breath a sigh of relief that Ashton Kutcher made the list.

We looked at some of the coverage of the Comedy Central’s censorship of the South Park program. South Park has long shown offensive images of Jesus and other non-Muslim religious figures. It has also attempted to show inoffensive “images of Muhammad” but been censored by the network — and other media covering the issue — out of fears of violence. I put “images of Muhammad” in quotes because their most recent censored images were actually of a bear and a taxi-cab (that Muhammad was supposedly inside).

Anyway, it’s not the blasphemy that’s in question. South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker love to blaspheme all religions. This is why they, for instance, think it’s funny to depict Americans, President Bush and Jesus defecating on each other and the American flag. Blasphemy is sort of what they do.

It’s the violence and the threat of violence and the censorship that results in that. Good coverage would look at the difference in core values of the clashing cultures and different religions in question. And that, of course, is the story few people want to cover.

A good opportunity to explore the issues came when a young illustrator came up with an “I am Spartacus” idea of having everyone draw Muhammad one day. It took off — beyond the artist’s wildest expectations, I guess. Here’s the Los Angeles Times:

The outcry from Comedy Central’s decision to censor an episode of South Park with depictions of Muhammad last week led a cartoonist and a Facebook user to fight back. That is until they realized it might be controversial, apparently.

In declaring May 20th to be “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,” Seattle artist Molly Norris created a poster-like cartoon showing many objects — from a cup of coffee to a box of pasta to a tomato — all claiming to be the likeness of Muhammad.

Such depictions are radioactive as many Muslims believe that Islamic teachings forbid showing images of Muhammad.

First off, I’d like to thank the Los Angeles Times for putting a “many” in front of Muslims to note that not all Muslims believe that Islamic teachings forbid showing images of Muhammad. Muslims are most definitely not unanimous in their belief that any physical representation of Muhammad is blasphemous.

The 15th century image with this post shows Muhammad visiting Paradise while riding Buraq, accompanied by the Angel Gabriel. Below them, riding camels, are some of the fabled houris of Paradise — the “virgins” promised to heroes and martyrs. This image is entitled Miraj Nama, and is housed in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. Go here for more Muslim physical representations of Muhammad that are supposedly not allowed.

Actually, I’m totally unsure where the breakdown is on whether or not to depict Muhammad, what the key doctrinal points are, or how many or what type of Muslims are on which side. I think that would make a fascinating story.

Chicago Tribune religion reporter Manya Brachear approached the story by asking her paper’s cartoonist Scott Stantis for his thoughts. Here’s a snippet from the interview:

Seeker: Do you have a set of rules that govern what/who you draw and when? In other words, are certain people or historical figures off limits or is everyone fair game? Do you ever poke fun at people who have passed away or do you have rules about that?

SS: Under certain conditions I can see drawing anyone or any body.

Seeker: What are your thoughts about the reaction to the South Park depiction of the Prophet Muhammad? Do you think it’s overblown or could it lead to a productive conversation about respect?

SS: Any time you threaten violence you lose the argument. I can second guess Comedy Central’s decision to edit the South Park episode but I can see where they would not want to put themselves in harm’s way. In terms of respect, I have to giggle at the notion that a faith that is so insecure that its icon cannot be held up to even depiction has a lot of internal work to do.

A good discussion ensues in the comments (how often can you say that on the interwebs!?). But again, this isn’t really a debate about respect. Christian and Jewish symbols and figures are disrespected by cartoonists or other media figures every day that ends with a y. So this isn’t really a debate about how to show proper respect to religious figures. This is really a debate about whether fear of violence is the only reason to back away from disrespectful speech.

I’ve been sick and under the weather all week so perhaps this has been covered better by mainstream reporters, but the only place I even saw a discussion of this issue was in Ross Douthat’s New York Times column. Read the whole thing, but here is a snippet:

In ours, though, even Parker’s and Stone’s wildest outrages often just blur into the scenery. In a country where the latest hit movie, “Kick-Ass,” features an 11-year-old girl spitting obscenities and gutting bad guys while dressed in pedophile-bait outfits, there isn’t much room for real transgression. Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place.

Except where Islam is concerned. There, the standards are established under threat of violence, and accepted out of a mix of self-preservation and self-loathing.

This is what decadence looks like: a frantic coarseness that “bravely” trashes its own values and traditions, and then knuckles under swiftly to totalitarianism and brute force.

He sort of took the ball and scored three touchdowns with it — but I’d settle for a simple discussion on establishing standards under threat of violence. How does that affect our culture, how does that affect Muslims in Muslim countries, how does affect Muslims living in countries that are not predominantly Muslim? How does that affect Muslim art? How does that affect art critical of Islam? Where are we seeing this issue played out? What are the hidden costs of decisions such as those made by Comedy Central — and countless other publishing houses and art venues that don’t even wait for the death threats to pull books, productions, etc.?

Brachear has also used her blog to provide a forum for other voices in the depiction of Muhammad controversy. Here’s Hesham Hassaballa saying he was bothered by the cartoon but more bothered by the Muslim extremist response to the cartoon and Ahmed Rehab saying he thought the controversy was contrived. And there’s an agnostic defender of the First Amendment in there for good measure, too.

The Washington Post’s comic blog also took up the issue, noting that 17 Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonists had signed a petition expressing outrage at the threats made against Parker and Stone.

Blogs are great (hey, we’re a blog, too!) but how about some more substantive coverage of the issue — and the long-term concerns that need addressing.

Here is a sticky question: What is a reporter supposed to do when writing a story about a religious group that does not see itself as a denomination and strives not to use traditional (remember that word) language to describe itself and much of its work? Do you use the traditional terms and explain that the group being covered does not use them or do you use the group’s unique terms, knowing that you’ll need to translate them for readers?

We are talking about the Church of Christ, specifically the movement that is best known for the fact that its churches do not use musical instruments in worship. Yes, this is the crew in which our own Bobby Ross Jr. is a leader and editor. He had to opt out of commenting on the following story for obvious reasons. His decision may have something to do with an expression among the various churches on this “Restoration” or “Stone Campbell” branch of the American Protestant tree: “We don’t have bishops. We have editors.”

Another thing to mention: I grew up as the son of a Southern Baptist minister in Wichita Falls, Texas, right on the edge of West Texas and the Panhandle. Most of the people I was around called the Churches of Christ the “West Texas Churches of Christ” because their churches are almost as common in this region as 7-11s (and even more common than Southern Baptist churches and, folks, that’s saying something in Texas).

This is a colorful and unique (that’s a compliment) movement. You can get a sense of that in its Associated Press Stylebook reference, which states in part:

“Each local church is autonomous and operates under a governing board of elders. The minister is an evangelist, addressed by members as Brother. The ministers do not use clergy titles. Do not precede their names by a title. …”

Now, with all of that said, here is the top of this report from The Oklahoman, ripped from the front lines of the worship wars, which are especially symbolic in a Church of Christ context:

A local minister who helped launch a controversial worship service with musical instruments resigned last year after his relationship with the church’s elders had deteriorated.

Recently, however, Mark Henderson was back in the pulpit at Quail Springs Church of Christ — this time on a mission of peace.

Through the urging of several church members, Henderson and the church’s elders participated in a mediation program offered by Billings, Mont.-based Peacemaker Ministries. The mediation meetings in February were described by several men involved as “difficult,” but they resulted in an outpouring of repentance and forgiveness from both Henderson and the elders. … Specific wrongs were aired in what was called a public mutual confession.

Yes, it was that controversial that music instruments were used in worship services. That leads us to the passage that raises some interesting questions about history, vocabulary and newspaper style.

Henderson served as pulpit minister at Quail for 9 1/2 years. He and elder Steve Hopkins both said that he and the elders agreed on starting a new worship service using musical instruments in 2008. It was a break from Church of Christ tradition. Most Church of Christ congregations do not use musical instruments during church services, believing there is no precedent for it in the New Testament.

Henderson saw it as a way to offer something different, particularly for the church’s young people. The change caused an uproar in the Churches of Christ, especially after a story about it ran in January 2008 in The Oklahoman.

As I hinted earlier, the key word that will raise some eyebrows is “tradition,” as in “church tradition.”

The problem is that, instead of “tradition,” many people in a Church of Christ context would see that as “Tradition,” which is a word that is associated with Catholic, Orthodox and, perhaps, Anglican churches.

Tradition is, in other words, a fighting word that is linked to some of the very liturgical and doctrinal questions that are at the heart of this movement’s fervent belief that its independent congregations are helping “restore” the church to the purity of its early roots, before the advent of what it sees as man-made “Traditions” that have hurt the faith.

But is “doctrine” a better word? Doctrine might sound, well, like these churches have a creed or a catechism. Would it be better to say that this is the movement’s “interpretation” of scripture? That, however, would imply that Church of Christ is a body that makes that kind of decision for its autonomous congregations. Notice that the story says that “most” Church of Christ congregations do not use instruments in worship.

This is very important issue for these churches. Trust me on that.

More than a decade ago, a man I shall identify only as an intellectual who is active in the Church of Christ told me that, in the circles he runs in, it doesn’t really matter if someone believes in the Virgin Birth, the Second Coming or maybe even the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, “as long as you believe that the Bible says you can’t play a piano in church.” That’s overstating matters things, to say the least. But reporters and editors in the Southwest have to find a way to deal with style issues of this kind.

OK, folks in Church of Christ pews and pulpits: What think ye? What word was The Oklahoman supposed to have used in this case?

Honk if you’ve heard the phrase “more spiritual than religious.” That, not “WWJD,” appears to be the mantra of today’s young people, even those who call themselves Christian. The movement has significant ramifications for Christianity — and religion in general — in the United States.

So when a major survey comes along that confirms the trend, it’s pretty big news, right?

Yes, if you’re USA Today religion beat specialist Cathy Lynn Grossman, whose story on the survey made Page 1-A this week:

Most young adults today don’t pray, don’t worship and don’t read the Bible, a major survey by a Christian research firm shows.

If the trends continue, “the Millennial generation will see churches closing as quickly as GM dealerships,” says Thom Rainer, president of LifeWay Christian Resources. In the group’s survey of 1,200 18- to 29-year-olds, 72% say they’re “really more spiritual than religious.”

Among the 65% who call themselves Christian, “many are either mushy Christians or Christians in name only,” Rainer says. “Most are just indifferent. The more precisely you try to measure their Christianity, the fewer you find committed to the faith.”

The survey also drew notice in the religion press, from the Christian Post to World Magazine. I’ve also heard that Katie Couric and Glenn Beck referenced it, but I didn’t see those reports. Did you?

But in general, this story doesn’t seem to have caught fire in the media. I don’t find any other national media coverage in Google News (think Washington Post, New York Times, Associated Press, et al). I did come across a few interesting local reports, including one by a Pittsburgh television station and another by a Georgia newspaper.

Why the lack of coverage? Did USA Today get the scoop and scare off the other media? (That doesn’t seem to happen on other big stories, wink, wink.)

Is this latest survey too similar to other recent findings, including a study earlier this year by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life? Is it that a Baptist organization commissioned the survey? Is it the loss of so many Godbeat pros?

I don’t know.

But this survey and the place of millennials in the modern American religious landscape seem to merit wider attention.

Grossman’s story did an excellent job of framing the issue through the lens of experts such as Lifeway’s Rainer. But plenty of ground remains to be plowed, including putting a better face on these “mushy” millennials.

“More spiritual than religious” is one of those phrases that makes sense when you hear it. But reflect on it a bit more and you find yourself going, “Huh? What exactly does that mean?”

Religion writer Peter Smith of the Louisville Courier-Journal tackled that exact question in an enlightening piece last month — even before the release of the LifeWay survey. Smith cited an in-depth Bowling Green State University study:

Those who self-identified as “spiritual” — whether they were also “religious” — were more
likely to have been “hurt by clergy”; to have higher levels of education and income; and to
take part in mystical and group spiritual experiences.

And those who identify as “spiritual” and who reject “religion” are less likely to pray and hold orthodox beliefs and more likely to be agnostic.

Such trends alarm Christians who emphasize Jesus as the only source of truth and salvation.

“‘Spiritual’ has, in some sense, come to mean ‘my own personal religion with my own individual creed,’” said Timothy Paul Jones, associate professor of leadership and church ministry at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Now, that reference to “Christians who emphasize Jesus as the only source of truth and salvation” made me smile. “Are there any other kind of Christians?” I asked myself. Alas, I know the answer …

But back on topic: Have you seen any other major mainstream coverage of the LifeWay survey? Do you agree that there’s a religion ghost in the lack of headlines? Is it time for the media to get spiritual?

I’m not sure what to make of the most recent Associated Press story about what the Pope may do. When I first looked at it, it was all of four sentences long and had some troublesome language.

The gist of the four-sentence story was that Pope Benedict XVI might “issue a mea culpa” for clerical sex abuse at a June meeting. That’s the first sentence. Then we get this:

The June 9-11 summit, initially called to mark the end of the Vatican’s year of the priest, had already morphed into a pep rally for the pope as he came under fire amid a new wave of reports on sex abuse by clerics.

That’s some pretty loaded language (“morphed into a pep rally”?) that really needs some substantiation. And then it ends with this whimper:

Cardinal William Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told U.S. public broadcaster PBS on Tuesday that he “wouldn’t be surprised” if the pontiff issues a mea culpa at the meeting.

I don’t know who was responsible for putting that story out but it just came off as stretching — and ignorant and a bit petty. It was improved by the time I saw it again with a Nicole Winfield byline in the Washington Post. It still stretches but it softened, slightly, the pep rally language:

Italian news reports this week suggested Benedict would use the June 9-11 meeting of the world’s priests at the Vatican to issue some form of apology.

The meeting was initially called to simply mark the end of the Vatican’s Year of the Priest. A few weeks ago, as Benedict came under fire in the abuse scandal, the meeting’s focus shifted and its organizers signaled it would instead be a giant pep rally to show solidarity with the besieged pontiff.

Now, it appears it will be also be a forum for Benedict to make a strong statement apologizing for abuse. Asked about the reports that a papal mea culpa would be issued, Levada said: “Whether he is going to do that or not we’ll have to wait and see, but I wouldn’t be surprised.”

I guess it’s good that “morphed” was dropped. But it would still be nice to show readers what is meant by “giant pep rally” rather than tell us that it will be. The language just seems too flippant for the seriousness of the meeting.

The rest of the story has some nice context but the lack of substance makes it seem like the media is hoping for a mea culpa, rather than reporting on the actual Vatican response.

Here’s the headline on The New York Times’ latest story delving into Pope Benedict XVI and his handling of clergy sexual abuse:

Future Pope’s Role in Abuse Case Was Complex

I didn’t see the actual print version of the story, but I’m hoping the headline ran in about 72-point type. Because, man oh man, I don’t know about the pope’s role, but complex doesn’t even begin to describe this piece. GetReligion readers, particularly those with concerns about recent coverage of the abuse scandal, may have adjectives of their own to characterize this piece.

Here’s the top:

VIENNA — As Pope Benedict XVI has come under scrutiny for his handling of sexual abuse cases, both his supporters and his critics have paid fresh attention to the way he responded to a sexual abuse scandal in Austria in the 1990s, one of the most damaging to confront the church in Europe.

Defenders of Benedict cite his role in dealing with Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer of Vienna as evidence that he moved assertively, if quietly, against abusers. They point to the fact that Cardinal Groer left office six months after accusations against him of molesting boys first appeared in the Austrian news media in 1995. The future pope, they say, favored a full canonical investigation, only to be blocked by other ranking officials in the Vatican.

A detailed look at the rise and fall of the clergyman, who died in 2003, and the involvement of Benedict, a Bavarian theologian with many connections to German-speaking Austria, paints a more complex picture.

In general, this whole scandal makes my head spin. I can’t fathom priests abusing children. I can’t understand how anyone can cover up such abuse and allow it to continue. Yet most of the recent reporting I’ve seen impresses me as overwrought and underwhelming on a “gotcha” scale.

As for the latest Times story, it’s a 1,900-word story. It has a 51-word lead sentence. It goes 337 words before making it to the first named source. Up to that point, there are broad generalizations attributed to “defenders” and “critics.” It’s “they say” and “they point to the fact” and never any concrete accounting for who “they” are.

Perhaps even worse, there are entire sections that make bold claims with no attribution at all. Take these two paragraphs, for example:

There are indications that Benedict had a lower tolerance for sexual misconduct by elite clergy members than other top Vatican officials.

Unlike John Paul, his predecessor, Benedict has as pope apologized and met with sexual abuse victims. But while he often, as a cardinal, used his clout to enforce doctrine and sideline clergy members whose views diverged from his own, he seemed less willing at that time to aggressively pursue sexual abusers.

OK, so Benedict had a low tolerance for sexual misconduct? No, wait a minute, he was unwilling to aggressively pursue abusers? Am I the only one confused here? (Unfortunately, it wouldn’t be the first time.)

As regular GetReligion reader Julia points out, the article demonstrates a lack of understanding of the structure of the Holy See and who has what jobs at the Vatican. At crucial points, the piece provides no context of when Benedict got the job of reviewing sex abuse cases. And it seems to assume that Benedict had total control of all situations at all times — even when he was not pope:

Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, had the ear of Pope John Paul II and was able to block a favored candidate for archbishop of Vienna, clearing the way for Father Groer to assume the post in 1986, say senior church officials and priests with knowledge of the process. His critics question how this influence failed him nine years later in seeking a fuller investigation into the case.

As Julia asked, is it reasonable to assume that sometimes you win arguments and sometimes you don’t? Apparently not.

I could go on, but it seems obvious: This is another attempt to tie Benedict to a cover-up. Certainly, it’s a legitimate journalistic exercise for the media to investigate what role, if any, that Benedict played. But this piece serves only to throw out a bunch of innuendo and “facts” attributed to sources such as “senior officials with knowledge of the process.”

Groan.

Anyone who has followed this weblog for very long knows that, from the get-to, we have been rather upset that legions of reporters insist on ignoring the wise guidance offered by the Associate Press Stylebook concerning when to use, and when not to use, the hot-button label “fundamentalist.”

All together now, let’s rise and quote the passage in question:

“fundamentalist: The word gained usage in an early 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. In recent years, however, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians.

“In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.”

So, with that in mind, let’s consider a very odd — in not bizarre — thing that happened the other day in The Politico.

Yes, it has finally happened. What we have here is a case in which a news organization had every right to use this term from American Protestant history and — gasp — failed to do so. In fact, this is a case in which the word “fundamentalist” needed to be used to add clarity to the story. Here is the top of the story:

A top administrator at Bob Jones University, one of South Carolina’s most prominent conservative Christian institutions, plans to endorse a primary challenger to Republican Rep. Bob Inglis, POLITICO has learned.

Robert Taylor, the dean of the Greenville-based school’s College of Arts and Sciences, plans to throw his support to Spartanburg County Solicitor Trey Gowdy at a public event within the next week.

Bob Jones University holds an iconic status among conservative religious institutions, and has a history of active political engagement. Taylor, who also serves as vice chairman of the Greenville City Council, endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for president, even as Romney’s Mormon faith raised concerns among some evangelical voters.

As the story noted, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush aroused controversy during the 2000 race for the White House by delivering a speech on this controversial campus. Suffice it to say that the word “fundamentalist” was tossed around quite a bit in the mainstream-media coverage of that event.

The key here is that Bob Jones University has always proudly claimed the fundamentalist mantle for itself, with leaders in previous Jones generations openly separating themselves from leaders — the Rev. Jerry Falwell leaps to mind — who formed public-square alliances with members of other Christian flocks. Thus, the Rev. Bob Jones, Jr., once called Falwell “the most dangerous man in America” among compromised Christian leaders.

Now, does the university’s current leadership still embrace the “fundamentalist” label? That’s an interesting question. If Politico folks have any fresh insights into that question, then by all means they need to be shared. That’s a big news story.

Wait! Someone at BJU endorsed Romney? Stay tuned.

I know CNN fancies itself as a serious news source relative to other cablers, but imbalanced stories such as this one don’t exactly help them int he claim. In a puffy piece that ran on Earth Day, we got this advice on how to have a “green” love life:

Hop on your bike for your next date and leave your car at home. (That means saying “adieu” to long-distance relationships.)

Stop excessive spending on Valentine’s Day. (It produces way too much trash anyway.)

Wear comfy bamboo underwear.

Don’t be so keen on having babies. How about adopting a child instead or implementing a one-child policy?

Yes, this is one of many ridiculously inane stories that one can seen on CNN in particular and the cable and interweb universe in general. But shouldn’t some copyeditor at CNN understand the difference between, say, buying only one box of chocolates instead of two and implementing a brutal policy that uses forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization to accomplish its goals? Do they know what a one-child policy is or what it means in practice? Not to mention that procreation is an integral part of at least some religious adherents’ beliefs.

It’s a good example of the religion ghosts in environmental stories such as these.

And it’s not just CNN. A GetReligion reader and mother of three sent in this story from the Portland Tribune that ran last month. It’s about an environmentalist couple that adopted some children so as not to have more than one biological child. And it engages very serious value claims without having a serious discussion about where these values could lead:

Last year, Oregon State University statistics professor Paul Murtaugh tapped into a hornet’s nest when he published a study measuring the environmental consequences of having a baby.

His conclusion jarred many: that having a child is the single-worst thing a person can do for climate change, considering the carbon emissions that offspring and their descendants will produce in their lifetimes.

You don’t have to be leading environmental historian, William Cronon of the University of Wisconsin, to think of environmentalism as a new religion that offers “a complex series of moral imperatives for ethical action, and judges human conduct accordingly.”

There are religious values (sometimes competing, sometimes not) on all sides here. Let’s get beyond jokes about policies that result in killing children and into some substance.