April
12, 2008
Papal
Press Coverage
Mary
E. Hunt, Ph.D. Co-director, WATER
Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and
Ritual
8121 Georgia Avenue #310
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-4933 USA
301
589-2509 301 589-3150 (fax)
mhunt@hers.com www.hers.com/water
Press coverage of Pope
Benedict XVI's visit to the United States acts like a mirror reflecting the media's
complicated role in reporting religious news. What could be more television-friendly
than the sights and sounds of institutional Catholicism? Its colorful costumes,
ancient rituals, and contemporary savvy at getting its message out are a producer's
dream. If the kind of coverage in 2005 that accompanied the death of Pope John
Paul II, and the election of his successor, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict
XVI, is any indication, we can expect a great deal of air time and print space,
very little if any critical analysis, and a lot of free press for the Roman Catholic
Church.
I follow these issues as a cradle Catholic and a feminist theologian.
My biases are clear-I love the community of sacrament and solidarity of which
I am a part and I take serious exception to the institution's free ride in the
press. The complexity of contemporary Catholicism, especially the fact that millions
of Catholics want a participatory, democratic, horizontally integrated church
with broadly based non-clerical leadership, is newsworthy.
Many such
important issues, including the institution's continued efforts to shape public
policy on reproductive health, Catholic teachings against the death penalty, and
Vatican financial dealings are obscured by the smoke and solemnity. We learn more
from the press about the Pope's red Prada shoes and designer sun glasses than
about his criticism of the Iraq war. This time around in Washington, DC and New
York City we hear about the "Pope-soap-on-a- rope" but not the people
who work in Catholic schools for low wages. We see tee shirts for papal teddy
bears, but no hint of the impact of the Vatican's policy banning the use of condoms
even for those who are HIV infected.
Whether it is a Sunday morning talk
show, the front page of a newspaper of record, or the evening news, I continue
to be amazed at how little the Vatican press office has to do to assure soft ball
questions, few dissident voices, and reverent talk about the number of ciboria
necessary to serve communion in baseball stadiums. And, we are all supposed to
know what ciboria are-for the record, goblet-shaped metal vessels that hold the
hosts, that is, the wafers, used for communion. Catholic terminology is about
the only thing used liberally in these exercises.
Television hosts like
Tim Russert fairly swoon over their meetings with popes. They bring none of their
critical skills to bear on an institution and a nation state. The Vatican City
State has been a sovereign country since 1929; it has about 1000 inhabitants governed
by the Pope, and, in his absence, by the College of Cardinals all of whom are
chosen by him. In the opinion of many people it is as secretive, punitive, and
dismissive of human rights as some dictatorships. These are serious issues that
warrant full discussion, not glossing over as if the correct liturgical colors
and Gregorian chant were the essence of Catholicism. The media seem to be in the
papal pocket.
The impact of this media approach is apparent on the many
Catholic groups that represent lesbian and gay, divorced and remarried church
members, groups like Catholics for Choice and Women's Ordination Conference, voices
seeking to be heard as Catholics not as dissenters. We have learned over the years
that there is simply no competing for media attention with the bulletproof Popemobile
and the crowds of faithful. Protests and press conferences, women-led liturgies
and other educational events take place before the man arrives with the hope that
the press, looking for filler until the visit begins, might attend to them. By
the time the papal masses and ceremonial meetings begin, the voices of dissent
are long since forgotten by those who might offer more substantive coverage.
The Vatican learned its lesson in 1979. Mercy Sister Theresa Kane, then the President
of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, welcomed Pope John Paul II to
a gathering of nuns held in the Basilica of the National Shrine in Washington
DC. Her gentle and generous welcome caused a stir because she dared to mention,
albeit with deep respect, that the other half of the church (read: women) wants
to be involved in all of its ministries. Her implicit reference to the ban on
the ordination of women and women's second class citizenship in Catholicism was
publicized around the world. The Pope did not comment directly at the time, but
the fallout from the Vatican was harsh and unyielding toward Theresa Kane, the
Sisters of Mercy, and Catholic women in general. Virtually nothing has changed
in thirty years. Catholic women are not ordained, hence not involved in most church
decision-making. The hierarchical structure has not changed one whit; if anything,
power is even more concentrated. I suspect that this reality will not get much
media attention during the papal visit. I am quite sure that no one who has the
honor of welcoming this pope to his various venues will be granted such an unscripted
opportunity to be candid. I am even more confident that few members of the press
will notice.
My concerns could be seen as unique to a certain Catholic
situation. But two underlying issues compel me to claim that there is more here
than pique. First, the enormous size and reach of the Catholic Church makes it
an important case of how religion is handled in the public arena. With a billion
members around the world, and one of four people in the United States being claimed
by the Catholic Church, it would seem that the press would be eager to explore
this church critically and examine it as thoroughly as they do other large corporations,
universities, health care providers and other shapers of common life.
Granted, few organizations can light a candle to the Vatican's processions and
the Pope's moral claims. But for the press to pass over without critique the Vatican's
internal, exclusive structure, not to mention its convenient connections with
governments like Libya and Iran at UN meetings in order to block consensus about
population policies is to abdicate an important role of the media. Rather than
please advertisers, I take it that the role of a free press, on religious issues
as well as secular ones, is to raise issues of common concern, examine them, and
help readers/viewers form their own opinions. If the issues are obscured no such
process can play out. A little practice with Catholicism would go a long way at
improving press coverage of smaller, less well known groups.
Second, if
the U.S. press cannot handle its responsibilities with regard to Catholicism which
is so well known to many of them, how can we expect them to be helpful in reporting
on Judaism, Islam, the Baha'i faith, Wicca, or any number of other groups that
form the pluralistic religious mosaic in the United States today? No reporter
or anchor could be expected to be an expert on the ins and outs of such groups.
But as a matter of journalistic practice I think it is reasonable to train reporters
to look at more than meets the eye on religion as they are taught to investigate
plane crashes and court cases.
The difficulty, of course, is that few
people want to be thought of as engaging in religion bashing. For example, during
the 2008 papal visit it seems that no one wants to rain on the Pope's parade.
Who will bring up the inconvenient truth that the U.S. visit will cost more than
a million dollars a day that might better be spent on health care for uninsured
people? Who will mention that women will play only the most superficial roles
in anything that he does? Who will notice that when the stadiums return to regular
season action that the Church of Baseball will grant its adherents more participatory
rights than the Catholic Church?
I suggest that we look in the mirror
and admit that we as a culture need to learn how to talk about religion-our own
and others people's-in ways that do not offend or exclude. We need to figure out
how to raise provocative questions with one another, assuming good intentions
as well as a common willingness to think critically and constructively. We need
to look at the big picture religiously, not simply at the made-for-television
opportunities that are orchestrated to show the institutions to best advantage.
Members of the press have a pivotal role to play in this educational task. Those
of us who read, watch, and listen to them have an equally important part to play
in expecting them to fulfill it.
Back
to Top
Send
this page to a friend!
