Controlling Catholic media
There are some interesting comments from the ChicagoTribune.com, U.S. Catholic and National Catholic Reporter about what a statement by Cardinal Francis George means for Catholic media and, by the way, what it might mean to Commonweal. Here is what the cardinal said in opening remarks at the recent meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
If there is a loosening of relationship between ourselves and those whom Christ has given us to govern in love, it is for us to reach out and re-establish connections necessary for all to remain in communion. As you know, we have recently begun discussions on how we might strengthen our relationship to Catholic universities, to media claiming the right to be a voice in the Church, [italics added] and to organizations that direct various works under Catholic auspices. Since everything and everyone in Catholic communion is truly inter-related, and the visible nexus of these relations is the bishop, an insistence on complete independence from the bishop renders a person or institution sectarian, less than fully Catholic. The purpose of our reflections, therefore, is to clarify questions of truth or faith and of accountability or community among all those who claim to be part of Catholic communion.
David Gibson posted earlier about Cardinal George’s speech, here and at PoliticsDaily, and the more recent reactions focus further attention on the cardinal’s remark about “media claiming the right to be a voice in the Church.” It isn’t clear which organizations Cardinal George was referring to, but there is a certain ominous tone when he speaks of the “accountability” of “those who claim to be part of Catholic communion.”
Chicago Tribune religion writer Manya Brachear started her blog item on this by noting that Cardinal George said, “Relations do not speak first of control but of love.” It did not take the cardinal very long to get to the control part, though. His remark about “accountability” certainly turns the tables on journalists, since it is textbook journalism for us to hold leaders such as the cardinal-archbishop of Chicago accountable.
Over the past two decades, many bishops have muffled the voices of their diocesan newspapers, often to the frustration of the journalists in their employ. I venture that more than a few of the editors feel this has made the papers less credible and less interesting – and therefore less effective in their mission.
Independent media that cover the Catholic Church closely – and there are many outlets, including blogs, of many ideological flavors – offer a vital sounding board, a place where issues can be discussed outside the narrow confines that bishops have permitted in most of the official church media. A constructive discussion of their role and influence would be a good thing, but that is not the plan I glean when Cardinal George speaks of holding journalists accountable to bishops.
on November 20th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I’ve already comented elsewhere on the Cardinal’s comments which I consider to be highly hypocritical, viz. to talk about love and control and then emphasize he wants control as “loving.”
David G. pointed this out nicely at Politics daily.
Then there’s the fact that we’re interrelated -sure- but he means I’ll tell you and I don’t have to listen -even when his own faithful called on him to resign because of his mishandling of the sex abuse by clergy there – a call still echoed when the meeting in Baltimore was going on.
But of course, we shouldn’t pay much attention to the Bishops (or at least their foibles) only what they tell us.
I think part of the problem is a real lack of pastoral love and care for his flock and the rest of the Us faithful cloaked in intellectualized presentations of what he expects us to accept. I guess I don’t feel intertelated to that.
on November 20th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Haven’t seen anyone really comment on another aspect of these George committees:
a) isn’t it correct that George is no longer the president of the USCCB – it is Kicanas and George is now past president?
b) he announced “three” committees (I think) – per reports, these were set up over the summer behind closed doors, in secret;
c) how will these committees work – who do they report to beyond the USCCB in general – and if George is on the way out, why does he set up committees that now fall to his second in command? This sounds like an internal political move to show his outgoing orthodoxy and that he is in control but leaving a legacy for his next in command? Not very good management skills?
Also, agree that Mr. Gibson summarized this event well. Not sure it was David or others who mentioned that this committee on the catholic media would be objective and take a hard look at all independent “catholic” media sources – e.g. EWTN, The Wanderer, blogs by Father Z, Acton Institute esp. Fr. Sirico, how about the media arms of the Legionnaires of Christ/Regnum Christi (Catholic News Service)? the media arm of Opus Dei (Zenit)? What about historical publications from religious orders – America, Paulist, Franciscan, Dominican?
on November 20th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Well it seems some from the Vatican are or soon will be her in the USA visiting the nuns.
Perhaps when they finish that, before heading back to Rome, they could take some time to at least conduct a superficial examination of the varous American “Catholic” news outlets?
Two birds with one stone, so to speak . . .
;-)
on November 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Bill, I think Cd George is prez for another year, then Kicanas, by custom, is elected president. (Which will make the election of VP next November a telling signal.)
How the committees will work, if they work at all, is a big question, and Kicanas told me he saw them more as pointing the way to areas of dialogue and engagement rather than anything procedural. In short, I don’t think much will come of them (I have known to be wrong before–viz. Conclave 2005!) in a heavy-handed way. But I do think the frustration was about media and groups on the right as much as those on the left.
But Cardinal George may have had a different view of how this would play out, as per this pre-meeting interview with AP’s Rachel Zoll:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jefrFcxVn12A5k7fPVOoHGC7E3owD9C23F980
George said the issue would be taken up at the meeting as part of a broader look at what groups can legitimately call themselves Catholic.
“If those relationships — which don’t mean control, they mean relationship — are now weakened, then we have to think of ways to enter discussion in order to strengthen them, and to redefine perhaps what are the criteria for a university or any other organization to consider itself Catholic,” George said in an interview ahead of this week’s meeting.
on November 20th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Bill DeHaas
Cardinal George finishes his term next November, several weeks before he turns seventy-four. Ordinarily ten candidates are presented for president, The vice-president has, I seem to remember, always been chosen, with one exception. (In the late 1970s, Cardinal Carberry of St.Louis, already nearing his resignation [accepted on the day he turned seventy-five!], did not stand for president.) But there is an election, and the presumption would be in favor of Bishop Kicanas (also a Chicagoan). From the remaining nine candidates the new vice-president is chosen,
on November 20th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
“Since everything and everyone in Catholic communion is truly inter-related, and the visible nexus of these relations is the bishop, an insistence on complete independence from the bishop renders a person or institution sectarian, less than fully Catholic.”
Connection is a mutual relation. If the laity cannot be independent of the bishops, neither can the bishops be independent of the laity. Still, the hierarchy refuses to establish official links for dialogue between themselves and the laity. Just because the hierarchy refuses to listen does not imply that the laity and ordinary priests have nothing to say of value to the Church.
I don’t know of any Catholic media who claim to be ‘complete independence’ of the bishops. If the Cardinal were truly connected to the rest of the Church he would know that. The disconnect is on his side.
on November 20th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Sorry, I wrote, one-finger erratic typing, while David Gibson was replying.
on November 20th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Here are my initial thoughts, for what they’re worth.
In the first place, I think we need to distinguish between two types of media: those whose mission is explicitly to further the church’s mission (proclaim the kingdom, baptize everyone in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so on); and those whose mission is to journalistically cover the church, which is itself a rich source of news and other material.
In the first category we could further subdivide into those that are explicitly arms of a diocese (e.g. diocesan newspapers and radio stations); those that are run by or somehow affiliated with religious orders (America; EWTN; US Catholic); and those that are lay apostolates (Commonweal; Relevant Radio). I’d probably lump Notre Dame Magazine, Catholic campus radio stations and their ilk in the same bucket.
I don’t think the bishops would be out of line to inquire – lovingly, and with a view to cordial dialogue – whether the missions of these media organizations are aligned with the church’s mission. To my way of thinking, it shouldn’t require that these orgs continually spew Catholic hierarchy propaganda. It should mean that in some way their primary mission is to evangelize – to proclaim the Good News that Jesus rose from the dead to save us. A huge amount of latitude exists around that parameter.
I also think it is incumbent on the organizations in this category to comport themselves in a way that is consistent with keeping their mission aligned with that of the church. For example: while every person on staff might be convinced that the pope is a freakin’ idiot, these groups should not repeatedly proclaim to the world that the pope is a freakin’ idiot, because that’s inconsistent with the church’s mission.
In the second category – professional journalists who cover the church – I would put NCR, Sandro Magister, John Allen, Laurie Goodstein and so on. I *don’t* think the church has a right to expect them to be faithful, obedient or even Catholic. (But they can be very useful to the church).
Of the many sources of potential conflict here, one obvious one is, what if a journalist is in the 2nd category, and does happen to be a Catholic, and is confronted with a story that paints the church in a bad light? I’d think the answer is, tell the truth as objectively as possible, but that’s just me.
on November 20th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Two birds with one stone, so to speak . . .
Killing birds may be a very apt metaphor.
on November 20th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Has anyone commented on, or is it of any significance that EWTN did not carry the bishops’ conference this year. It was done, I think, by the TV station of the Brooklyn diocese. I read somewhere that the bishops said no thank you to EWTN, which I think has carried the proceedings for a long time with their inimitable commentary.
on November 20th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Last I knew, most U.S. bishops wear a sign that says “Kick Me.”
This idea of George’s is ludicrous (and I find myself using this word a lot lately in reference to these hierarchs).
Formal leaders like this cardinal have an appetite for control, not to mention a penchant for seeing life in black-and-white terms.
I say, let these committees meet for as long as we can get them to meet — so that their final product can be ignored by the rest of us.
In the meantime, the bishops can continue to suck up to the Vatican, assuring continuing drift of the Church of Rome toward irrelevance for most Catholics.
on November 20th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Exactly. The disconnect is on the bishop’s side. They want “dialogue” but what they really mean is obedience. If they are sincere then let the dialogue begin.
on November 20th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
“Power is nothing more than the intemperate protrusion of the egomaniacal heart. Since all egomaniacs are insecure to their frightened cores, they thus wield ‘power’ barbarically so the world will not find them out.”
Dennis Lehane in “The Given Day.”
on November 20th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Is this going to be another “no enemies on the right” exercise? Will ultra-rightist publications (The Wanderer, National Catholic Register, Homiletic Pastoral Review) and blogs (Rorate Caeli etc.) be given a free pass?
on November 20th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Seriously? None of the “approved” media will be worth its weight in toilet paper.
Who do they think they’re kidding anyways? Most of these guys must be closet Mormons or something. They salivate at the thought of the major newspapers, radio and television stations, and higher education outlets to which their sheep will be exposed all being church-owned. Sorry boys, that ship has sailed. It sailed about 500-odd years ago.
on November 20th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Unfortunately, the publications mentioned by Fr. O’Leary are not “ultra-rightist”; the ones mentioned are the ones on the right of the center. The ultra-rightist are the publications of the sedevacantists or journals of the “Si, si, No, no” sort, etc.
on November 20th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
The TV station of the Diocese of Rockville Center did carry the proceedings, and I don’t know what happened with EWTN, though there was some speculation about it.
The station has all the coverage on its website: http://www.telecaretv.org/
There was as much concern about organizations on the “right” as on the “left”–the Wanderer, Cardinal Newman Society and the like.
on November 20th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Thanks, Mr. Gibson and John Page. Got ahead of myself in the pecking order for president. Mr. Page, forgot about the turn of events with Carberry. Good that happened – he was a battle ax and a half to deal with and his mind began to go.
Well, that does change the oversight of the committes going forward – will have to wait and see as Mr. Gibson aptly put it (agree with your sentiments about the committees and the future, tho).
Is EWTN loosing its hold now that Mother is out of the picture given her health?
on November 20th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Normally I am sympathetic to Cardinal George, but find myself disagreeing in this instance. I do think more oversight of Catholic universities is needed. But in terms of Catholic media, I think it’s a lost cause. There are simply some people who thrive on an antagonistic relationship with hierarchy in any circumstance. If they aren’t angry with the Church, they’d be ranting about the leadership at their local Lions Club. In terms of causing harm to the faithful, Catholic universities are far more powerful than the Catholic press, which regardless of ideological bent, is entirely anemic. Very few people just stumble upon Commonweal or First Things. At least in my case, I was introduced to Commonweal during college by a professor. The universities shape minds, while I find the press caters to the shaped mind.
on November 20th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
“The universities shape minds, while I find the press caters to the shaped mind.”
One might say that shaped minds want to shape the universities. Moreover, universities will have to go a long way before they become as problematic as the Vatican.
on November 20th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
“Moreover, universities will have to go a long way before they become as problematic as the Vatican.”
Rather odd. Are you sure you’re finding what you’re looking for in the Catholic church?
on November 21st, 2009 at 1:05 am
We the Bishops have concluded after much discussion amongst ourselves that the BIshops are the lynchpin of the Church.
on November 21st, 2009 at 8:28 am
A friend who does some work with the USCCB (trying to be discrete here) told me that EWTN was dis-invited because of the way they covered the Pope’s most recent visit to the US. Apparently, during their broadcast of the Mass at Nationals Park in DC, one of the color commentators (Raymond Arroyo, I think) took the liberty of speaking ill of some of the bishops assisting at the liturgy–painting some bishops in a bad light because they permitted Democratic politicians to receive communion and that sort of thing. All during the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Such disrespect both for the bishops and for the Mass itself upset enough of them that they decided to shut EWTN out.
Unfortunately, I have no way of verifying this, but it sure sounds plausible.
on November 21st, 2009 at 9:21 am
How does this relate to Ex Corde Ecclesiae?
on November 21st, 2009 at 9:47 am
I have never been convinced that the strictures listed at the end of ECE will have much influence on the Catholic identity of Catholic colleges and universities. Nor is it clear, at least to me, what impact the mandates for theologians have had (maybe you theologians know).
There are 200 plus Catholic colleges and univiersities in the U.S.; I suspect each one presents its own response to “Catholic?” and each faces its own challenges on the identity question.
It strikes me as unlikely that any bishop (okay, most bishops) have a real strategy for working on the issue. It is mostly (to my mind) a cultural issue not a theological or religious one that begins with the students who attend that school, that must deal with the “hands off” attitude of many (most) faculty, and that rests on the underfunded, undermanned/womanned, and often unadventurous campus ministry staff. While most administrations have a formally positive view of Catholic identity, I would guess that most, like the bishops, have no strategy for making it a reality–or at least anymore a reality than it is by default.
On the magazine front: Commonweal describes itself as a “Journal of Religion, Politics, Literature and the Arts edited by Catholic Lay People.” How does that fit with the definitions of the investigating committee?
on November 21st, 2009 at 10:33 am
It strikes me that this is all going to play itself out in the contexts of the distortions of our Protestant, denominationalist, capitalist culture. Academic institutions compete with each other, and in this economy, some are competing for survival.
So there are some schools that market themselves –as “ultra Catholic”–it’s their brand identity, it’s how they survive in the market. Others imply, well, you can get a Catholic identity here, and a Catholic formation, but you’ll still be able to function well in the secular world. If you do well, you’ll get into Yale Law or Harvard Medical School. We all have micro-niches.
So the “Catholic” label, alas, has become one more means of market differentiation.
on November 21st, 2009 at 10:49 am
Ms. Steinfels,
I have to agree with you. First, whatever perceived need there was for ECE, I don’t think most Catholics see it as an urgent issue. The theological scene in this country seems pretty quiet to me. That may be a result of a few cases of investigation in recent years, but the only ones conducting witch hunts seem to be a minority of extremists. Second, the mandate was interpreted by many bishops as a personal matter between a professor and his or her ordinary. Who knows how many professors sought one? I doubt that something like that can be made public, if it is being treated as a matter for the internal forum. ECE was interpreted by many, if not most bishops, to mean that a professor has to identify accurately what is Catholic teaching and not pass off something as official Church teaching that is not. If you are not teaching ethics, historical theology, christology, etc. there is little need to identify specific Catholic teaching, and so there is little risk that students will end up misinformed about what is the Catholic position and what is not. Finally, I do not think most bishops really want to confront the issue of Catholic identity at colleges and universities unless there is some really egregious situation that they feel obligated to address.
on November 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am
Alan Mitchell: “there is little risk that students will end up misinformed about what is the Catholic position and what is not.”
Given the few theology course most students in CC and U have to take, how many are informed at all–at least at the adult level college should prepare them for?
As a “victim/beneficiary” of the old system–a theology (and philosophy) course every semester–I lamented the time spent on bad theolgoy courses but today the one or two required courses seem like far too little. My philosophy courses were great, but again there seem to be only one or two required now. The idea of introducing one or two more of either would certainly cause a storm among faculty who seem to jealously guard requirements and the requisite size of their departments and following on that the budget.
The presence across the curriculum of relevant expressions of Catholic identity is another direction, but that requires “hiring for mission”–another contested issue. This only reenforces in my mind my original point: the bishops have few clues about this, followed by university officials who may have some clues but little will.
on November 21st, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Perhaps we might have public readings in each Catholic college and university (and perhaps parishes?) of some expressions of official Church teaching. I’d suggest beginning with “Mirari vos” as a way to start the discussion. Note particularly secs. 13-17.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm
on November 21st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Well Nicholas, that would test us! Or at least test the pronouncements of hierarchs.
on November 21st, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Can someone make up (or does there exist) a reading list that would cover the basics every Catholic should know? For Catholics who are getting an inadequate education in theology and other areas of Catholic thought, what would be a reasonable self-study program for them? I am talking here about the equivalent of what would be the required courses for, say, an economics or biology or English major at a Catholic university that wanted its students to have a very solid Catholic education. I am not asking how one can get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in one’s spare time. I am also not asking for what every Catholic should learn so they don’t have to learn any more. I am asking for a remedial self-study course for Catholics who had little or no Catholic education to bring them to a level where they would know what a recent college graduate should know so they could progress from there.
on November 21st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Joe Komanchak used to teach a course that he called, “remedial Catholicism,” maybe he has a bibliography.
on November 21st, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Ms. Steinfels – some other random thoughts about ECE. Have heard, attended, and seen some excellent intro courses in some catholic universities but what is emphasized is the mission or spirituality (lived experience of catholicism) by the founder of the order e.g. Vincent de Paul in all of the Vincentian universities – DePaul, Niagra, St. John’s. This seems to different approach to the “essential or remedial” Catholicism. Jesuit universities (or it may be their high schools do an excellent job of emphasizing and focusing on Arrupe’s “People for Others” approach and Ignatian Spirituality).
Observing over the last 25 years the naming of bishops, wonder how many even have degrees from US Catholic universities? Most have higher education from Rome (hence, the promotion to bishop); most attended college seminaries from large dioceses which have no connection to other catholic universities e.g. Mundelein, Dunwoodie, St. John’s, etc.)
So, given this how many bishops even know enough much less have personal experience of catholic education at a university level? It is true during the 1990’s there was a brief few years when many episcopal promotions went to order priests (e.g. George, O’Malley, etc.) but even then, did these guys go to catholic universities? If I remember, Law attended Harvard.
Any way, other thoughts.
on November 21st, 2009 at 2:56 pm
A friend was mightily amused when someone we both know who is Jewish gave a non-Jewish friend who wanted to know something about Judaism the book Judaism for Dummies. I see that the authors of Catholicism for Dummies are
Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD, President of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy and Executive Editor of Sapienta magazine.
Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD, co-host with Father Trigilio of Council of Faith on EWTN, the Eternal Word Television Network.
It’s not what I am looking for, however.
on November 21st, 2009 at 2:57 pm
it’s funny how the discussion turned from the presses relationship to the hierachy (by the way, i think the Wanderer is ultra-right -guess it depends on your perception) to academe to how well educated young Catholic colege students are about their faith.
I think ECE was a failed attempt at control and so will the attempt here.
If our young catholics are not as educated as we like, are we hoping for a return of the days when there were many Catholic grammar and high schools with lots of religion courses? I think those days are gone so we need to shape carefully what can be done in the current situation instead of complaining how bad it is.
But the thread, I thought, was about the press.
All I want to say is that the notion of love or loving engagement, not control, put forward is a quite poor sematic; beyond that, the Cardinal of Chicago needs to be far more clear and specific about how he understands his and the hierachy’s role in unity and interrelationships with his fellow Catholics.
It’s my view that (as someone noted here already) the approach is driven by fear, fear of having lost -which is surely true on the Catholic left- the credibility the hierachy wants and this attempt strikes me as an act of desparation cloaked in spin verbiage – not as some say about every word from on high, the Truth from the beginning.
on November 21st, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Didn’t we turn to CC and U because we want their students to grow up and read Commonweal–and not just read, understand?
on November 21st, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Bill M said: “Moreover, universities will have to go a long way before they become as problematic as the Vatican.”
Adeoratus said: “Rather odd. Are you sure you’re finding what you’re looking for in the Catholic church?”
Jim says: Adeoratus, are you actually equating the Vatican with the Catholic Church?
Speaking of the Vatican and to dwell on fantasyland a bit further, I just re-watched “The Shoes of the Fisherman” last night. It was extremely well done (1968 was a good film year), but any resemblance to reality was purely in the mind of Morris L. West.
on November 22nd, 2009 at 12:41 am
This reminds me of the J. F. Powers story, “Keystone”.
on November 23rd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Liberal bishops have long sought to control Catholic journalism. I know this first hand. I was a member of St. Peter & Paul parish in Williamsville, NY, when then-Auxiliary Bishop Donald Trautman was appointed pastor. One of his first official acts was to forbid The Wanderer from the premises. The St. Vincent de Paul Society paid for a large bulk subscription, and Trautman went to the VDP meeting and ordered the Society to cancel the subscription. When members balked, he demanded.
I think it was at the 1996 Bishops’ meeting in DC, in executive session, the bishops devoted much of their time talking about how to put The Wanderer out of business: the result was massive cancellations of parish bulk subscriptions in very short order. Rare is the priest who will now allow The Wanderer in the parish now.
on November 25th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Ex Corde Ecclesia would have had a greater impact were it not for the pedophilia cover-up scandal. The Vatican is waiting to step in forcefully with ECE. It was a time of terror. How short some of our memories are! The problem is that the Vatican and the bishops lack the moral authority to enforce ECE. They may never get it back. But no one should think that the enforcers in Rome do not want to control Catholic colleges and universities.