Trust me, I realize that the Iowa GOP caucuses are getting really complicated for journalists.
I mean, you’ve got this libertarian guy who is a hero for many pro-lifers.
You have the Mormon guy who has been trying and trying to win over his fair share of evangelical Protestants voters. Problem is, some think he’s too Mormon. Others think he isn’t Mormon enough. Sorry ‘bout that.
You have this recent convert to Catholicism who is a hero to lots of conservatives who aren’t Catholics.
You have this United Methodist guy who lots of people seem to think is a power prophecy charismatic or something.
You have this other Catholic who is so conservative, when it comes to the specifics of his Catholic faith, that some journalists keep calling him an evangelical.
‘Tis a puzzlement.
I understand the confusion. This is hard work. Still, there is absolutely no need to journalists to write paragraphs such as the following, which come from a recent touch-all-the-bases Iowa roundup in USA Today.
So here is the context. How to describe the conflicting views that evangelical voters — there are no other voters in Iowa, of course — have of Newt Gingrich, the Catholic convert, and Rick Santorum, the Catholic conservative who is now surging (we are told these days) with a slice of the state’s evangelical flock? Also, how to describe the unique scrutiny faced by Mitt Romney?
Read carefully:
There was a time when a Catholic candidate faced similar scrutiny among evangelicals. Santorum, who is Catholic but has appealed primarily to Christian voters, says he occasionally gets a comment on the trail. “I’ve had it mentioned to me a couple of times,” he says. Gingrich converted to Catholicism, the faith of his third wife, Callista, in 2009.
“The only concern I’ve heard about Gingrich’s Catholicism is evangelicals hoping he’s had a sincere, redemptive moment,” says Steve Deace, an influential Christian talk radio host in Iowa. “Back in the day, evangelicals were concerned Catholics would take orders from the pope. Now, given how many liberal Catholic politicians there are, evangelicals want a Catholic who actually does.”
Say what?
Gentle readers, what do you think the copy desk at USA Today — a skilled crew, in my experience — was thinking when the pros who work there signed off on this sequence of words?
Santorum, who is Catholic but has appealed primarily to Christian voters. …
Here are a few logical options:
* Does this mean that Santorum is Catholic, but is not appealing to Catholics, but to “Christians”? The implication is that Catholics are not Christians. Say what?
* Does this mean that, although Santorum is Catholic, he is not focusing his campaign on Catholics in particular, but on reaching voters who are “Christians,” broadly defined (presumably including Catholics and evangelical Protestants)? I sure hope that was the goal.
* Does this mean that the USA Today pros got so tired of writing about “evangelicals” that the editors just broke down and used “Christians” (as opposed to Catholics) instead of the word “evangelicals”?
Oh well. I now return you to the previously scheduled journalistic discussion about this topic: Why evangelical voters are so bigoted that most of them only plan to vote for Romney in the general election.
Or something like that.
 | Posted at 8:18 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (28) |
December 31, 2011, at 9:03 am
While most Catholics I know refer to themselves primarily as “Catholic” versus “Christian” I too doubt that many, if any of them, would say that they are not Christian so thank you for that!
What I think is that USA Today and other media sources need to stop what we Christians are accused (by them) of doing - linking faith to politics. They need to stop for their own sakes as well as for the sake of their fellow American. It offends everyone on some level. They have alternately now implied that Catholics are not Christians, that “evangelicals” are somehow separate from other Protestants, and that “Christians” are all conservative Republicans.
Should they ever decide to stop trying to put us all in boxes perhaps we could actually discuss and solve some real issues instead of further dividing an already divided American people.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
1
December 31, 2011, at 9:22 am
What is more galling is the implication that “Christians” — as in “Christian groups” and “Christian politicians” — are something alien and abnormal, nothing to do with the real people we see every day. I am particularly exasperated by the cognitive dissonance which combines this attitude with complaints of oppression by a nasty “majority”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
0
December 31, 2011, at 9:37 am
This is merely a continuation of the media’s obsession with identity politics — blacks and Hispanics all vote Democrat, Christians are all evangelicals and vote Republican, etc. etc. If it’s all group-think, then why bother with an election? Simply add up the numbers in each identify group and whoever has the most wins!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
December 31, 2011, at 9:42 am
And homosexuals all follow the “liberal” agenda on everything… a source of continuing frustration to PLAGAL
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
5
December 31, 2011, at 10:05 am
I’m reminded of the difficulty reporters had in succinctly, clearly and accurately identifying and explaining the various factions in the Lebanese Civil War in the 80s. It was a Herculean task. If the carnage hadn’t been so sad, it would have been funny. Nevertheless, it should be easier to identify Catholic, Evangelical, etc. These groups are a bit more stable and have been around for a while.
I’m looking forward to getting a Republican nominee. Then we can concentrate on mangling the religious nuances of just two candidates.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
December 31, 2011, at 10:11 am
“what do you think the copy desk at USA Today — a skilled crew, in my experience — was thinking when the pros who work there signed off on this sequence of words?”
I’m thinking they forgot to include the word “evangelical” (or possibly “protestant”) between “to” and “Christian”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
December 31, 2011, at 10:42 am
As an Iowa evangelical who has ‘surged’ to Santorum in the last couple of days, I can tell you that:
1. I won’t vote for Ron Paul because he is a Libertarian in sheep’s clothes, and Libertarians should be kept faaaaaaar away from the halls of power.
2. I won’t vote for Mitt Romney because (despite all his advertising to the contrary) I still suspect he is a Massachusetts liberal RINO.
3. Newt Gingrich? Really? Is there anything to Gingrich but a desire for power?
4. Gov Perry? Yeah, no thanks.
You will notice the complete lack of religious motivation in any of this. I am so tired of being stereotyped as a “voter who chooses by church membership.” I have profound disagreements with Roman Catholicism, but I am willing to trust the Republic to a reasoned RC conservative. I would vote for a Jew without hesitation. I would vote for a Mormon. I don’t care about the candidate’s religion. I care about how it informs his world view.
carl
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
8
December 31, 2011, at 10:42 am
Since Catholics play no real role in Iowa GOP politics, maybe USA Today was just picking up on the habit Evangelicals have of differentiating “Christians” from all other Christian believers.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
5
December 31, 2011, at 10:53 am
“Should they ever decide to stop trying to put us all in boxes perhaps we could actually discuss and solve some real issues instead of further dividing an already divided American people.”
I second what Jeffrey said. The problem is that “Christians” as defined by USA Today here, have been putting everyone in a “box” for too many years to count. The paper is just following precedent of the public in this case. Catholics aren’t included (unless for political purposes), Mormons aren’t included, JWs aren’t included, liberals aren’t included (although liberals accuse conservatives of living false Christianity as well), and etc. Evangelicals should be proud of this article.
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
14
December 31, 2011, at 1:04 pm
I find that a surprising assertion but perhaps it’s by comparison to other media outlets and other steps in the process. I know that in theory typesetting and proofreading takes place later in the process. And those later steps are often quite badly done with HTML directives getting into the print newspaper and chopping off sentences when the space is used up etc. But given that copyeditors can also be involved in proofreading, maybe those basic errors are made by the same person?
I was also a bit bemused by the Wikipedia entry that I think sums up the problem very well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_editing
In other words, the only really important competence is the ability to deal with the software. Everything else takes a back seat.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
December 31, 2011, at 2:53 pm
I read that piece and knew it was begging for a GR treatment. Too much low-hanging fruit, especially the “Catholic but has appealed primarily to Christian voters” like hanging there like a pinata. Good job.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
December 31, 2011, at 4:04 pm
1 - You keep saying that like it is a bad thing.
2 - Since this blog is devoted to accurate reportage: “Libertarian”, capitalized, refers to the Libertarian Party. All indications are that this time, as last, Paul will contest the Republican nomination to the bitter end.
After all, confusing “Catholic” and “catholic” would certainly invite attention here.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
2
December 31, 2011, at 4:28 pm
Gone is the day when Catholic politicians would get the Catholic vote because of their moral stance on social issues. I have had several Catholics tell me of their disdain for Rick Santorum because of his stance on issues - pro-life, pro-marriage, etc. In other words, he’s too rigid in his Catholic beliefs! Most Catholics in this country still feel abortion is a woman’s right, that the use of birth control is just fine, and that gay marriage should be permitted. I’ll stick with Santorum, thank you very much!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
8
December 31, 2011, at 5:01 pm
I remember,long ago, Billy Graham said he didn’t know what evangelical meant. As a teenager I kind of got the feeling that it was the word used by Presbyterians and Methodists when what they really meant was that they were fundamentalists like me. So, I totally understand the problem reporters have with the names Christians use for themselves. But that Christian not Catholic thing… Wow. That’s really bad.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
December 31, 2011, at 5:02 pm
Option 1: The copywriter, in a moment of intellectual laziness, surrendered to the false “Catholic/Christian” bifurcation, especially as the latter is supposed to apply only to Evangelicals.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
December 31, 2011, at 5:10 pm
Ethan (14), there is noting wrong with keeping Mormons out of office simply because they are Mormon. Plato taught in the Euthyphro Dialogue that polytheism (Mormons are polytheists) is not a sufficient foundation for moral thought. Politics is a moral endeavor, and history shows that monotheists have a hard enough time being moral politicians. To put someone in the presidency who has such a weak moral foundation as Romney’s is to invite disaster.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
21
December 31, 2011, at 6:12 pm
Leticia Velasquez posts a campaign commercial. Presumably it will be taken down ASAP.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
December 31, 2011, at 7:47 pm
I have spiked about 20 purely political comments. I’m doing the best I can to catch up — without wifi
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
December 31, 2011, at 9:40 pm
Twarn’t that long ago that there were Christians who denied that Catholics were Christians—now that I googled it, it’s less long ago than I thought http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm
Maybe even a few of these folks live in Iowa? And may be caucusing on Tuesday? You think?
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
December 31, 2011, at 10:56 pm
Actually, that Dallas preacher who thinks Mormonism is a cult thinks the same of the Catholic Church. So what? It’s a free country and he can believe whatever he likes. If he can influence his congregation and/or denomination, it’s his free speech right to do so. And, btw, he has said that he will vote for Mitt Romney should Romney be the Republican nominee. I don’t doubt he would say the same of Gov. Huntsman or either Catholic candidate.
Undoubtedly, there are some folks like that in Iowa. Again, so what? People vote for candidates for all sorts of reasons, and, like some folks commenting, I think the whole issue is over played.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
2
January 1, 2012, at 12:33 am
Catholics are Christians. Other Christians are non-catholic Christians.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
2
January 1, 2012, at 2:19 pm
Catholics who believe abortion is a right, think divorce is OK, practice unnatural birth control are non-practicing Catholics; in other words, in name only. Their votes continually put Dems. in office, deserving or not.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
9
January 1, 2012, at 8:08 pm
I took the meaning in the second sense, but that still leaves the problem of a narrow definition of “Christian”, at least in a formal sense. Practically, I suspect that voters who respond to Santorum do so for faith reasons, and likely self-identify as “Christian” as opposed to a denominational identifier.
As noted, the political use of the word Christian is problematic, but not so much in terms of reporting. Rather, it carries the notion that those who do not share the vigorous positions of the senator are somehow less than Christian. There are good theological reasons to challenge that understanding, however that is for a different sort of post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
January 1, 2012, at 9:31 pm
Andrea, well put. Anyone who thinks they are a Catholic yet thinks its Ok to Divorce your spouse ( a mortal sin), thinks abortion is a womans’choice- ( again a mortal sin- murder), use contraception ( again killing the unborn through chemical means), are not really Catholic,, they are OUTSIDE the church.
Our American Catholic church needs to be more vocal and say it like it is.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
6
January 2, 2012, at 1:48 pm
All I can say is that this looks like “he poked me first”. It’s not a very good excuse from anyone over the age of six. I am not slamming it but just saying that it never stops and no one looks very mature or interested in much other than payback and one-upsmanship.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
January 3, 2012, at 11:30 pm
Jon B stated: “Catholics are Christians. Other Christians are non-catholic Christians.”
However, this overlooks the fact that not all Catholics are Roman Catholics.
Eastern Orthodox Churches have always believed that they
are the real members of the Catholic Church. (The term Catholic means “universal”.)
Wikipedia’s discussion of the Nicene Creed demonstrates the historical usage of the term Catholic. It also reveals that protestant versions of the creed often use the word catholic without capitalizing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_creed
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
January 4, 2012, at 6:58 am
One time I, as a fundamentalist, was listening to someone telling me that he knows I’m a Christian…but…he’s a Roman Catholic. What’s that all about? I think Jim above hit the nail on the head with the Eastern Orthodox church’s belief.
I would vote for Santorum just the same. His more conservative Catholic views are fine! I think Romney is like what was stated earlier, a bit more liberal, like McCain who has now endorsed Romney. Sorry to say I think too many candidates use their “religion” to get votes. Do they walk the talk?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 4, 2012, at 10:49 am
To Jim:
Yes, what you say is partially true. Not all who consider themselves Catholic are Roman Catholic. However, even if they consider themselves Catholic, that does not transform their consideration into a reality. It doesn’t matter if the Eastern Orthodox believes that the Latin Chruch split from the Eastern Church. That is just not historically accurate. Facts are what evidence and formulate the truth, are they not? I will not expound on this topic since we are on a tangent to begin with. If you are open to the truth of the matter, do some research on early Church history. A great starting point is: A Complete History of the Catholic Church to the Present Day, by Rev. John Laux.
Also, Roman Catholics use the word ‘catholic’ in the Nicene Creed without capitalizing it—in the old and new translations:
(old translation)”We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”
(new translation)”I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0