The papal visit is over, which means that we have only one major media ritual left to survive — a final wave of “what it all meant” features. It’s hard not to note that these stories will serve as logical bookends to those “what his visit will mean” features that ran just over a week ago. Please know that I am not knocking these journalistic rites. After all, I plan to write a wrap-up column myself, this week.
The surprise of the trip was the drumbeat of references by Pope Benedict XVI to the clergy-abuse scandal, highlighted by the meeting with victims — from Boston no less — during his stay in Washington, D.C. This did not, of course, cancel out any of the themes that the pope was expected to emphasize, and did, such as religious liberty, a belief in absolute moral truths, unity on essential Catholic doctrines and a defense of attempts to instill a sense of Catholic identity on Catholic campuses. He touched all of the bases that he was expected to touch.
Here at GetReligion, we were only able to touch a few of the stories written and aired from coast to coast. For example, there was that New York Times news feature about the significance of his visit to cat lovers. Click here, if you decide that this was an essential angle of the visit. (The Rt. Rev. Douglas LeBlanc is smiling.)
In general, I think that the coverage of the pope’s visit has been pretty good, which is a comment about the media coverage and about Benedict’s ability to make his subjects rather clear. It was a serious visit, with content as well as massive photo ops. However, there is something about pope news that brings out one of my least favorite tools of modern journalism — the dreaded scare quotes.
The final New York Times report on the Yankee Stadium Mass included some classics. It covered the contents of the sermon (text here), but there must have been some uncomfortable moments at the editing desk. This starts right in the lede:
Before a crowd of nearly 60,000 people at Yankee Stadium, Pope Benedict XVI on Sunday ended his first visit to the United States as leader of the Roman Catholic Church with a reminder to the faithful that “obedience” to the authority of the church, even in a country that prizes individual freedom, is the foundation of their religious faith.
What is the precise meaning of those quote marks — framing the word “obedience”? Is this a statement that the pope does not know what the word means, that significant numbers of Catholics cannot agree on what the word means, or that the Times disagrees with the pope’s definition of the word? Or, perhaps, the newspaper’s editors have decided that this term is irrelevant in the modern world?
There are many other interesting wordings to discuss, given the time. Here’s another key one:
But at Yankee Stadium on a cool, brilliant Sunday afternoon, with an adoring audience of people waving yellow cloths, one of the colors of the Vatican, Benedict acted chiefly as pastor to America’s 65 million Catholics, laying out in simple terms their obligations to a church that represents what he has called the “one church” established on earth by God.
“Authority. Obedience. To be frank, these are not easy words to speak nowadays,” the pope said in his homily during the Mass, held on an acre-size platform built over the Yankees infield, “especially in a society which rightly places a high value on personal freedom.”
Clearly, Benedict understands that there are conflicts over the meaning of words like “obedience.” Otherwise, he would not be preaching this sermon. But the really interesting language here, for me, is the part about “a church that represents what he has called the ‘one church’ established on earth by God.” What in the world is the meaning of the words “he has called,” in terms of the facts of history? One does not have to accept that Rome is or was the “one church” established by Jesus Christ. People will debate that ‘til the end of time. But it is crazy to suggest the “one church” claim is a mere personal opinion of this one man.
There are three levels to the language issues in this kind of story.
At one level, journalists are making sure that readers understand that just because the pope says something does not make it true for everyone.
On another level, journalists seem to be making sure that readers understand that just because the pope says something does not make it true for Catholics. To put that another way, just because the pope says something doesn’t mean that Catholics have to believe something. That’s the reality in the day in which we live, of course.
But many of these scare quotes seem to have another purpose. Often, they seem to promote the idea that there is no historical reality, no consensus of belief, about some of the claims that the Catholic Church — a voluntary association, not a democracy — makes about its own doctrines and disciplines. People do not have to agree with those claims, but it is not factually accurate to pretend that they do not exist.
To cut to the chase: The pope is not just another Catholic. The word “obedience” does have meaning — a defined meaning — in Catholic thought. One does not have to agree with it, but the definition is there. The “one church” claim is not a matter of papal opinion. It’s a serious claim made, and debated, through the centuries.
Journalists are supposed to do their best to cover the divisions and debates within religious bodies — like the post-Vatican II Catholic church. But journalists are not supposed to deny — whatever the motive — the factual contents of centuries of church history.
Let me be clear. Skepticism is a good thing. But it’s wrong to mangle history and the facts. Here’s an example from one of the final Washington Post pieces about the visit:
Benedict’s stops in Washington and New York dramatically raised American Catholics’ familiarity with — and affection for — their 81-year-old pontiff. Experts said it was too early to know if it would also affect the depth of their faith or their trust in an institution rocked by sex abuse scandals. The visit made Benedict a more familiar and less authoritarian figure, they said, but the chasm between American Catholics and the pope is wide, particularly regarding subjects like same-sex unions and married priests.
In that last sentence, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the chasm between “some” or “many” American Catholics and the pope is wide? Are all American Catholics united in their opposition to their church’s teachings on these topics? Are active, daily- or weekly-Mass Catholics more or less likely to accept the church’s teachings on this kind of topic?
You know what conservative Catholics think. They think that there is a wide chasm between the pope and ex-Catholics and liberal Catholics who work in major newsrooms, when it comes to these kinds of controversial topics. It would be good if our major news organizations went out of their way not to give journalism-bashers many reasons to think that way.
UPDATE: Sigh. From the Times website. What a world.
Articles most frequently e-mailed by NYTimes.com readers.
1. Cat Lovers Appreciate Soul Mate in Vatican
2. The Way We Live Now: Why Bother?
3. Message Machine: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand
4. Roger Cohen: Of Wine, Haste and Religion
5. Finding Your First Apartment
 | Posted at 2:06 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (18) |
April 21, 2008, at 3:24 pm
I would assume that the quotes around “obedience” and “one church” were not scare quotes at all, but indication that those were the exact words of the Pontiff. There may have been some journalistic understanding that both the demand for obedience and the claim of one church are controversial in some quarters. I would read into them no indication that the words were being used in a unique way by Benedict XVI.
It wasn’t always voluntary, and that fact of church history may be in the minds of some journalists. If we’re going to demand that they be faithful to the facts of history we shouldn’t shade our own.
April 21, 2008, at 3:52 pm
I disagree with you on the quote marks, after watching that issue for 25 years or so.
I agree with you on the history question. If more facts and details are relevant to the story, then by all means add them. But today, the Catholic church is a voluntary association. Many journalists seem to think it is a democracy.
April 21, 2008, at 3:57 pm
I agree with Dave about the reason for the quotes. Often times thare misused, but I think here the reporter was just trying to indicate the pope was using the words himself.
April 21, 2008, at 4:01 pm
As an observant Roman Catholic, I assure you that there is not a wide chasm between the Pope’s and my opinions on same-sex unions and married priests.
Nor do I know any observant Catholics who might be in danger of falling into the chasm.
But, to be honest with you, I’m bitter and afraid, so I tend to cling to religion.
April 21, 2008, at 5:52 pm
tmatt wrote:
If they do, they aren’t paying attention. But that, of course, is one reason this blog exists.
April 21, 2008, at 6:26 pm
And whya re those called “scare quotes” anyway? Surely “sneer quotes” would be more accurate? As when the local Marxoids whined that a policeman attacked by one of them “was sent to a ‘hospital’ for ‘examination’.”
April 22, 2008, at 2:31 am
People, religious and otherwise, use sneery quotes around words they don’t like all the time.
April 22, 2008, at 10:30 am
Which does not answer my question.
April 22, 2008, at 10:37 am
WILL:
We have had a mini-debate before about sneer vs. scare. You can sneer at beliefs or decide that they should scare people, it really doesn’t make much difference. The effect is very similar.
I am very familiar, of course, with partial direct quotes. I really have my doubts about the need for quotes around “obedience” unless one has questions about how the pope is using the word.
April 22, 2008, at 2:02 pm
When and where was membership in the Catholic Church not voluntary and by what means was membership coerced? Was Mass attendence ever coerced? If so, by what means? I fully understand that, for example, during the course of the Spanish Inquisition the Spanish Crown at times imposed the death penalty for heresy. Heresy however is quite a different thing than quiting the Church altogether or practicing a religion other than Catholicism. I am not aware of any cases of atheists, Muslims or practicing Jews being compelled by the Church to profess Christ as Lord or attend Mass. Spanish conquistidors may have sporadically engaged in forced conversions of Indians in the Americas but, to my knowledge, the Church itself never advocated forced conversion.
I am open to being educated on history as it pertains to this issue, so long as the educating consists of specifics and not mere assertion.
April 22, 2008, at 2:35 pm
Dan:
When they’re burning heretics and alleged witches on the public square, there’s quite a coercive effect.
For one crisp example, shortly after Spain was recovered by Christian rulers from the Moors, Jews were given the choice of converting to Catholicism or leaving the country. That’s pretty coercive.
April 22, 2008, at 2:37 pm
Dan,
During the reign of Charlemagne, there were forced baptisms (condemned by parts of the episcopate, defended by others) of Saxon pagans. That’s the example that springs to mind for me. I think the Baltic crusades against the pagan tribes (Prussians, Livonians, etc.) might also have included some forced conversion, although I’m uncertain.
There were accusations (ncluding against Pius IX, I believe) of forced baptism of Jewish children up to the 19th century, although I don’t know much about this subject.
I don’t think forced conversion was ever unambiguously the policy of the Church, in the sense of being a universal, or universally accepted, practice.
You also ask if Mass attendence was ever coerced. I’m not sure of that; it wouldn’t surprise me if it were the case in at least some Christian countries. After all, I’m pretty sure church attendence at the established church was required by civil law in most of the 13 British colonies prior to American Independence (e.g., all residents of Virginia required to attend Anglican church services), and not attending was punished by fine. So in, say, 15th century England, it wouldn’t surprise me if there was some kind of civil law about church attendence. But that just demonstrates that past issues with voluntary association are issues for other ecclesial communities as well.
April 22, 2008, at 2:38 pm
It’s useful, perhaps, to remember that in prior eras, religion and one’s place in the community were intimately connected. The religion of the prince was the religion of the people, at least in post-reformation Germany. Heresy, or changing one’s religion was treason, or something close to it.
Thus, to speak of forced membership in religion (whichever position one takes on the subject) is as anachronistic as my reference to the German states of the 16th century as “Germany”.
That was neither a sneer nor a scare quote.
April 22, 2008, at 2:41 pm
Of course, the Spanish Inquisition (unlike the Holy Office) was established by the Spanish monarchy, not the Church, and was a state, not Church, institution, even if the Spanish clergy played an important role within it, as they did within the bureaucracy of most of Latin Christendom throughout the Middle Ages, because lay literacy was relatively low. And Dan, most witches were burned in Protestant countries in the 17th century - I don’t think that can be laid at the feet of this, or any, pope.
April 22, 2008, at 5:42 pm
Of course, under Elizabeth and her successors, membership in the CHURCH OF ENGLAND was coerced, by heavy fines on “recusants”, and gruesome executions of Catholic priests for functioning. (Ask any Irishman about “hedge masses”.)
April 22, 2008, at 8:04 pm
FW Ken and Will are right.
In researching my Norwegian ancestry I recently discovered an 1841 “removal certificate” from the Lutheran church in Kongsberg, Norway. A linguistics professor at U of Kansas translated it. He said that Norway then, as now, was officially Lutheran and the government in those days required such a document for all people who not only were emigrating to America, but also whenever a person moved from one parish to another within the country. Without it, the authorities wouldn’t let you leave the country and you were in trouble if you moved around Norway without checking in with each local Lutheran parish where you resided.
This particular certificate sets forth the name and parentage of my ancestor, the parish where his baptismal records are located, when he moved to Kongsberg from that parish (because he had to bring a note from the previous preacher), who and when he married and her parents, the names and ages of his children, the date of baptism for all of them, the fact that my ancestor’s wife Ingeborg demonstrated good understanding of the faith at her confirmation and that they were planning to emigrate to American.
The certificate even had the date of their last attendance at church and reception of communion. [The Norwegian record-keepers were so exact that I even know the names and locations of the adjoining farms where each ancestor was born.]
This document served as a passport in an era before governments issued passports. That’s pretty coercive. You couldn’t even move around within your own country without getting the OK of the Lutheran church.
Shakespeare’s father, formerly a shire official, was a recusant and spent the last part of his life hiding in the house because he was liable to arrest for refusing to attend Anglican services as required. He ended up losing almost all his property to fines and confiscations by the time he died. There have been several books lately claiming that Shakespeare was a secret Catholic so he could earn money in London to support the family back in Avon.
April 22, 2008, at 8:21 pm
Forgot to say that in researching Norwegian emigrants I ran across several accounts of Norwegian LDS groups setting off for America in the 1800s. Couldn’t tell if they were primarily women. I’m thinking not too many single women set out for the territories from Norway or any European country unless they had a settled uncle, grandfather or brother there to receive them.
There are credible stories of young Norwegian women being way-laid in New York and lured from their families during the confusion of landing at the seedy docks and ended up in lives of disrepute in NYC. That’s one of the main reasons the US started Ellis Island and a previous smaller immigrant refugee center away from the docks. The Norwegians started bypassing New York altogether by sailing to Quebec and then travelling by way of Niagara Falls, Lake Erie, Michigan and then Lake Michigan to get to Wisconsin and Minnesota. However, a lot of the earliest Norwegians went to settle in Northern New York, maybe they were joining the early pre-Nauvoo Mormon groups there.
The freedom of religion we had here was very rare in the 1800s. Almost all European countries had official religions.
April 26, 2008, at 10:16 am
[…] One way of explaining this lopsided coverage is to think about how religion is covered in general. Hannah Farber, working off of Terry Mattingly, points out that reporters play a mediating role in explaining internal words to an external audience. Even in the event that a message is crafted to an external audience, a reporter must have some understanding of the religious system in order to make it comprehensible to their readership. As we have witnessed since 9/11, knowledge about Islam and Muslims is painfully lacking even amongst some of the most educated people in our society, and religion is generally not a good return on investment in terms of background learning for journalists. As a result, unless the religion is mired in conflict, it does not get covered, a point raised by Pastor Dan. Conflict is easy to understand and frame, with little nuance necessary. […]