This has been such a busy time for religious news that we’ve missed a fairly interesting story coming out of Rhode Island. Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy got things going in a fiery Oct. 21 interview with Cybercast News Service. Here’s how The Providence Journal wrote up what happened:
Kennedy told an interviewer on Oct. 21, “I can’t understand for the life of me how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social-justice issue of our time.” He said, “If the church is pro-life, then they ought to be for health-care reform because it’s going to provide health care that is going to keep people alive.”
Bishop Tobin shot back that Kennedy “is correct in stating that ‘he can’t understand. He got that part right.” He called Kennedy’s comments “irresponsible and ignorant of the facts” and asked for an apology. Later, the bishop followed up with a letter inviting Kennedy to meet for a discussion of the issue.
Without apologizing in so many words, Kennedy accepted the invitation in a letter last week and said his comments “were never intended to slight the church.” Kennedy acknowledged that “the church has always stood for health-care reform.” He added, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy of the church on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”
Many papers have covered this but it’s worth noting that when the Providence Journal writes up the two sides, Kennedy seems to “say” stuff while Tobin “shoots back” or “turns up the heat” or “attacks.” From a follow up article headlined “Bishop again attacks Kennedy over abortion stand in health-care reform” (see what I mean? And the next day’s story was “R.I. Rep. Patrick Kennedy declines to respond to bishop’s attack on abortion issue”) we get some more back and forth between the two men. Kennedy says disagreeing with what the church teaches doesn’t make him any less of a Catholic. Tobin says:
“Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does,” the bishop said in a letter issued just two days after Kennedy was among a group of minority lawmakers who attempted to block tough new restrictions on abortion that were added Saturday to the House’s health-care reform legislation.
“Although I wouldn’t chose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion,” the bishop declared.
You can read Tobin’s entire statement here. The thing is that the statement is very calm and measured, but I can see why the reporters are trying to convey the strength of the statement.
It’s not that there aren’t Catholic bishops who speak clearly, but Tobin is a good example of it. He writes that Catholicism isn’t a subjective feeling but membership in a church with clearly defined authorities, doctrines and requirements. He lists these requirements (believing and accepting the teachings of the church, especially on essential matters; belonging to a parish, attending Mass on Sundays, regular sacramental reception, etc.). He says that family ties and cultural heritage are not enough to claim that one embraces his faith. He also explains the difference between wrestling with sins (such as anger or sexual impurity) and a deliberate rejection of church teaching (such as voting for policies that support abortion rights). The former is something every Christian deals with, the latter puts a strain on being part of the Catholic community.
There’s a lot to get into and Tobin explains that he’s being public in response because Kennedy was public in his disagreement with the church and that confusion on the matter is scandalous.
Scandal is something that St. Louis Post-Dispatch religion reporter Tim Townsend wrote about a lot — and well — when he covered then-St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke. Burke frequently went public with church teaching when Catholic politicians espoused support for abortion rights or pro-choice public figures were hosted by Catholic institutions. He said that it was his responsibility as archbishop and that remaining silent would be a grave scandal because people would get the idea that he thought their views were acceptable. Catholics define scandal as conduct that incites others to act immorally or do evil. I learned most of this, incidentally, through Townsend’s reporting.
The national media have picked up on this story and have focused on the public nature of this debate between Kennedy and Tobin. Here are CNN and the New York Times.
The Associated Press filed a report as well. It’s not awful, I guess, but it really doesn’t get that this a theological discussion over heavy issues. Instead, it treats it like a dispute between two adults. And, I kid you not, the only outside expert opinion we get is from the Rev. Thomas Reese (aka the Larry Sabato of religion journalism). I’m sure there are other liberal theologians who can be called on other than Reese and reporters should meet a few of them. But they should also try to get a wider variety of perspective, too.
Anyway, here’s a sample from the AP:
Their planned meeting fell apart Monday. The bishop called it a mutual decision, but Kennedy accused Tobin of reneging on an agreement to stop discussing his faith publicly. Tobin responded to Kennedy’s letter with a scathing criticism.
“Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an ‘imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church,” Tobin said, who also appealed to the Kennedy family legacy.
“It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic ‘profile in courage,’” Tobin said, referring to the title of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book written by John Kennedy.
With so much of the media focusing on the public nature of the debate, it’s worth at least explaining the Catholic position on scandal. It’s great to mention Kennedy’s wish that his public comments on his Catholicity not be responded to publicly. But there should be an explanation — such as the type that Townsend used to give when covering Burke — as to why bishops respond to (what they consider) scandal publicly.
 | Posted at 1:20 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (36) |
November 16, 2009, at 2:23 pm
There’s a general conception among the public that lay people (of any religious group) should be allowed to publicly dissent while religious leaders should only refute them privately. Maybe this is true for certain groups, but not the Catholic Church. This premise shows up in journalism even though it’s a Catholic bishop’s job to publicly refute such statements so as to avoid scandalizing the faithful.
And as Mollie noted, when a bishop uses the word scandal he doesn’t mean the latest celebrity gossip, he means something that might confuse others and lead them into sin.
Ideally, when covering stories like this, the media should provide the relevant background information necessary to help readers understand what’s going on. This isn’t merely a political disagreement between a bishop and a politician; it’s a situation where someone (who has freely chosen to be Catholic) is publicly misrepresenting the teachings of the Church and is being corrected by his bishop.
November 16, 2009, at 2:23 pm
We all, Tobin, Kennedy, and most Catholics hold that abortion is a sinful disasterious alternative.
The picky cat fight between Tobin and Kennedy is because Tobin disagrees with Kennedy on the best way to reduce the number of abortions. “If you don’t do my (and other like-minded Epicsopals) way, you are wrong, sinful, and out”. Not so fast Big Brother Tobin! If you want to be a lawmaker in this country, run for an office. Kennedy was elected by the people - you were not.
Until you consult your people and listen to what they say, if they support you, you are just another dissident voice in the wind. Speak out all you want in the pulpit but if you want to stand on the stumb, be ready to hear the voice of the people.
November 16, 2009, at 2:31 pm
Robert,
This is not a blog where we discuss the politics of abortion but, rather, media coverage of religion news. Please keep focused on the journalism angles.
November 16, 2009, at 2:38 pm
Robert is not accurately stating Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church teaches, in the Catechetism, in Evangelium Vitae and elsewhere, not only that abortion is sinful but that laws permitting it are intrinsically unjust. And it doesn’t have a blessed thing to do with Kennedy being elected a lawmaker: it has to do with him calling himself a Catholic.
November 16, 2009, at 3:43 pm
I suspect that press coverage of this topic is still under the influence of President Kennydy’s statement on the subject:
Found here:
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2000/09/I-Believe-In-An-America-Where-The-Separation-Of-Church-And-State-Is-Absolute.aspx
Contrast this with Bishop Tobin’s statement:
There is clearly a tension between the two positions. Is the consensus President Kennedy put forth in 1960 no longer operative? At the time, no bishop or church authority spoke against it. But if it isn’t in force any longer, the press should have covered when and where it was recinded. Rep Kennedy is clearly working with his uncle’s approach to the subject while the Bishop has something novel and innovative in mind.
November 16, 2009, at 3:49 pm
What Kyle said.
The Catholic Church is a voluntary association, correct? It is in charge of its own doctrines?
Kennedy is free to do whatever he wants. The bishops are in charge, then, of determining his status as a practicing member of the voluntary association known as the Catholic Church. That is not a church-state issue.
Dalea, you would agree?
November 16, 2009, at 4:15 pm
I agree that the RCC is a voluntary association in the US. And that this association is in charge of its doctrines. In addition, I would say that when members of a voluntary association are presented with demands for action that a professional person regards as unworkable or as tresding on the rights of non-believers or as outside the range of feasibility, that person has the responsibility to say so to his religious compatriots. And I think the bishops have an ethical responsibility to listen with care on the subject instead of reiterating their own position.
While the bishops have the ability to determine Kennedy’s status I would suggest that there are problems in doing so. I am old enough to remember the bitter prejudice directed at Catholics prior to Pres Kennedy. The way Bishop Tobin is acting seems to bring it all up again. Do we really want to go back to the ‘agents of a foreign power’ time again?
I would really like to see journalism on the subject of how Kennedy’s statement is no longer operative. When and where did this occur?
November 16, 2009, at 4:17 pm
This is a picture-perfect example of the kind of media bias reporters claim doesn’t exist:
Of course the words used in display type or the article set affect the tone. They betray that the reporter (and copy editor) essentially think Kennedy is reasonable and the aggrieved party in the dispute, and Tobin is the unreasonable aggressor. Those same reporter and copy editor almost certainly would argue passionately that “they’re not biased” in their treatment of the stories, and yet, by the words they chose (probably unconsciously) they are clearly biased — especially the headlines. Shameful. It’s why journalism teachers of old used to teach their reporters to use “said” most of the time, instead of picking different variations on it that carry various biases. Shameful. Shameful, and so disingenuous. As a copy editor, I try to change as many of those loaded words as possible to be fair to both sides. Would that more reporters and editors did likewise.
November 16, 2009, at 4:30 pm
Robert is also not correctly stating the nature of the disagreement between Kennedy and Tobin. He’s so far off, in fact, that I wonder if he was writing tongue in cheek. Does GR have a ‘sarcasm’ button?
The ubiquity of Fr. Larry Sabato—I meant Thomas Reese—is truly baffling to me. I just don’t get it. I mean, what does the guy actually do, and when does he even sleep?!!? Either he must spend his entire life on the phone with reporters, or he must have all of his wisdom already divided up into pre-packaged soundbites, so that he’ll be ready at a moment’s notice for the next big ecclesiastical event. Or maybe he’s really a computer.
But that’s not the real mystery. It is obvious from the fact that Laurie Goodstein felt compelled to come here to air her (misleading) defense of the NY Times that religion journalists frequent this site to read what others are saying about them. Do they never learn anything here? It’s not as if they have had no opportunity to discover the limitations of relying exclusively on Reese. It’s been pointed out to them ad nauseum. So what gives? Are religion beat reporters just too lazy to look elsewhere for a more insightful source of comment? (But then, if your job is the religion beat, what else do you have to do?) Or is it just that Fr. Reese is a reliably bland representative of liberal Catholicism? Do reporters rely on Reese, in other words, precisely out of fear that more insightful sources might actually say something interesting or provocative? One thing about Reese, he isn’t going to make you re-think the angle on your story. You can pretty much write the thing, leave a blank with a note for yourself saying ‘insert comment here’ and come back to it later, on the odd chance that he doesn’t pick up on the first ring when his cell phone shows that it’s the AP, NY Times, or WashPost calling.
November 16, 2009, at 4:41 pm
“And, I kid you not, the only outside expert opinion we get is from the Rev. Thomas Reese (aka the Larry Sabato of religion journalism).”
ROFL! Though seriously, is it part of the job requirement or something? ‘Rule No. 56: When seeking opinions on anything to do with Catholics or Catholicism, ask Fr. Reese, since he’s the only priest in America with a telephone’?
November 16, 2009, at 4:57 pm
DALEA:
JFK was not a Catholic leader, let alone a bishop. What authority did his words have?
I think it is safe to say that JFK’s promise that his his Catholic faith would have no impact on his politics was one of the most strictly honored promises in the history of politics on planet Earth. Is JFK a model for Catholic life and politics? Since when, for bishops who want to see their members live a consistent life in private and public?
But back to the journalism.
November 16, 2009, at 5:06 pm
Dalea wrote:
Kennedy’s statement was never operative. It’s not in line with the United States Constitution or the teachings of Catholic Church. Kennedy’s statement, whether it’s right or wrong, is novel and innovated. Bishops didn’t speak against it because many lack the spine necessary to do their job. This is a good example of the very type of scandal Bishop Tobin is trying to avoid. Because there wasn’t a loud rebuttal of JFK’s statements and others like it a great many people came to believe that religion had no place in the public square.
I’m sorry, I don’t follow this. It sounds like you’re saying that because some people might be prejudiced against Catholics if they practiced their faith to the fullest, Catholics should not do so.
November 16, 2009, at 5:07 pm
Father Reese is at Georgetown.
Period.
November 16, 2009, at 5:09 pm
Brian, Dalea:
I let the comments stand.
But back to journalism, please.
November 16, 2009, at 5:23 pm
How much of this has to do with the fact that those reasons are theological and doctrinal and not political? How much of it has to do with the fact that many God-beat journalists seem to disagree with the doctrine in question, implicitly operating under some form of religious liberalism which says doctrinal disagreements are not important because religious truth claims are invalid? How much of it has to do with the fact that many journalists are engaged in wish-fulfillment journalism and this particular doctrine goes against their wish?
November 16, 2009, at 5:51 pm
KYLE:
That should not matter if the journalists are committed to covering the views of the two men in a fair and equal manner.
It’s journalism, stupid(s).
November 16, 2009, at 6:15 pm
I really hate it when the media acts like being part of the Kennedy clan makes one a Catholic Church authority on par with a Cardinal.
It’s no wonder that DALEA thinks that a quote from JFK is somehow Church doctrine… the media responds to most quotes from Kennedy’s about the Church as though they are doctrine.
It’s as though here are blinkers on the press and they can’t even see the fact that there are lots of REAL authorities in the Church who are teaching the truth of Church that is very, very different than the spin put on Catholicism by the Kennedys.
It’s only on occasions like this when a Kennedy comes up directly against a true Church leader who speaks out that the media sees the Bishop. Of course the media then will shy away because they don’t know how to deal with a Bishop disagreeing with a Kennedy (the media authority on Catholicism).
November 16, 2009, at 6:37 pm
Terry, I know who and where Fr. Reese is. I was only kidding about him being a computer.
Seriously, I suspect the real reason why he is a go-to guy for religion media is not so much that he is a liberal, but rather that he is an Americanist. There are figures on the right—equally useful, equally predictable, and equally boring—who serve that function as well.
One of the chief functions performed which the religion media performs for the state, as the so-called ‘Fourth Estate’ of Liberal Society, is to police the bounds of religion. The media do this by ‘mediating’ the world and editing out of view any serious (or rational) expressions of religion which call into question the first principles and assumptions of American liberal democracy. Indeed it is never really acknowledged that these may be questionable, which of course only reinforces the assumption that they aren’t. (Fundamentalist expressions are acceptable as they provide negative confirmation of those assumptions). Only those expressions are permitted to see the light of day and enter the public arena which subordinate themselves to that horizon. Something similar is going in with the JFK remarks in the thread above. Because what this means is that every ostensibly religious question, indeed all questions of ultimate truth, are at bottom questions about ‘America’. Which is the only thing that matters.
To perform this function, religion reporters must have recourse to so-called public intellectuals, pastors and clerics who double as priests of American civil religion.
Fortunately, there are some ‘go-to guys’ who never disappoint.
November 16, 2009, at 8:03 pm
I complete agree, T-Matt. Just trying to get at why instead we’re getting an epic FAIL.
November 17, 2009, at 4:36 am
I aupport Pat Kennedy to the hilt. What a man!
No, he will not accept whatever the Roman Catholic Clergy say without critical thinking at his personal level. If everyone had this attitude, the Vatican might think about unreasonable demands they place on individuals. …
November 17, 2009, at 8:35 am
Arthur:
Fine. What does that have to do with the press coverage?
November 17, 2009, at 10:13 am
As someone who follows Townsend’s reporting in St. Louis, I can say that the most important thing he did in covering the Burke situation was to explain the church’s definition of “scandal,” since it is, as
tmattMZ noted, quite different from the popular culture’s definition of the word.Having scandal explained in its Catholic context was extremely useful in understanding the church’s argument, regardless of whether you agreed with it.
When I read about similar issues elsewhere, I rarely see scandal explained properly. Kudos to Townsend.
November 17, 2009, at 10:15 am
If Patrick Kennedy was making disparaging comments about the Red Cross, I don’t think the media would have a problem with a Red Cross spokesman addressing the issues raised - especially if the comments misrepresented the policies followed by the Red Cross.
We are seeing again what happens when a technical term (like scandal) is taken up by the population at large but with an altered meaning. The same thing happens in law and medicine when the public adopts a technical term and spins the meaning. I can tell when doing cross-word puzzles that the person who constructed some clues doesn’t get the usual, precise meaning of the word in question. Then I realize I’m old and the word meaning has moved on. Words in the public domain drift over time; the purpose of technical terms is to anchor the meaning.
A person who is scandalized is shocked that a person of some stature and influence would do or say a particular thing that is wrong, lessening the scandalized person’s resolve to avoid that wrong thing or changing the person’s correct belief to a mistaken one. The modern use of the word keeps the “shocked” part, but leaves out the rest that gives the term its original (and now technical) meaning.
It’s interesting to see the constant need to invent new words to describe a person with a lower than normal IQ. There’s idiot, imbecile, retarded, etc. All of these words became slurs over time although starting out with a perfectly legitimate medical meaning.
Last thought on the matter: Catholic Bishops’ #1 job is to be a teacher. I think over the years people, including Catholics, have come to see the job as just an administrative and sacramental one. That may be part of the problem.
November 17, 2009, at 10:18 am
I think the Press doesn’t take Catholic authority seriously because the Catholic leadership, as pointed out in comment #12, doesn’t have the guts to defend its theology. That means refusal to allow Communion, or if the offender is belligerent enough; excommunication. As it is, the liberals and reporters laugh while the archdiocese huffs and whimpers.
Also, if the Catholic Church was to show some actual authority I don’t think the idea of “foreign control” would be of much concern anymore. Abortion wasn’t really that much of an issue back then. Reporters might try to resurrect the concern, but conservative Protestants today would welcome such “foreign control” against liberal politicians. They already question the sincerity of the Catholic Church concerning its moral positions for lack of actions. That actually would be a great news report subject that has been hinted at in some articles; current relationship of Catholics and Protestants in the political sphere.
November 17, 2009, at 3:34 pm
Suzanne says:
I suspect that this goes to the heart of the press coverage issue: there are two languages being spoken. The press uses ordinary English with its everyday meanings and nuances. The RCC uses the same words but has its own highly specialized meanings which differ from those in standard English. Were the bishops to use the term ‘misrepresents the position of the church and might lead some astray’ instead of the word ‘scandal’, we would not be having this discussion. Rather than use standard English words in ways different from common usage, perhaps the bishops would be better advised to invent new words to avoid confusing people.
November 17, 2009, at 3:37 pm
Jettboy says:
More likely the press follows the lead of the Catholic People who don’t take RC teachings on sexuality seriously. I notice that when the topic is a widely believed RC teaching, like capital punishment or childhood healthcare, the press does a much better job.
November 17, 2009, at 4:19 pm
According to Merriam-Webster the English word scandal was first used in the 13th century and derives from Latin, probably Latin church documents. Why shouldn’t the Church continue to use the term in its original meaning?
Catholics like Patrick Kennedy are supposed to know what scandal means. It’s in the Code of Canon Law. They should have learned it in Catechism class. The statements were directed to Patrick Kennedy who porports to be a Catholic.
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c1364-1399.htm
In some states there is a criminal charge known as “depraved heart homicide”. It has a very specific meaning in the law that is probably not what most lay people would think. The term has use in the court room and a good court newsreporter would know how to describe the charge to his/her readers. I have such a brother myself and know that to be a fact.
November 17, 2009, at 5:25 pm
Julia asks:
How about, because the meaning in common speech has changed and using it can confuse people you are attempting to communicate with. This is a meaning of ‘scandal’ I have never before encountered. The press seems confused by it as well.
November 17, 2009, at 5:38 pm
Julia has it exactly right. The Catholic usage of these terms predates the English language, standard or otherwise, period. The term in English likely derives from the way the Church uses the Latin term. Only petulance would insist that the Church using the term as it has always been used is to blame for dalea and the press being ignorant of the roots of their own language.
November 17, 2009, at 7:42 pm
We are not discussing the roots of our language. We are discussing how the press covers religious stories. My point, petulant or not, is that by using a word that has taking on new meanings and associations, the church makes it difficult to communicate its position. Reccomending that I and the press brush up on language history is not a very helpful suggestion. How are we to get the papers’ readers to take classes in language history?
November 17, 2009, at 8:31 pm
Thank you, Kyle.
And I’ll add: the Bishop’s statements were not press releases; they were directed to Patrick Kennedy, a self-identified Catholic.
November 17, 2009, at 10:07 pm
Dalea,
I’ve seen you take this line before (with the Pope’s use of the world ‘pagan’ if memory serves) which so far as I can tell amounts to this: that the church should accomodate its language and tradition entirely to the immediacy and banality of popular culture, ultimately speaking only in terms authorized by Dalea. Behind this assumption lies another: that effectiveness trumps truth. What the church needs, it seems, is better pr.
The church, by contrast, continues to operate with the quaint assumption that people actually desire truth and seek to understand it and will therefore actually try in good faith and in the interest of truth to understand ideas that initially appear obscure.
That may or may not be true. I confess that this culture offers abundant evidence that this may be too optimistic an assessment of human nature. But one would think that a reporter, at least, whose sole job is to cover religious matters and report them truthfully, would have a stake in understanding his subject matter and helping readers do the same. After all, what else could it mean to report?
And what other motive could a good reporter have?
November 18, 2009, at 10:42 am
Exactly right, Michael. And dalea, as Julia so carefully pointed out, a reporter - someone who works with words for a living and is supposed to work hard to understand the thoughts of a person being interviewed so that they may be accurately reported - need not be a scholar of etymology to understand this point. He simply needs to be familiar enough with the language to know the first definition that pops up for the word in the dictionary on his desk. That doesn’t sound like some great demand to me; it sounds like basic competence.
November 18, 2009, at 4:18 pm
My point is that when a journalist uses a word that has a contemporary meaning somewhat different from what the speaker intended that is not good journalism. To use words in a way that differs from contemporary usage invites being misunderstood. …
November 19, 2009, at 1:22 am
Dalea, In the very first post from
Reporting should be concise. If the journalist thinks that the speaker meant to use a word that is not the common understood meaning, then by all means just give a little explanation of it.
One simple sentence here tells readers the use of the word scandal in Catholic teachings, so in reporting journalist could do the very same thing. It can be described in a concise manner. Catholic teachings aren’t ever changing like contemporary culture, so if readers don’t understand the history behind the words, enlighten them with a history lesson.
November 19, 2009, at 10:52 am
Dalea, I’m curious about something. Was this your position when Anderson Cooper and Keith Olbermann and various other overgrown junior high boys of both sexes began using the word “teabagger,” a word then unfamiliar to most of us who do not spend our days engaging in or reading about acts of that sort?
How about you: Did you have to be informed about what that word means?
I’m curious because it seemed those of us who didn’t know what that term denotes in urban slang (including those, like me, not involved in the Tea Party stuff) were widely considered among TV journalists as somehow backwards and naive for thinking that holding a bag of tea while protesting tax policy connotes the Boston Tea Party.
Isn’t that revealing? According to our cultural elites (so-called, for I see nothing which is actually elite in this mentality) no one should be expected to know the term “scandal” as it is defined in the dictionary and as it has been used in Christian circles in English for at least six or seven centuries, but we’re supposed to be on top of the latest street slang for the latest twist of the sexual revolution, hatched in some dark corner the day before yesterday.
No doubt someone thinks the term “progressive” ought to be attached to that reality, despite the manifest regression it represents.