It should come to no surprise to any reader that we live in a polarized nation. We are separated along political partisan lines and in our own media universes.
There are those who watch and/or read Fox News on the web and consume copious amounts of information regarding President Joe Biden and his son’s alleged ties to corruption.
On the other side, Hunter Biden is ignored. Instead, we get investigative journalism from The New York Times looking into the dealings and relationships of conservatives such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
This is why tmatt keeps quoting, here at GetReligion and in his national column, the opening lines of the David French book "Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation.”
"It's time for Americans to wake up to a fundamental reality: the continued unity of the United States cannot be guaranteed. … There is not a single important cultural, religious, political, or social force that is pulling Americans together more than it is pulling us apart."
Confession: I have found it healthy and important to watch Fox News and read The New York Times. Both are highly influential in their respective partisan bubbles. Both impact the world around us, for better or worse, and that’s of great importance in a world were journalistic objectivity is a relic of a pre-internet world.
I also like to read columnists. I like a few. Longtime Vatican observer John L. Allen, Jr., is one. J.D. Flynn over at The Pillar is another.
Yet another must-read is New York Times columnist, blogger and author Ross Douthat.
Douthat is a convert to Catholicism and often writes about the church. He is openly pro-Catholic Catechism. Thus, it is often refreshing to read Douthat because he tackles issues his own newspaper often fails to cover. I don’t know Douthat’s reading habits but I have to think he reads guys like the aforementioned Allen and Flynn.
Douthat was the target of recent criticism in the Jesuit magazine America. In it, Bill McCormick, a Jesuit and contributing editor at America, wrote that many like to “hate-read” him. McCormick noted:
But while you can disagree with Mr. Douthat’s analysis of Catholicism, you can’t ignore him. Though his prominence raises a question: Why should we pay any attention to journalists who opine about Catholic theology?
The U.S. church has a problem: As with U.S. culture in general, too much conversation in the church is driven by pundits whose main job seems to be to inflame divisions. Meanwhile, too much of Catholic theology in academia is irrelevant to today’s conversations in the church and world, as even some Catholic theologians have acknowledged. In this environment, journalists play an irreplaceable role.
U.S. Catholics need to become more responsible in how they consume news and journalistic analysis. The U.S. church would be poorer if Catholics only read the journalists they agreed with. We need to read journalists who challenge us, who force us to both articulate our own positions to those who do not accept them a priori and engage with other’s positions as rationally defensible even if we do not accept them.
While I enjoy Douthat — I don’t agree that he’s a problem — it is true that there are too many pundits out there. They have added to the polarization, along with the 24-hour news channels and social media channels such as Facebook and Twitter.
Nonetheless, the mainstream press very often fails to cover topics and issues within the church that matter to so many Catholics.
News organizations such as The New York Times have covered Pope Francis in recent months, it has all been about his health and legacy. In other words, they are taking a political, presidential-like coverage of the papacy rather than anything tied to doctrine or faith.
The reason? There are a few. I outlined some in a recent post regarding Cardinal-elect Víctor Manuel Fernandez:
This is only a theory, but there could be a number of factors at work here. Secular newsrooms no longer believe the Catholic church is a political and cultural force — and that is true throughout much of the West — and not worthy of news coverage to readers who largely don’t care.
The other is that the mainstream press, increasingly partisan and openly rooting for politically leftist causes, have decided not to give voices on the other side in any news coverage. Why investigate questions linked to the views of people who journalists already know are wrong?
This has resulted in media bias by omission. This would also explain why the Synod of Synodality has received next to zero mainstream news coverage in the United States.
I will add to this list the growing suspicion that covering debates about evolving doctrines — and voicing both sides — helps the cause of traditional Catholic believers. As I mentioned earlier in this post, this has been the case with Biden and allegations involving his son.
This same mentality that now plagues modern political journalism has been transposed to other areas in your local and national newspaper such as arts, culture and even sports. And yes, even religion whenever a mainstream news organization decides to cover the topic.
Yes, I have said this before and will say it again — the Catholic press is vitally important because they tackle issues and subjects that matter to millions.
McCormick, in writing about Douthat, also tackles the subject of the church and the left-right divide that plagues it both doctrinally and, as mainstream media sees it, along political lines.
This is what McCormick wrote:
Often the best part of Mr. Douthat’s analysis is also the worst: He is upfront about treating the church as a coalition of quasi-political factions. He names the spirit of division all-too-active in the church but also risks exacerbating it by treating the church as just another political body.
This is where he gets dinged for being both a journalist and an American, a combination that some believe makes him particularly prone to “us versus them” politics.
There are a few difficulties with this criticism.
First, this sort of analysis of conflict and pluralism is key to the social sciences, which in other settings theologians are very keen to adapt for their own purposes. Sex, gender, class and race are all leading preoccupations of theologians today, and of course they are all deeply sociological.
Second, Mr. Douthat uses such analysis to account for how and why Catholics hold conflicting viewpoints. Rather than simply assume those with whom he disagrees are wrong and acting in bad faith, he seeks to make sense of what they are up to.
In his book To Change the Church, for example, Mr. Douthat speaks of the failures of recent popes to form a “new Catholic center.” Is this terminology too political? Probably. But what does Mr. Douthat do with his analysis? He uses it to explore the limitations and failures of his own side, a remarkable feat in 21st-century America. He also deploys it to explore why so many are drawn to narratives and dynamics in global Catholicism for which he has little sympathy. In effect, Mr. Douthat is saying: If you don’t like the “Bergoglio Papacy,” maybe you should examine the limitations of what came before it.
Douthat may be the Times’ primary conservative voice, but he is also a mainstream media creature. He sees issues, even ones about the church, through a political lens like his editors do. He just happens to be on the right (culturally) of his editors who don’t care about doctrine. The bottom line: Douthat’s convictions focus on doctrine first, with politics coming in second.
McCormick also makes this astute observation:
In 2015, a number of influential theologians wrote to The New York Times criticizing Mr. Douthat for lacking theological credentials, among other things. Mr. Douthat was right to push back that his job is to be a journalist. He might also have added a tu quoque: most journalists have little to no theological credentials. And yet it’s safe to say that most U.S. Catholics uncritically affirm some Catholic journalists and pundits who support their biases, and uncritically reject some who do not.
And that’s the business model of punditry: There is profit to be made in driving traffic to websites and TV channels through headlines and personalities that entertain and inflame rather than educate and move.
Moreover, many theologians are eager to play some part in this economy, even if it’s just for more Twitter followers or likes on Facebook.
I agree. The mainstream media rarely quote theologians. Instead, they go to the same few people again and again to get predictable quotes about the issues they favor. They often sum up the other side of the debate (if they even do that) by paraphrasing it all in a paragraph.
The Catholic press — both on the doctrinal left and right — has its own pundits and columnists. Often, these writers are clergy. That lends them credibility. When they are not, they are experts. For example, Ed Condon, an editor and co-founder at The Pillar, is a Canon lawyer. Ditto for Flynn, the other co-founder.
Here is a key example of a story defined by doctrine. There is no way around the fact that Francis naming a group of new cardinals, including Fernandez, has been one of the biggest stories to emerge from the Vatican this summer.
Why? Because it’s about legacy and doctrine. There was no better analysis than in the Catholic press. Here is what Condon wrote:
Pope Francis on Saturday named a new prefect for the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, replacing Cardinal Luis Ladaria Ferrer with the Argentine theologian Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández.
While the pope’s decision to name Archbishop Fernández took many by surprise, the appointment itself was long overdue. Cardinal Ladaria turned 79 in April, and was closer to the mandatory age of exclusion for cardinals from a conclave (80) than to the nominal episcopal retirement age of 75.
The preference to leave serving cardinals and archbishops in key posts for years past the age at which they are expected to formally offer their resignations has become something of a new normal under Pope Francis.
But even the most dedicated bishops can’t remain in office forever, and age is beginning to catch up with many in senior positions. So, after Ladaria’s departure, which major positions is Francis likely to have to fill in the next year?
Condon then noted the following:
Ladaria’s replacement followed the pope’s lone anticipated appointment of a new prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops earlier this year, with Archbishop Robert Prevost taking over from Cardinal Marc Ouellet just a few weeks before the cardinal also turned 79. Before those appointments, Francis had previously allowed Cardinal Beniamino Stella to remain head of the Dicastery for Clergy until he, too, turned 79 in 2021.
But if 79 is the new 75 in the Vatican, there are still some top jobs Pope Francis will need to fill in the next 12 months, as their incumbents approach 80.
Brilliant stuff. Over on the other side of the doctrinal spectrum, the National Catholic Reporter offered up its own analysis about the creation of new cardinals.
Father Thomas Reese, who writes a column for Religion News Service that’s republished in NCR, wondered aloud whether Francis had stacked the conclave deck enough to elect a successor with this current pope’s same views on matters of doctrine and the future of the church:
For John Paul II, this meant prelates who were loyal to the Vatican and opposed changing the church's teaching on birth control, sexual ethics, married priests and women priests. John Paul also liked strong personalities who were willing to take on political and cultural elites on abortion, gay marriage and other issues.
Benedict also appointed cardinals who were loyal and defenders of traditional church teaching, but he preferred his cardinals to be more academic than culture warrior.
Francis, on the other hand, has looked for bishops who are pastors to their people and prioritize the poor and marginalized.
During his 10-year reign, Pope Francis has had a significant impact on the College of Cardinals, and that continues with the 18 newly appointed cardinal electors (those under 80 years of age who can vote for a pope in a conclave).
Reese offers up some basic facts, data and analysis that would be helpful to mainstream journalists:
After the next consistory on Sept. 30, 72% of the 137 cardinal electors will have been appointed by Francis. Since it takes a two-thirds vote to elect a new pope, the Francis cardinals could elect someone even if all the other cardinals voted against him.
Only 7% of the electors are hangovers from the papacy of John Paul II; 21% were appointed by Benedict. These are not necessarily cardinals at odds with Francis and his vision. At least some of these cardinals probably voted for Francis in the last conclave. In any case, by the end of January, five more of the cardinals appointed by his predecessors will age out. Another five will be over 80 by the end of 2024.
It is therefore highly likely the next pope will be in sympathy with the direction Francis has been leading the church, but in conclaves there are no guarantees. Certainly, there have been surprises in the past, such as John XXIII, John Paul I and John Paul II. On the other hand, no one was surprised by the elections of Pius XII, Paul VI and Benedict XVI.
I will be reading Condon and Reese in the coming months as the Synod of Synodality becomes a bigger issue and Francis’ legacy takes on an even bigger storyline in both the mainstream and Catholic press.
But I’ll also be reading Douthat even when his own newspaper manages to ignore important angles or the other side of a news story when it comes this pope and “culture war” issues like gender, sexuality and abortion that enter the political sphere.
It’s true Douthat is no theologian. For that type of analysis and coverage journalists and savvy news consumers need to read the Catholic press.
MAIN IMAGE: Graphics featured at OnePeterFIve.com.