Nice way to send off the Pope, Catholic News Service

Theology students extol pope's pastoral gifts but say change unlikely, by Chris Herlinger:

NEW YORK (CNS) -- Catholic students at one of New York City's most prominent schools of theology said Pope Benedict XVI's visit did not soften some of their concerns about his papacy and the future of the U.S. Catholic Church.

The students at Union Theological Seminary, a nondenominational graduate school of theology with Protestant roots and a home for Catholic academics who have run afoul of the Vatican, praised Pope Benedict's pastoral gifts and his ability to energize the Catholic faithful.

But they also said the visit will not lead to what they feel are much-needed reforms within the church and expressed concern that the U.S. church's current and future needs are not likely to be addressed any time soon.

[...]

Of the current five full-time Catholic faculty members at Union, three are women. Union's current Catholic faculty includes Jesuit Father Roger Haight, whose book, "Jesus Symbol of God," was sharply criticized by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when it was headed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict. The Vatican has banned Father Haight from teaching at a Catholic institution.

Another Roman Catholic theologian who has had trouble with the Vatican is Paul F. Knitter, currently Union's Paul Tillich professor of theology, world religions and culture.

Kirk told Catholic News Service April 20 that Union was lucky to have scholars like Father Haight and Knitter on the faculty, adding that the student view of Pope Benedict at Union is colored in large part by the pope's relationship with them, with figures like Father Sobrino and by Pope Benedict's past criticism of liberation theology.

For her part, [Union doctoral student Kim] Harris -- a Catholic who used to be Presbyterian -- said her concern about church reform, specifically the need to expand the eligibility for clergy to include noncelibate men and women, is coming out of real and "lived experience."

It seems to me that "lived experience" is a pretty thin basis for promoting a categorical change in Church teaching.

For example, it is the "lived experience" of the unwed mother that bringing a child into the world can be a burden (should one then be "pro-choice"?)

It is also the "lived experience" that I may feel inclined to sleep in on Sundays or shirk the obligation to confess my sins -- even so, buck as I might, the Church teaches othewise: not only duty-bound to the instructions of its founder, but no doubt with my spiritual health and well being in mind.

Of course celibacy may sometimes perceived more of an imposition by some priests and less a reflection of Christ's sacrifice, or it may be that some women may feel slighted because the Church, bound to the sacred scriptures and the example of its founder believes itself unable to ordain them to the priesthood.

Does this subjective feeling of resentment invalidate the argued position of the Church?

Catholic News Service identifies itself as "the primary source of national and world news that appears in the U.S. Catholic press," however with the disclaimer that "while created in 1920 by the bishops of the United States, is editorially independent and a financially self-sustaining division of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops."

I wonder if "editorially and financially independent" is to the USCCB what "plausible deniability" is for the President, when the CIA does a black operation? Honestly, I would have normally expected this backstabbing tripe from the likes of the National Catholic Reporter.

(Bill Cork @ Oak Leaves noticed this as well:

"There remains a serious disconnect between Pope Benedict XVI and the US Bishops, especially their bureaucracies, despite the smiles and ring-kissing of the past week. . . .

Where did the reporter go to discover what theology students are thinking? Catholic University of America? Fordham? Boston College? Notre Dame? University of St. Thomas?

No, they didn’t go to any of those, or to any other Catholic university.

They went to Union Theological Seminary, one of the most liberal Protestant schools of theology in the country.

Newsweek: "Benedict incapable of dealing with "messiness of human life"

Perhaps in some skewed attempt to appear "fair and balanced", or maybe just to placate their more liberal subscription base, the new issue of Newsweek publishes a reasonably good article by George Weigel ("How Benedict XVI Will Make History") AND an unbearably bad piece by senior editor Lisa Miller which actually manages to surpass prior examples of vitriol, stacking the deck of public opinion against the Holy Father and insulting Christians en masse:

Benedict is not the man for this job. His defenders know this, or his advance team of bishops, archbishops and theologians wouldn't have been out there spinning in the weeks before the papal visit, telling anyone who would listen how very, very kind and gentle the Holy Father really is. Feeling is not Benedict's strong suit. It's not just his unfortunate visage that puts people off, or his predilection for the more outré aspects of papal fashion (antique chapeaux and ermine-trimmed capes), or his decades employed as John Paul's theological enforcer. It's that Benedict is a Christian believer first and an intellectual second, a man who shows little comfort on the global stage with the messiness of human life and politics. The Rev. Keith Pecklers, a professor at Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, recalls Benedict's early efforts to connect with the masses in St. Peter's Square. "He didn't know what to do with his hands," Pecklers says. "He doesn't naturally reach out and touch babies or anything."

In fact, one could argue that Benedict has been engaged in a lifelong battle against the supremacy of feeling—against the idea, so popular in America today, that feelings about God come from within. ...

Did I read that correctly? -- because Benedict is first and foremost a "Christian believer" and only secondarily an intellectual, he is incapable of dealing with 'the messiness of human life"?

Well, maybe just a wee bit biased . . .

Just a few pickings from the cliche-ridden mainstream-media papal coverage -- oftentimes with such barely-concealed hostility towards the Pope one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry:

• Tossing the usual standards of faith, belief, adherence to doctrine and obedience to religous authority out the window, The Washington Post sets a new standard for assessing one's Catholicity:

  He'll be applauded by people such as Ray Flynn, former Boston mayor and U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, who loves the idea of papal hierarchy because it means "people aren't out there freelancing, talking about their opinion of what the faith teaches. It makes us more unified." ...

  But Benedict won't see people such as John Cecotti, 68, a Bethesda management consultant who goes to Mass weekly. He said he respects the pope the way he does the Dalai Lama and thinks that the Vatican is "a good old boys' club that needs a wake-up call" and that the church needs female and married priests.

  Or Carrie Drummond, 34, an animal adoption specialist from Alexandria who rarely goes to church and "isn't a big fan of the pope or church doctrine" but believes she understands and lives the essence of Catholicism: take care of other people. "This pope's idea that the Catholic faith is the one, or that other world religions don't have credibility? Come on. We don't need to be limiting dialogue; we should be expanding it," she said.

• Georgie Ann Geyer begins her column on somewhat of a dour note:

  When Benedict XVI became pope three years ago, most expected a tough, if not dismally unpopular, papacy. He was called sardonically the "German Shepherd" or "God's Rottweiler."

  History seemed not to have blessed this Catholic priest, who had the misfortune of ascending the Throne of St. Peter after the immensely popular John Paul II. Next to his predecessor, the image of Benedict was often that of a snarling defender at the gate of Vatican ultraconservativism, standing side by side with the Swiss Guards, moral bayonets at the ready, defending the past. . . .

  ("Snarling? Really now. Via Argent by the Timber).
• Reuters lays on the prejudice thick and strong in its opening paragraph on the meeting between the Pope and U.S. Catholic educators:

  Pope Benedict likely will walk a fine line between trampling on academic freedom and laying down the law on orthodoxy when he meets with top U.S. Catholic educators next month, experts and observers say. ...

• The Boston Globe can barely conceal their disappointment that Francesco Cesareo, president of Assumption College, doesn't share in its resentment of the Church's moral teaching:

  Q. In his book "The Faithful," Boston College's James O'Toole predicts that American Catholics will "continue their ambivalent relationship to the papacy," loyal to it, yet often disregarding its teachings.

  A. That's where the value of a visit of the pope comes into play. It allows at least for the faithful to think about their commitment, how they want to live out their faith, to think about the church in more an international scope than national or individualistic. I wouldn't necessarily agree that American Catholics overall are ambivalent. We have a vibrant church that strives to be faithful.

  Q. You would not disagree that American Catholics are going to still practice artificial contraception and divorce and disagree with the pope on various matters in large numbers?

  A. No, I wouldn't say that.

Carl Olson on the "MSM Papal Word Association Game"

I was going to comment on USA Today's piece on Pope Benedict -- or what passes for "journalism" on the Pope in the mainstream press these days -- but Carl Olson of Ignatius Insight does it so much better:

Yes, I really am trying to drive myself insane...but I cannot help it. Help what? you kindly ask. I cannot help playing the "MSM Papal Word Assocation Game." It's simple: just highlight the words and phrases that have been used over 264,000 times by other journalists to describe the Pope, creating a "story" that is simply a regurgitation of some 74,527 other stories. ...

American Papist helps the Associated Press "fill in the Generation Gap"

• Generation Gap Shapes Catholic Church in America, by Rachel Zolli. Associated Press. April 6, 2008:

  The younger generation considers religion important, but doesn't equate faith with going to church. Many lay people want a greater say in how their parishes operate, yet today's seminarians hope to restore the traditional role and authority of priests.

  Catholic colleges and universities are trying to balance their religious identity with free expression, catching grief from liberals and conservatives in the process. ...

• Filling in the "generation gap" in the Catholic Church in America, by Thomas Peters (American Papist):

  Catholic bloggers have been doing an excellent job pointing out some of the fallacies and false oppositions being set out by the media in the advance days before Pope Benedict XVI visits the United States.

  One uneven treatment that I think this blog is uniquely suited to address is well represented by this story by the Associated Press...

"Recruiting the Pope as a leader in the War on Terror"?!?

"Americans warm to Benedict—but they won't like everything he says" -- so says The Economist ("Don't all hug him at once" April 3, 2008), referring in particular to "Catholic conservatives":

But is it the real Benedict conservative Americans are hugging tight, or a caricature of him that they have sewn together? People are arguing already about the meaning of his appearance at the United Nations on April 18th. For liberals, this may be the time when the visitor gives right-wing admirers a cold shower by reminding them of the Vatican's opposition to the Iraq war.

Moreover, they point out, Benedict is a defender of a Catholic social doctrine, and an economic world-view, that in American terms sound quite socialist. And he will surely use his UN address to affirm his support for the world body, and more generally for multilateral diplomacy. “It's a stretch for the neoconservatives to recruit the pope as the leader of the war on terror, and it's also a stretch to associate him with the uncritical acceptance of capitalism,” says Paul Baumann, editor of Commonweal.

Trust me, conservatives like George Weigel and Fr. Neuhaus are well aware that Ratzinger, along with his predecessor, has disagreed with them on going to war with Iraq. However, conveying an appreciation for Benedict's emphasis on respect for religious pluralism by Muslims and denunciation of religious violence hardly constitutes an attempt to "recruit the Pope to head the war on terror."

Among the views which the Economist perceives as being offensive to Catholic conservatives is Benedict's hope for "a reformed Islam as a potential ally in challenging the 'dictatorship of relativism'".

The Economist might be suprised to learn that leading "Catholic neocons" Fr. Neuhaus, George Weigel and Michael Novak are no strangers to this hope. On the idea of Islamic renewal, Fr. Neuhaus has stated:

Yet more troubling is the message that Islam, in order to become less of a threat to the world, must relativize its claim to possess the truth. That plays directly into the hands of Muslim rigorists who pose as the defenders of the uncompromised and uncompromisible truth and who call for death to the infidels. If Islam is to become tolerant and respectful of other religions, it must be as the result of a development that comes from within the truth of Islam, not as a result of relativizing or abandoning that truth.

While some have posited the need for a "Muslim Luther", Weigel envisions someone along the lines of the Muslim equivalent of Leo XIII: "... a religious leader who reaches back into the deeper philosophical resources of his tradition in order to broker a critical agreement with Enlightenment political thought, and to shape his tradition's encounter with the economic and political institutions of modernity" (see Faith, Reason & The War Against Jihadism). And Michael Novak has entertained similar idea in The Universal Hunger For Liberty: Why the Clash of Civilizations Is Not Inevitable (2004).

Related

• George Weigel, Micheal Sean Winters and the "McBrien Prize in Really Inept Vaticanology" April 1, 2008.

Mark Shea vs. the MSM

Shea's Iron Law of Media-Reported Benedictine Growth Catholic Exchange. April 1, 2008

Three years ago, the Mainstream Media (MSM) gathered in a special conclave in Rome to discuss the disastrous election to the Papacy of Ratzinger the Enforcer, God’s Rottweiler, the hardliner, inflexible, rigid, etc. blah, blah. Some of us suggested to our television screens that the Talking Heads might want to wait more than a few seconds before doing the autopsy on the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. But the herd of independent minds that are the MSM had their story and they were sticking to it.

They’ve stuck to it for three years now. The poor dears really don’t have the foggiest clue how to understand Benedict. They huddle together in packs, quoting each other and loading up their computers with macros that spit out the required text without their having to fire a single neuron to write it. That’s why, when you Google the following clichés, you get these kinds of numbers:

“Benedict XVI” rigid – 52,800
“Benedict XVI” hardliner – 27,100
“Benedict XVI” inflexible – 10,300
“Benedict XVI” dominating – 290,000
“Benedict XVI” ruthless – 126,000
“Benedict XVI” enforcer – 28,800
“Benedict XVI” archaic – 22,400
“Benedict XVI” medieval – 169,000
“Benedict XVI” intolerant – 148,000
“Benedict XVI” backward – 122,000
“Benedict XVI” “Hitler Youth” – 30,700
“pope cracks down” – 1,080,000

You get the picture. The MSM has had a template since the day Benedict donned the papal mitre and it has never occurred to most of the people who type or talk about him in the MSM to vary from it. They simply school together like guppies and tell each other (and us) that the rigid, hardline, inflexible, dominating and ruthless enforcer’s archaic, medieval, intolerant and backward thought, words and deeds are what you’d expect from a former Hitler Youth. Apparently, the man has spent every minute of every day cracking down on everything with a pulse over a million times. To hear the MSM tell it, the guy just hates rational thought and freedom.

I think Shea's general assessment of papal coverage by the mainstream press is accurate -- however, his particular demonstration by way of "Google searches" is a bit sketchy, given actual search engine methodology (Steven Skellmeyer at The Fifth Column elaborates).

Nevertheless, having tracked Benedict's coverage in the press for the past, oh, 8 years now I'd agree that Shea's criticism is on the mark.

Related

• Tackling the Mainstream Media Cliches Pope2008.com. April 5, 2008.

George Weigel, Micheal Sean Winters and the "McBrien Prize in Really Inept Vaticanology"

"Americans are still from Mars, and Europeans -- including Vatican foreign policy officials -- are still from Venus", pronounces Sean Winters in Not Eye to Eye: Wholly Different Angles on the World (Washington Post March 30, 2008).

It turns out that on everything from U.S. foreign policy in Iraq ("Pope Benedict XVI will show how much his worldview differs from President Bush's when he denounces the continuing U.S. occupation of Iraq before the U.N. General Assembly") to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to economic development ("[the Vatican] insists on Third World debt relief, but also wants to address the worrisome cultural and spiritual consequences of the West's luxurious decadence") to the United Nations itself ("U.S. ambivalence (or outright hostility) toward the United Nations is not shared by our European and Vatican friends. [B]eyond that, nationalism is on the wane in Europe"), the United States and the Vatican simply exist on two different planes of reality.

To which George Weigel responds: "Michael Sean Winters [wins] the pole position in this year’s chase for the coveted Father Richard McBrien Prize in Really Inept Vaticanology^* (National Review March 31, 2008):

In my own conversations with senior Vatican officials over the past 18 months, I have been struck by the fact that the debates of 2002-2003 are over. That there was serious disagreement between the U.S. government and the Holy See prior to the invasion of Iraq is, and was, obvious. Today, however, the page has been turned, and despite what Winters’s Vatican leakers may be telling him, the people who make the decisions tell me, as they have told the Bush administration, that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster for both Iraq and the entire Middle East.

Pope Benedict will likely urge President Bush to demand that the Iraqi government be more assertive in defending the Christian minority population of Iraq; but that means more and stronger American involvement in the evolving politics of Iraq, not the end of an “occupation.” As for a papal “denunciation” at the U.N., Winters and his friends among Catholic Democrats are likely to be disappointed; Benedict XVI is far too shrewd to give fall campaign sound-bites to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (either of whose victory in November would cause nightmares for the Holy See at the U.N. and other international agencies).

Moreover, the pope is coming to the U.N., not to give a pontifically guided tour of the world scene, praising this and lamenting that. In this 60th anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he is far more likely to challenge the world body to take more seriously the moral truths that undergird the human dignity the U.N. was founded to defend — moral truths that can be known by reason.

On the question of the ongoing U.S. presidential election, Weigel mentions that not even the Vatican is immune to the spell of a certain charismatic senator from Illinois:

As a very senior Vatican official told me recently, the people who actually make the decisions in Rome know that the future is unlikely to provide an American administration as comprehensively sympathetic to core Holy See concerns in international arenas as the Bush administration has been. There is, alas, a kind of Obama swoon going on in at least some parts of the Roman Curia at the moment; but once the Illinois senator’s positions on the life issues and the nature of marriage come into clearer focus along the Tiber, the honeymoon will be adjourned, quickly.

Rather than stir up rivalries (real or imagined), it would be best for all to simply listen to what Benedict has to say during his visit:

Far from Jeremiah against the Great Satan Bush, Benedict XVI is going to teach the world a lesson about moral reason as the “grammar” by which the world can have a conversation about the world’s future. There are truths built into the world and into us, he will remind Americans and the U.N.; thinking together about those truths is one way to change noise into conversation and incomprehension into dialogue.

* Named for the Notre Dame theologian who memorably announced that Joseph Ratzinger couldn’t possibly be elected pope, less than 24 hours before Ratzinger was elected

Catholic League presents "checklist" of media prejudices

Catholic League president Bill Donohue nails it in his assessment of the mainstream press' papal covarage:

“Look for Pope Benedict XVI to be compared unfavorably to his predecessor, John Paul II. All of a sudden, those who had no use for Pope John Paul II will now anoint him a positive force, the purpose of which is to discredit Benedict. Here’s what they will say.

“The theme will be interfaith dialogue. Unlike his predecessor, they will say, this pope has set back relations with Protestants, Jews and Muslims. He will be castigated for restating Catholic teaching on salvation and for challenging theological relativism.

The green light given to the Latin Mass will be seen as another step backwards. And calling attention to the human rights deficit that marks Islam will be the subject of more aspersions. In short, he will be blamed for turning back the clock.

“Silly surveys which lump non-practicing Catholics with practicing Catholics will show that many Catholics would not resist married priests or women priests. What will not be reported is that almost none of them care one way or the other—their allegiance to Catholicism does not turn on such matters.

Some will try to slam the pope for the sex abuse scandal, as if he somehow approved it (he actually used some of the most condemnatory language of anyone when he called molesting priests ‘filth’). What will not be reported is the fact that for the year 2007, .01 percent of the more than 40,000 priests in the U.S. had an allegation made against them for violating someone under the age of 18 (want to compare that with public school teachers anyone?).

Peter Steinfels on "Clichéd Coverage" of Benedict XVI

Pope Is Coming, as Is Clichéd Coverage in the Media, by Peter Steinfels. New York Times March 29, 2008:

This will now be the eighth or ninth papal trip to the United States, depending on whether one counts John Paul II’s several hours of layover in Anchorage in 1981. What is surprising about every papal visit, at least after 1965, when Paul VI addressed the United Nations, is what so many people find surprising. Each time they are surprised, for example, that the pope hasn’t abandoned the notion that all human lives, even in their earliest, embryonic phases, deserve protection and that therefore abortion is wrong.

They are similarly surprised that many American Roman Catholics honor the pope yet disagree with papal positions, whether about using contraception, restricting legal access to abortion, ordaining married men or women to the priesthood, or recognizing same-sex relationships.

This kind of disagreement may signal, as some argue, a severe crisis in church authority. Or it may be more of a norm throughout Catholic history than is widely realized. But whatever it is, it is not new.

The most surefire satirical segments on “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” consist of quick clips of newscasters or politicians beating the same phrase into the ground. It is easy to imagine clips from 1987 until now with one talking head after another intoning about the pope coming to visit “a divided flock ... divided flock ... divided flock.” What rings false is not the fact. It is the breathlessness.

Breathlessness is always a problem with papal visits. The trouble with melodrama is that it displaces genuine drama. Caricature replaces character.

How do you tell a good article on the Pope/Church from a bad one?

Observe the extent to which the author focuses on the grievances of "progressives" against the orthodox ("traditional") Church, with precious little attempt to understand and explain exactly WHY the Church takes the positions that it does.

Today's "pope article" from U.S. News -- Pope Reaches Out to American Catholics, by Jay Tolson. March 28, 2008 -- contains a few choice examples of this bias in action:

". . . Some council supporters even wish that the modernizing spirit had gone further, permitting married clergy or allowing women to enter the priestly ranks. And the nearly two thirds of American Catholics who oppose the ban on condoms tend to view the church's inflexible stand on birth control as a betrayal of the council's spirit. . . . "

[...] "Progressives tend to see the problem in terms of a fundamental lack of realism on the part of the hierarchy, particularly the continued insistence on a celibate clergy. Many also think greater lay participation in church governance would help. One recent poll shows that some 44 percent of American Catholics approve of the idea of parishes choosing their own priests. And some Catholics want to have a say in the selection of bishops. . . ."

[...] "As the U.S. Catholic population has risen from about 46 million in 1965 to about 64 million in 2007, the total number of priests has declined during the same time by some 17,000, leaving 3,238 parishes without resident priests. Again, the progressive remedies, in addition to ordination of women and married men, focus on greater lay involvement in the ministry—solutions for which Benedict appears to have little or no regard. Rowden says that it is clearly symbolic that Benedict's mass communion at Yankee Stadium will involve no lay Eucharistic ministers, a decision that suggests a further disconnect with the church in America. . . ."

Subtext: Hierarchy is SO old and unrealistic, man. Democracy is the American way. Rome should follow the lead of "modern" American Catholics and get with the times. If the Church REALLY wanted to adhere to "Spirit of Vatican II," it would immediately renounce its sexist prohibition against women and its puritan demand for celibacy, and it's draconian strictures against contraception.

The Catholic Church, like its founder, is destined to be a sign of contradiction in this life. Those who think it should bend in conformity to the whims of the modern age will continue to protest, to mock, to ridicule. We can expect the press to emphasize those elements at which the Church is at variance with the status quo.

In preparation for Benedict's arrival, the discerning reader (or reporter) might want to understand WHY the Church teaches what it does. Consider the followng for starters:

Why celibacy in the priesthood?

• Cardinal O'Connor: Celibacy Isn't the Problem:

  It's remarkable how determined some media and other people are that we priests should be married. How they sympathize with us over the supposed cruelties of celibacy being imposed upon us by a Pope who purportedly has no understanding whatsoever of the compassion of Jesus. ...

• The Logic of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, S.T.D. (Homiletic and Pastoral Review, April 1995).

Why no female priests?

• Why Can’t Women Be Priests?, by Jason Evert. This Rock Volume 13, No. 1 (January 2002)
• Why women can't be priests (Domestic-Church.com):

  "No way will I ever tell my daughter she can't ever be a priest, a deacon, a altar server or whatever... This is the one thing that really bugs me about being Catholic."

  How do we answer this kind of comment? -- [C]alm reasoned words, logical historical based argument and patience will win out in the end.

Understanding Catholic sexuality

• Contraception: Why Not?, by Janet Smith. A talk given at a Catholic Physicians Guild meeting at the Pontifical College Josephinum, Columbus, Ohio in May, 1994
• Celibacy for the Kingdom & the Fulfillment of Human Sexuality, by Christopher West: "we simply can't understand the Christian meaning of sex and marriage unless we understand the Christian meaning of celibacy."
• God, Sex, & Babies: What the Church Really Teaches about Responsible Parenthood, by Christopher West: "In my experience sharing Catholic teaching on marital love and sexuality around the world, one thing is certain: confusion reigns regarding Church teaching on responsible parenthood."

• Of Human Life: A pastoral letter on the truth and meaning of married love Right Reverend Charles J. Chaput. July 1998.

How the media can help understand Pope Benedict XVI

From Good advice, courtesy of reporter Sheila Liaugminas:

Recently, I was on a teleconference with the bishops tasked with informing the media of the particulars of the pope’s visit to America in April, and Bishop Donald Wuerl started it off well with a commentary on “the thought of Benedict XVI”, to help journalists get to know him better. During the Q&A afterward, one reporter said Pope Benedict is arriving in an election year between a pro-life candidate and two “pro-choice” candidates, “and he’s arriving in the world capital of soundbites”. So, she asked the bishops, “what can be done that he won’t be taken out of context?”

“A soundbite answer,” said Wuerl, goodnaturedly, to much laughter.

It’s the media’s responsibility to practice sound and truthful journalism, to do their homework and when that requires some extra reading and study and background research, then do that and be prepared to not put Pope Benedict into soundbites. Like they did with his Regensburg address.

Amen to that.

Confounded Media grapples with the "mystery" of Pope Benedict XVI

Benedict still a mystery after 3 years as pope, says Gary Stern (USA Today March 23, 2008)

As Pope Benedict XVI's first visit to the United States nears, the most common perception of him could be boiled down to this:

He was pretty conservative before he became pope, wasn't he? He was old when he got the job. Since then, he's been kind of quiet. Doesn't seem real outgoing. He made a speech that angered Muslims. He brought back the Latin Mass, or something. And doesn't he wear Prada shoes?

On this Easter, as Benedict nears the end of his third year as pope, it's safe to say that he remains something of a white-robed enigma to most Americans — including Catholics.

"I don't think most people have figured him out, that's for sure," said the Rev. Thomas Berg, executive director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, a Catholic think tank in Thornwood, N.Y. "People may be scared away, since he is kind of an intellectual. A lot of people may not know how to get their hands around him."

As expected, we get the typical comparison of the "shy, bookish, academic" pope to his media-savvy predecessor:

Benedict is destined to be compared to the actor/poet/philosopher who preceded him as bishop of Rome. Pope John Paul II seemed to be conducting an orchestra wherever he went, with people of all faiths and no faith following his every move.

Benedict is more bookish. He tends to write and speak for those who follow Catholic life closely. And he's kind of shy.

"He's not the charismatic rock star pope that John Paul II was," said David Gibson, author of The Rule of Benedict. "Part of it is age — he was 78 when elected. But he also wants to lower the profile of the person of the pope. He doesn't want the pope to be the object of people's faith or veneration. He wants that to be Jesus. John Paul tried to draw people to the faith through his own faith, his own personality. Benedict wants to get out of the way, to present the faith and step aside."

as well as the pitting of his old persona as "Vatican enforcer" against the "kinder, friendlier" Pope:

As overseer of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger was Catholicism's warden on doctrine — nicknamed the German Shepherd, God's Rottweiler, a potential panzer pope (for a German tank), and on and on.

But that image has largely dissipated, giving way to something far less stark and, for many, less clear.

"All of that was something of a caricature to start with," said the Rev. Joseph Komonchak, a senior theologian at Catholic University in Washington, D.C. "But he has been far more collegial and accommodating than condemnatory. Temperamentally, he is a quiet person, shy, an intellectual. His main emphasis has been to draw Catholics back to what is central, what we have to offer the world, what we believe about Jesus Christ."

In the end, Benedict is made to fit the preconceived framework of "liberal" vs. "conservative":

If you want to see him as conservative, there's his Regensburg speech, his loosening of restrictions on the Latin Mass, a Vatican document restating the Catholic position that Protestant churches are not full churches, his approval of a policy that men with gay "tendencies" should not be priests, and his statement in Brazil last year that missionaries did not impose their beliefs on native cultures.

If you want to see him as surprisingly moderate, you can look to his many statements about protecting the environment, his meeting with dissident theologian and longtime nemesis Hans Kung, his desire to meet with Muslim leaders, and his overall desire to be a teaching pastor to all Catholics who want to listen.

Ignatius Press' Carl Olson responds (Benedict XVI, International Man of Mystery! Insight Scoop March 23, 2008):

There seems to be the notion, on the part of some folks, that a somewhat shy academic cannot also be a vigorous defender of the Faith as well as a personable and eloquent pastor of souls. Why are these so incompatible? Likewise, why is loosening the restrictions on the Latin Mass considered to a "conservative" act when it is actually a liberating/liberal act (in the best sense of those oft-abused words)? And isn't the desire to be a proper steward of creation who properly conserves natural resources and acts responsibly re: the material world a conservative action? Not, of course, if you use the typical American Political Lexicon for such things. And therein, I think, lies much of the problem: trying to force what is Catholic and oriented toward the permanent things into the cramped, narrow confines of sectarian ideology.

The "transition of Benedict from Vatican enforcer to 'Kinder, Gentler' Pope" meme does have some credibility, but like Olson I fear this approach adopted by the media is often employed to conceal their basic inability to grasp the fundamental points of Benedict's pontificate.

That said, I think that Gary Stern is certainly to be commended for putting together Westchester Journal-News' excellent website on the papal visit -- which is by leaps and bounds better than any other newspaper thus far.

• National Catholic Reporter's John Allen Jr., a long-time commentator on Pope Benedict and Vatican affairs, provides A "one-stop-shopping" guide to Pope Benedict's U.S. visit, which gives some background and context to the papal trip. He provides links to Benedict XVI's itinerary and to other resources. Mr. Allen will be accompanying Benedict XVI on the papal plane and throughout the trip, and will be filing regular news postings under his "Daily Updates" section of johnallen.ncrcafe.org.

• Scholar, pastor, enigma: German pope defies easy caricature - According to John Thavis, Catholic News Service (February 18, 2008):

  For many non-Christians, Pope Benedict is an enigma, a man who has visited a mosque and prayed toward Mecca with his Muslim host, yet who repeatedly speaks about the need to proclaim Christ as the unique savior for all people.

  He is hailed as a liturgical hero by traditionalist Catholics for having widened possible use of the Tridentine Mass and introduced touches of antiquity in his own liturgies.

  At a more basic level, the millions of Americans who do not follow church news very closely may know Pope Benedict simply as a soft-spoken bookworm who like cats and plays classical piano.

  The "real Benedict" no doubt has some elements of all these partial portraits, but in a combination that defies easy caricature. This is a pope who brings depth of thought to every word or action, in ways that are not entirely predictable.

  To his credit, Thavis brings in U.S. scholar and papal biographer George Weigel (author of God's Choice: Pope Benedict XVI and the Future of the Catholic Church ), and Jesuit Father Christian W. Troll, a German professor of Islamic studies and a long-time friend of the Holy Father to help clear the air of intrigue. He closes the article with a decent biography and overview of Benedict's pontificate and highlights his many accomplishments. Worth reading.

Update:

• Man of Mystery! - Amy Welborn responds as well:

  The point is, claiming that “Benedict is still a mystery” doesn’t seem to me to be an assertion that belongs in a news article. It’s in the same category (or even worse) as claiming that “many believe” something without any evidence that, in fact, “many believe” that thing at all. (Just as the phrase “critics say” can function as a way of framing a story around a writer’s own opnion or agenda). I mean, how is “Benedict is still a mystery” a news story? Are there big questions being raised on Catholic blogs or in Catholic parishes or chanceries in which people are sitting around scratching their heads wondering, “Who is Benedict? I just don’t get him?” Are they publishing articles and holding meetings to address the mystery?

  To begin a news article with the assertion that “Benedict is still a mystery” is not, in fact, news reporting. It’s the creation of a thesis and then finding voices to support the thesis. It would be fantastic if, over the next month, journalists could get back to basics, stop trying to create stories and simply report: This is who Benedict is. This is what he writes about. This is what he talks about. These are the ideas that have formed his intellectual life and spirituality.

  Mystery solved.

Times' Richard Owen on the Vatican's "Papal Makeover"

Vatican PR ensures rebranded Pope Benedict XVI will triumph in US -- at least that's the story according to Richard Owen for the Sunday Times. Owen's account paints the various personnel-changes and decisions of the Roman curia as simply a big exercise in public relations (as if that constitutes their sole motivation):

The papal makeover owes much to his team of aides. His backroom staff includes Giovanni Maria Vian, the first new editor of L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, for 23 years. Vian was brought in last October to make the paper livelier, up to date, more “global” — and available online. He has opened it up to Protestant and Jewish writers, and has hired its first Muslim journalist.

Vian is part of a new team of progressive papal aides that also includes Mgr Gianfranco Ravasi, the new head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The key hidden hand, however, is that of Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, since last June head of the Vatican's Department of Social Communications, which oversees its television and media operations.

Mgr Celli, whose amiable face hides one of the sharpest minds in the Vatican, seized at once on the dangers of the Church being seen as “fundamentalist”. He has at his side an equally sharp-minded Irish priest, Mgr Paul Tighe, brought in as No 2 from Dublin, where he handled PR for the archdiocese.

Their aim, Mgr Tighe says, is to “harness the potential of the media as a means of evangelisation”. Archbishop Celli says that many people in the world have a “deep nostalgia for God” that the Church can meet by being more open and embracing the internet and satellite television.

Mind you, this is the same newspaper (and reporter) that brought us the ridiculous claim that the Pope would "rehabilitate Martin Luther" at the next Ratzinger Schülerkreis at Castelgandolfo -- a claim dismissed as "groundless" by the Vatican shortly thereafter.

Sadly, shoddy journalism is increasingly to be expected when the subject matter is the Vatican, and the commentator is the the Times.

Take with a big grain of salt.

Tim Drake: The "WOCHA" Mantra Has Officially Begun!

"The "WOCHA" Mantra Has Officially Begun," says Pope2008's Tim Drake:

I was wondering how long it would take before the "WOCHA" (Women's Ordination, Contraception, Homosexuality, Abortion) mantra would begin. Five weeks out from the Pope's visit, it looks like Cleveland.com is the first to begin the mantra with this story juxtaposing American disagreements over contraception with the Church's teachings. I coined this term during World Youth Day in Cologne after witnessing reporter after reporter ask young Catholics the same question..."Do you agree with the Church's teaching on...(Insert social topic here)?"

The story does much to show the disagreements, but little to clear them up by actually reporting what it is that the Church teaches, and more importantly, why. It's so completely predictable. Yesterday, I spoke with Tim Graham, director of media analysis with the Media Research Center . . .