Texas Catholic Editorial for Apr. 26, 2002

Here's the link.

News media make 10 big mistakes

THE CATHOLIC Church these days is getting a taste of the news media. It is not uncommon, in a major media market like Dallas, that reporters make more than a dozen calls each day to church offices.

The free American press is doing its job of reporting the good, the bad and the ugly — about the Mideast, Enron or the Catholic Church.

Much of the news about the Catholic Church at the moment is ugly, but that does not mean the messenger — the news media — is the cause of it. Quite the contrary, the problems associated with the sex-abuse story were all incubated in the church and have hatched out naturally. Still, the news media have their problems in reporting this sad story. We have come up with 10 mistakes the news media make (with examples) for careful consideration by our colleagues in the non-church press:

1) Failure to understand how the Catholic Church functions. Time and time again, Catholics have to explain that their church does not function like a corporation. A bishop does not report to an archbishop who reports to a cardinal who reports to the pope.

2) Failure to define terms. How often has the news media reported about "pedophilia" in the church without ever explaining what that means? Pedophilia refers to abuse of pre-adolescents. "Ephebophile" refers to abuse of adolescents. Too, we have found that when the news media reports "sex abuse," many people automatically interpret that as "rape." Most of the abuse cases are neither rape nor pedophilia.

3) Failure to put things in perspective. One can read in a newspaper or hear in a broadcast that hundreds of priests are accused of child sex abuse. The news media often do not include a figure on the total number of priests, or the total number of men who were priests during the time span of the incidents. At the latest count, there have been no more than 100 priests removed for child-abuse allegations in recent months; there are, however, 46,000 priests. The number of dioceses affected is about 20; there are 200 dioceses in the United States.

4) Failure to ask hard questions of all parties. In The New York Times, we see allegations from a Dallas lawyer that she has the names of 1,200 abusive priests. However, neither the Times, Peter Jennings on ABC, nor any other news media demanded to see the names. By contrast, every diocese in the nation has been asked for names of abusive priests.

5) Treating every allegation as true and giving it top billing. After the Sept. 11 disaster at the World Trade Center, the various charities had to deal with upwards of 300 false claims for compensation. Why does it not stand to reason that some allegations against priests might be false?

6) Creating facts out of thin air or not attributing so-called facts to anyone: CNN, ABC News, CBS News, The Dallas Morning News and scores of others have stated unequivocally that the Catholic Church has spent $1 billion on sex-abuse settlements. Where does that figure come from? Actually, it is a wild estimate by critics of the church. If one adds up the known cases and makes a reasonable estimate for unknown cases 20 or 30 years ago (when they were settled for far less than today), a reporter might find $300 million in settlements.

7) Having the story made up and looking for supporting quotes or video. This is the biggest mistake of television news. Producer after producer can tell a church official what the story is before gathering facts. CNN wanted to do a story on the "financial disaster" in the church. When they could find no diocese shut down or Catholic school closed because of the abuse cases, CNN still reported the "disaster." And, then, CBS news called to say they wanted to do the same story -- forget the facts!

8) Demanding a comment and damning you if it is not given. Peter Jennings on ABC News is the classic example. On his program a few weeks ago, he repeatedly said that no Catholic churchman would comment to CBS News on his "investigative" findings of 30 convicted sex offender priests still on the job (he only revealed three). Actually, Jennings had interviewed the bishop-spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops the day before his story. What he meant was that no cardinal would answer his questions.

9) Having an agenda to advance against the Catholic Church. Many news media commentators offer their opinion on what is wrong with the Catholic Church, but often mask the fact they do not like the church for one or more of its positions. Locally, a Morning News commentator said the church should have women priests and the church had to listen to the demands of modern society. Is that the demand of modern society or just the writer? Does the writer make the same demand of the Orthodox Church (one-third of Christianity), Muslims or Mormons?

10) Struggling to keep the conflict alive. While the news media is famous for its herd instinct, there is often the drive to keep pitting people against each other. Some reporters get a quote from one party and search around for someone to disagree with it. Conflict makes a better story. Church people should be wary of this one!

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 29, 2002

Answers

top

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 29, 2002.

Keep up the good work Matt! How much is the CC paying you for this fancy white-whash?

-- Philip Watkinson (philcmme@telnor.net), April 29, 2002.

Philip

Mateo DOES not need to be paid to be a GOOD CATHOLIC. He Is a good Catholic and you sir are he fool. If you cannot behave as a good Catholic Christian without the hatefulness you display then by all means keep your opinions in your head lest you burn in hell.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 29, 2002.

Bravo, Mateo!
You nailed it really well. The same is commonly seen in our news media in politically motivated ''reporting''.

Mr. Watkinson ought or read 'Bias''; the best-seller treating of this shameless manipulation of public opinion in the media.

The whitewashing of every evil of the Clinton administration is and example. No Watkinsons objected then. It depends on whose ox is gored; that's the key.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 29, 2002.

Philip,

First, this is not my work. This is an editorial from "The Dallas Catholic." The author is their editor: Bronson Havard.

Second, if you are being sarcastic, which point would you contest? Discrediting the article as a "whitewash" would be more effective if you'd support your position. I think the editorial speaks for itself, though I'd be interested in seeing someone attack a specific point.

Third, is there someone out there who really believes that our media is unbiased? If there is, I've got some land in Florida I'd like to sell.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 29, 2002.

Nero burned Rome, blamed the Christians, gained public support and fed them to the lions. Hitler burned the Reichtag and blamed the opposition. This is an old trick.

The abuses by clergy do happen, but for some it is a matter of being opportunistic... watch what happens next. The doctrine-changers who have been lying in place for so long will make their move with new found public and parishoner support and begin to drive a wedge between the laity and the clergy, and seek a self- regulated 'democratic' kind of structure in the Church; a sort of coup.

Sound insane? It's already starting to happen. Look up the organizations 'Voice of the Faithful' and 'FutureChurch'; see what they are up to.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 02, 2002.

Emaerald,
You might want to read the mission statement of the VOTF a bit more carefully. There is strong support for clergy.
This is a group that will not be dismissed with simplified cliches. Of course they have risen from an opportunity but I don't think it was them who developed this wedge.
The recent legal response from the archdiosese to place blame on the seven year old victim and his parents in the Geoghan case surley pounded this wedge further into place. It's going to be interesting, especially if the hyerarchy ignores them.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 02, 2002.

Thanks, Chris. I read it more carefully this time, and found that I am right. What is up with people not understanding the problem with this? Look at it:

"Our Mission Statement To provide a prayerful voice, attentive to the Spirit, through which the Faithful can actively participate in the governance and guidance of the Catholic Church. Our Goals

Support those who have been abused Support priests of integrity Shape structural change within Church"

You said they show support for the hierarchy... not. And if they are 'not to be dismissed', am I supposed to be awestruck by the their sheer numbers and conclude that they must indeed be right? If I were the last Catholic on earth I would not reason by numbers. So, read the following carefully Chris, and tell me I'm not right about these doctrine-changers (be sure to note the President of Voice of the Faithful in the article):

Catholic lay leaders urge broad reforms

Ask for rethinking of ministry, secrecy

By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff, 3/10/2002

n an extraordinary display of how the sexual abuse of children by priests has affected local Catholics, many of the church's top lay leaders yesterday told Cardinal Bernard F. Law that they want sweeping reforms of the church's structure.

The lay leaders, nearly 3,000 of whom were chosen to meet with the cardinal because they sit on parish councils or play other central roles in their churches, repeated again and again a desire to consider ministry, power, and secrecy within the church.

Meeting at the World Trade Center in South Boston for Convocation 2002, some lay leaders called for Law to step down because of his acknowledged mishandling of pedophile priests, while others said the cardinal should stay and fix the problem. But many said the church needs to do more than come up with a child protection plan.

''In a strange way, this whole situation has really empowered Catholic people and priests at the parish level. I think we've kind of crossed a line, and I don't think we're going to go back,'' said Patricia Casey, 48, of Newton, a member of the parish council at Saint Ignatius Loyola. ''People will be asking, when we get together next year, `What has changed in the church because of this?' That's the question of the day.''

Law responded at the end of the day with a solemn apology. He said he has begun meeting with victims of clergy sexual abuse and is willing to meet with any who want to see him. He did not offer any specific proposals for change, but aides said the archdiocese soon plans to establish a new office for victim services to emphasize its commitment to outreach to those harmed by priests.

''I stand before you recognizing that the trust which many of you have had in me has been broken ... because of decisions for which I was responsible, which I made,'' he said. ''With all my heart, I am sorry for that, I apologize for that, and I will reflect on what this all means. You have my commitment ...that I will do the best I can to find the course, the path, that will take us to where we need to be.''

Law was greeted twice by standing ovations, even from many who want him to resign.

This year's annual convocation, the 10th Law has held in an effort to allow lay leaders to meet with their bishop, was unlike any previous gathering. Law scrapped the original agenda - several dozen workshops on a variety of issues - in favor of six giant ''listening sessions'' during which the lay leaders, as well as priests and nuns, were given a chance to express their feelings about clergy sexual abuse and the church's handling of it.

As the lay leaders arrived, they were met by about 50 protesters holding signs with slogans including ''Justice and Mercy for Victims,'' ''Speaking Out is Holy,'' and ''Shame.'' The protesters included advocates of women's ordination and pacifism, as well as families of victims.

Inside the conference, some laypeople wore lavender ribbons to show their sorrow over the pain experienced by victims of abuse by priests. Others wore white buttons reading, ''In Solidarity with Our Priest,'' in an effort to demonstrate the widespread concern parishioners are expressing about the psychological impact of the sexual abuse scandal on priests who are not abusers. A group of women from Wellesley wore red, which they said represented their penitence over their church's conduct.

''You've got a pretty outraged flock here,'' said Paul A. Baier, 36, of Wellesley, a parishioner at Saint John the Evangelist Church. ''And this is the core of the church. These are 3,000 hard- core believers willing to give up a Saturday, and if they're 50 to 80 percent pissed off, you've got a problem.''

Security was tight at yesterday's gathering. In contrast with previous years, reporters were barred from attending a large part of the convocation, including the listening sessions and the delivery of a summary report on the concerns of lay leaders. The archdiocese barred television cameras, still photographers, and audio recorders from all official events, insisting that the news media use images and sound supplied by the church-controlled television station, Boston Catholic Television, and newspaper, The Pilot.

But reporters were allowed to watch Mass and the cardinal's remarks, and many laypeople and church staffers were eager to brief reporters about the events.

Some participants in the convocation said the clergy abuse scandal was a reflection of bias by newspapers, especially the Globe, which in January published a Spotlight report on the church's handling of John J. Geoghan, a pedophile priest who allegedly molested dozens of children in several parishes over three decades. Since that time, the Boston archdiocese has acknowledged that at least 80 priests have been accused of sexually abusing children during the last five decades, and the scandal has spread nationwide, leading on Friday to the resignation of a Florida bishop who acknowledged sexually abusing a youngster early in his career.

Other participants argued that the church should praise the media for focusing attention on the issue, and many said they were unhappy with secrecy in the church and poor communication with parishioners.

''For more than two months, we have been inundated by the media with details of that awful history,'' Law said. ''It has left us sad, it has left us angry, and it has robbed us of that trust which a short while ago we took for granted.''

According to priests, laypeople, and church staff who attended the listening sessions and a summary of them, participants were angry and upset, but cordial. Many people said they thought Law should resign, but others wanted him to stay. A number expressed concern about the financial ramifications of the clergy sexual abuse scandal for church social service programs, as well as for low-income parishes and Catholic schools that depend on church subsidies to survive.

Many expressed a desire for reform, but the only consensus, according to participants, was that women should play more of a role in church life, and that laypeople should have a greater voice.

''We need to change the whole power structure of the church,'' said Bonnie Ciambotti, 48, of Newton, a eucharistic minister and a religious education teacher at Saint Ignatius of Loyola Church. ''We need more women. The power, and the male dominance, and the secrecy are how this whole thing started.''

Some called for the ordination of women, or for allowing priests to marry, but others disagreed.

''I would be very disappointed if this catastrophe in Boston ends like the catastrophes in Dallas and Chicago, where there is a local solution and yet the structural elements of the church at large are not addressed,'' said Dr. Jim Muller, 59, of Wellesley, a parishioner at Saint John the Evangelist Church. ''We don't want to see the solution end with pedophilia only. There's a broad sentiment in favor of broad reform.''

Among the more radical proposals floated at the sessions were calls for a Third Vatican Council to revamp the whole church, and a suggestion that a coadjutor bishop be appointed in Boston to administer the archdiocese while allowing Law to focus full time on protecting children. One speaker said the church needs to make major changes to head off another event resembling the Reformation, which split Western Christianity.

''What came across is that this is a very articulate, well-educated, and deeply affected group of people who are going to say the truth,'' said the Rev. Robert J. Bowers, pastor of Saint Catherine of Siena in Charlestown. ''You're seeing loyalty at its very best. These people are going to love the church into something else, into a new birth.''

In his response at the end of the convocation, Law said, ''In my most horrible nightmares, I would never have imagined that we would have come to the situation in which we find ourselves.''

Reciting the grievances raised during the day, he said he understood that people feel betrayed by him and are angry at him. He praised ''the courage and the conviction'' of victims, as well as the outpouring of support for parish priests ''who are very often isolated and feeling lonely and in pain.''

''I have heard you passionately and prayerfully plead for greater openness in the church ... [and] I have heard calls for greater and more meaningful involvement of the laity in the life of the church, and specifically of women in the life of the church,'' he said. ''I don't have the answers today for all the things that I have heard. ... I have heard a great deal. And I need and I want ... to really take in what you have offered.''

Michael Paulson can be reached at mpaulson@globe.com.

This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 3/10/2002. © Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 02, 2002.

Hello, Mateo.
Would you have any objection to the Moderator removing the HTML tags that you inserted to caused the quoted text to appear in italics?
If I recall correctly, Chris Butler has stated that, because of his visual difficulties, it is almost impossible for him to read an extended passage in italics. I think that what you have posted would be of considerable interest to Chris.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.

John,

I didn't realize that the italics would be difficult to read. I understand how it can be difficult, and I apologize. If the Moderator could remove them, that would be great! In the mean time, I did include a link where the text is in a non-italicized font.

My intent was to emphasize that I was not the author, of course! :-)

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 02, 2002.

Emerald,
A couple of mistakes made here.
I meant to look over the goals of the organization rather than the mission statement, where it says specifically there is support for clergy. This outfit(VOTF)has a clear mission to challenge the hierarchy in the wake of the Boston scandal. These people are angry and the more they learn, the angrier they are getting. And there is lots yet to learn. Nowhere did I say VOTF was supporting the hierarchy.

I am quite surprised that you paste a copy of an old Boston Globe article here and not get assaulted by those who would believe the media is to blame. It is old news though. Quite a bit has gone on since and it ain't pretty and it ain't about healing.
Since then, another 700 pages of information has turned up in the Geoghan case and the archdiosese has placed blame on the 7 year old and his folks for letting the monster Geoghan have his way with the little boy. And this is business about one case!! of hundreds of accusations.
It is nasty business and it about time the business gets taken care of properly and if the laity has to get involved to see the business is fully taken care of, (that underlying causes and conditions are addressed) then these folks should step in. This is a big deal and it can't and won't return to the darkness of the closet that it has been held in for too many decades.
I say thanks to the press and outfits like the VOTF who will be brave enough to close the door on the closet and take a good look at this mess. It shocks me to think there would be those who would use the old methods to approach these problems.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 03, 2002.

Yeah you see, we're off to a bad start. Like two ships passing in the night and somehow managing to collide. I probably don't get your point and I'm sure you don't see mine. Let me start over...

There is a priest problem. It's been covered up. It needs to be outed in some appropriate way.

Now as for myself, I don't know what ought to be done about it. It is more than the fact that I hold no authoritative position; it is that I have no wisdom for that kind of thing. I have no idea what to do about it. My job around here is pretty well laid out for me, and if I stick to that and do it well, then society will experience some really small benefit.

As far as outdated articles and recent developments, I'm not an avid watcher of the details of this issue. I am more inclined study up on the Patriot Act and find out latest constitutional right I just lost... that's where my interests lie.

But on this issue, my attention rests on the opportunists. That's why I copy/pasted that article (only the second time I've ever done that). I wanted you to see the calls for change in doctrine. When I say opportunists, I don't mean the media though there is enough going on there... I meant the doctrine changers. You know who I am talking about, and you know what kind of changes they want.

I'm not afraid that the doctrine changers will destroy the Church, but, I don't like the prospect of so many decieved souls which would result from an almost-successful attempt.

Behind the veil of our passable existence is waged a war between the forces of God and forces of darkness led by Satan, over the destiny of our immortal souls. There is a formula designed by God in His mercy to rescue us. There is too much at stake here to be questioning His formula for the sake of temporal social agendas that will end in nothingness.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 03, 2002.

Emerald,

Well said.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 03, 2002.

I will second that one.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 03, 2002.

It is interesting in reading these discussions to see different people's minds at work. While reading there were few things stood out to me, as "neat" I suppose. The first was Fred Bishop's rebuke of "the fool," I congratulate you Fred, it was very effective, it reminded me of the style of so many books that I have read before. One doesn't come across that kind of writing very often. The second was emeralds last statement i think it was: There is too much at stake here to be questioning His formula for the sake of temporal social agendas that will end in nothingness.

-- magalene (mkane@smac.edu), May 05, 2002.

(computer glitch - i wasnt done...) That was an impressive quote; I liked it. :) As to the actual discussion...I think that neither denying the problem nor simply talking about the probleme (as Church leaders are doing now) does anything...the problem is only indirectly the perversion of the priests. The perversions of the n.o. priesthood are only side effects to the greater crisis; if the crisis remains unsolved it will continue the effectual destruction of the n.o. priesthood. In Christo, Magdalene

-- magalene (mkane@smac.edu), May 05, 2002.