Did you hear the story about the Pope, the reporter, and the blogger?

Journalist Gary Stern, who covers religion for The Journal News (New York state), wrote me the following e-mail in response to my recent post, "Benedict XVI, International Man of Mystery!", in which I criticized his Easter Sunday piece, "Benedict still a mystery after 3 years as pope":

Dear Mr. Olson,

Gary Stern here, the fellow who wrote the pope article that you blogged about on Sunday. I appreciate thoughtful criticism of the media and don't want to appear thin-skinned (who isn't, really?), but wanted to quickly respond to a couple of things.

I've been covering religion in New York for 11 years and have spent a lot of time in Catholic parishes. Wherever I go, I try to get a sense of what's on people's minds. What do they care about? Over the past six months or so, it's become pretty clear to me that most church-going Catholics know little about Pope Benedict or what he's done. Most people do not read the Catholic press, let alone encyclicals or transcripts of papal talks.

These are the people I had in mind when writing the article that you critiqued. I was trying to write a very basic introduction to B16's first three years for people who have not been paying attention. When I interviewed experts/scholar-types, the first thing I asked them was to try to talk about the pope in the most simple terms, thinking of people who are now curious about the pope but have little background.

Are liberal/conservative labels wholly inadequate when describing Catholic beliefs and actions? Of course. But people "think through" these labels, as you well know, and my goal was to meet people where they are. The "typical American political lexicon," as you described it, is just that. Is it simplistic to describe the Moto Proprio as "conservative?" Of course. But, in my experience, most people relate to the loosening of restrictions on the Latin Mass (the little they know) as a conservative action.

Your blog implied that I was reverting to the typical journalistic categories and explanations because I don't know any better. I do know better. But I'm not writing for people who read books on Ignatius Press. I'm writing for Catholics who never heard of Ignatius Press -- and for lapsed Catholics and non-Catholics and non-religious folks who are still interested in what the pope might say and do.

The papal visit is, of course, a major story, but it very difficult to write about for the mainstream press. The visit will mean very different things to different people.

And now on to my next project: an introduction to the pope's concerns about religious and moral relativism -- for people who don't know about the pope's concerns and may not know what "relativism" means.

All the best, Gary

On his blog, Stern responded to some other criticisms of his piece. I don't agree with those who think that Stern's piece was "derogatory"; I don't see that at all. My remarks were made because it frustrates me that people think Benedict is "mysterious" or is an "enigma" (see this piece for Catholic News Service) when his beliefs, thoughts, and perspective are readily apparent if people bother to (gasp) take the time to listen and read. As I wrote in my reply to Stern:

As someone who has been reading Ratzinger's works for many years, even before leaving Evangelical Protestantism for the Catholic Church in 1997, I am sometimes a bit frustrated with the various stereotypes and misnomers about Ratzinger/Benedict that appear in some media accounts, which in turn, I confess, can skew my reaction to a piece such as yours (which, to be clear, doesn't draw upon those unfair stereotypes). And then there is the related frustration of meeting far too many Catholics, as I have, who say they know nothing about Benedict XVI, but refuse (for whatever reason) to read anything by him. This, of course, does not excuse an unfair reading of your piece, but is offered as a bit of background; it is something that comes up on the Insight Scoop blog from time to time.

Anyhow, I appreciate Stern's gracious willingness to engage my criticism. I think he makes some good points and I understand a bit better now what he was trying to do in that piece, as well as some of the challenges a religion reporter faces in writing for an audience that doesn't follow closely the actions and words of the Pope.

Comments

[Christopher]

My response to Gary Stern, for what it's worth Benedict in America March 27, 2008.

[benedictus]

I understand where Mr. Stern is coming from, and I think his response is reasonable. The only problem I have with his article is that "mystery" implies that people have probed the subject, and cannot figure it out. But the actual issue here (as Mr. Stern himself said above) is that the average Catholic simply doesn't trouble himself with the Pope. They just don't care what he says or does, at least not enough to learn about him for themselves.

[Clavem Abyssi]

An interesting exchange. Thank you for posting.

I still think your concern is valid, even though the journalist's response makes sense and is gracious. Characterizing the Pope as mysterious or enigmatic is like saying a book is difficult to understand before you open the cover and start reading. It's like saying "The course is very difficult because I haven't attended the lectures or bought the textbook." It gives the impression that Benedict is a recluse who never really says what's on his mind or voices his opinion. It makes him seem like a crafty, behind-the-scenes operator. But the plain truth is that he preaches almost every day and has published a steady stream of documents, books and essays before and after his election to the papacy.

Based on anecdotes, I would say that the public perception of Benedict is:
-said something bad about Muslims
-said something about Protestants not being real Christians
-said something bad about Jews
-had some trouble with some university
-did something about the Latin Mass

And the last one would be quite rare.

[Augustine]

Do journalistic ethics require a constant pandering to the lowest common denominator?

[Robert Miller]

What troubles me is that so few of the (for want of a better term) "committed" Catholics (actively pro-life; drawn to dignified celebration of the liturgy; theologically and devotionally orthodox) I run into seem to know (or even care to know) the mind of B16. Most of these folks seem to be satisfied that he's a good bookish disciplinarian successor to JPII. The more militantly "traditionalist" among them continue to regard him with suspicion because of his role at Vatican II. What they are all missing is that, in all of his actions and words as Pope, he is "redeeming" the received heritage of Vatican II by locating its direction within Tradition. He's almost too good to be true, and the people who should most welcome his message seem largely indifferent. Reminds you a little of the experience of Someone else, doesn't it?

[Augustine]

Robert, I know! Reading Benedict is some of the most enjoyable reading I do, and I plan on continuing to do it for the rest of my life.

[Robert Miller]

Augustine:

I never get enough. I'm doing Theology of History in St. Bonaventure over again for the third time!