Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

Cardinal Foley on the Church and the MSM

Tim Townsend of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch interviews Cardinal John Foley, who for 23 years (1984-2007) was President of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications:

Q: What are the differences between John Paul and Benedict in terms of how they worked with media?

Foley: John Paul was a more dramatic figure, and given to dramatic gestures, which the present Holy Father is not. But the present Holy Father is very open to the media. He's very kind, gentle, and he has given interviews before he has gone to specific countries. He did for the Polish media before he went to Poland. He did for the German media before he went to Cologne for World Youth Day. So, it would be nice if he'd do that for the American media, too, but I don't know. He doesn't feel as secure in English. He speaks English very well, but I guess he just lacks confidence. He's a professor, so he like to get things right. …

And, summarizing why the MSM so often does a poor to horrible job of reporting on religion:

Q: When you received an alumni award from Columbia in 1985, what made you suggest a course in religion journalism, which the school now offers?

Foley: Unfortunately, many assignment editors confuse ignorance with objectivity, and they assign someone to cover religion who knows absolutely nothing about it, thinking that in that way they're being unbiased. I said, "If you did that in sports, imagine the riots in the street."

That's probably because for many people, sports are religion, while religion is just a private matter worth making sport of, but little else.

Molly Hemingway of Get Religion comments.

Why SLU will likely back the Coach, not the Archbishop

George Neumayr, editor of Catholic World Report, writes this in a special report (Jan. 28, 2008) for American Spectator:

In 2003, Jesuit St. Louis University (SLU) received an $8 million tax abatement to start building a sports arena. This annoyed the Masonic Temple Association, whose property abuts SLU. Arguing that a religious school should not receive government monies, the Association filed a federal lawsuit to block the abatement.

The case was ultimately dismissed, but not before exposing the utter shamelessness of Jesuit officials at the schools. To fend off the suit, they told a Missouri appellate court that SLU is "independent of the Catholic Church." Rich in depressing ironies, the case in essence pitted Masons arguing, if only opportunistically, that the school is (and should be) Catholic against Jesuits who argued that it is not.

The Masonic Temple noted that the school's bylaws state that it will be "publicly identified as a Catholic university and a Jesuit university." So what? responded officials at SLU, who provided evidence that the school hasn't taken Catholicism seriously for years.

"Whatever its status in the past, Saint Louis University is not now controlled by any creed," read SLU's brief. SLU cited as an example of its "autonomy" from the Church that it pays no attention to the local bishop, such as the time it ignored former St. Louis Cardinal Justin Rigali's objections to its 1998 sale of the school's hospital.

TO PARAPHRASE Robert Bolt's Thomas More, it profits the Jesuits nothing to give their soul for the whole world, much less Chaifetz Arena and Rick Majerus. This latest controversy at SLU is the inevitable collision of a habitually bombastic coach, his secularized Jesuit patrons, and a principled archbishop tired of the school's fraud.

Read the entire piece. And read some articles and editorials from recent issues of Catholic World Report.

Does the Catholic Church have the right...

... to address the public actions and words of Catholics who support actions and beliefs contrary to Catholic teaching? Not according to this brilliant sports writer, who apparently doesn't understand the difference between the right to free speech and the obligation that every Catholic has to adhere faithfully to Catholic doctrine and practice. Put another way, there is a big difference between saying a person has a right to say publicly what he wishes to say and demanding that he can say it without any concern of being held responsible for it.

And this has to be about most cognitively-challenged bit of thinking I've seen on this whole Majerus issue:

College campuses are supposed to be havens for opinion, places that welcome the exchange of ideas. As a member of the supposedly enlightened higher education community, Majerus has the right to share his beliefs with those who agree and, more important, with those who don't.

The problem lies in the demand to represent the school in a certain way at all times. It's dehumanizing. It's un-American.

Does the writer really mean to suggest—nay, insist—that universities, regardless of their affiliation, "dehumanize" their employees by expecting a "certain" level of conduct? Does this mean that if a coach publicly stated his support for racism, or dog fighting, or using crack cocaine, it would be "inhumane" and "unAmerican" for the school to reprimand him? Once again, it's clear that 1) the issue is not freedom of speech (that's simply the ball fake), but the belief that those who support abortion should never be questioned or criticized (that's the set play), and 2) sports writers, in general, are sports writers for a reason.

Majerus the Pro-Choice Martyr

Yes, I know I'm beating a life-challenged horse, but, really, this is becoming ridiculous. Now Pat Forde, an ESPN columnist, is telling folks just how much Rick Marjerus deserves their support and admiration. Why? Because—wait for it, brace for it, get ready for it—he is a basketball coach who has opinions about important things. Wow. Bam. Home run! Touchdown! Can I sit down and have a cold one while I process this mind-altering information?

If Rick Majerus were like 95 percent of the men in his profession, he wouldn't have been anywhere near that Hillary Clinton rally last weekend.

Rick Majerus came to St. Louis in April after previous stops at Marquette, Ball State and Utah.

He would have been watching tape and pretending the real world didn't exist. He would have his political leanings stuffed so deep inside that nobody would know he cared about anything other than defending the pick-and-roll. And if a guy with a camera approached and asked him questions about abortion and stem-cell research, he would have dislocated his spine avoiding a direct answer.

But that's not Rick Majerus. He is that rarest of breeds: a coach with strong political beliefs and the guts to voice them.

Forde, whose writing I often enjoy, is too easily impressed. Why, just today I spoke to a hardworking homemaker, a budding fashion designer, and an aspiring young athlete who all expressed strong opinions about a wide variety of issues—and that was without ever leaving my own home (the three people are, respectively, my wife, my daughter, and my son). Big deal. Honestly, there are times when I listen to coaches talk about sports and I'm not impressed by their grasp of the sport they coach. And don't even get me started on how most sports pundits come across when they try to get deep and be socially conscious. Oops, too late!

Forde is quite taken with Marjerus the Lefty Martyr who bucks the system (the Church, to be specific), speaks his mind (using the sort of meaningless liberal clichés any college student has memorized by the second semester of their freshman year), and embraces controversial issues (again, wow. I'm so impres—yaaaawn.):

Difference of opinion -- and the thoughtful discussion of those opinions -- is supposed to be part and parcel of a university community. Even at a university with a religious affiliation. A campus with only one school of thought and one slice of the American demographic sounds like a pretty dull place.

And any campus that has Majerus on it never will be dull. Agree or disagree with his politics, but respect the fact that the big man's life is bigger than 84 feet by 50 feet.

He's an excellent basketball coach who took Utah on an improbable run to the 1998 national title game, but he's far more than that. He is intriguingly complex -- you probably can find as many Majerus critics as Majerus fans -- and never shallow. He wears his surgically repaired heart on his sleeve and puts his neck on the line for what he believes.

Ah, "intriguingly complex." Well, I'd take Forde's word for it, except that Marjerus hasn't said anything any different than a number of non-intriguing, non-complex, "Catholic" politicians have been saying for years:

"I believe in ending the war. I believe in gun control. I believe in stem-cell [research]. I believe in pro-choice. I respect that women need to make the decisions that are right for them, and I think it's wrong for people to speculate what they would do in a gut-wrenching, agonizing situation."

Is it just me, or it is strange that people who have simplistic views about war and guns (always bad, all the time, in every situation!) are always eager to talk about how complex and difficult abortion is and how it must always be the "woman's decision" (I've addressed that in a previous post, btw). Actually, there is a simple, connecting principle that should provide a basic guideline for all three issues: The taking of innocent life is always wrong. Always. "The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2273).

Finally, in case anyone missed it, Forde reminds readers once again of just how darned impressive it is that Marjerus has expressed his opinion about abortion and related matters:

We know Tiger Woods believes in Nike and Michael Jordan believes in Hanes and Peyton Manning believes in Gatorade, but we sure don't know how they vote or how they feel about societal issues. Same with the vast majority of the coaches who have become the stars of college basketball, pockets lined with shoe money and other endorsements. With Majerus, we know.

Yes, Tiger, how do you feel about This, That, and the Other Thing? Puke. Putting it bluntly, this is merely a blatant example of the Cult of Celebrity Coach Worship working overtime and out-of-bounds. After all, why is it that a basketball coach's feelings about serious moral issues should be given more weight than the beliefs of a Catholic bishop, theologian, and canon lawyer? (I'm guessing it has something to do with Forde being a sports writer, but perhaps I'm missing some intriguingly complex angle here.) 

What Forde never discusses is the real issue: a Catholic coach at a Catholic school—who is, in many important ways, a Catholic educator—is actively and publicly (key word) espousing moral beliefs that are clearly contrary to Catholic teaching. Could it be that it is simply too complex of a topic for a sports writer to handle? Or is it that Forde believes that coaches trump the Church when it comes to addressing moral and ethical issues? Whatever the case, simply having an opinion is not grounds for being their personal cheerleader. At least that's my opinion...

The Sacramentals of Sport

Terry Mattingly had a post over at GetReligion a few days ago titled, "Michael Vick, Sinner," about how sports writers lapse into decidedly religious language when talking about certain stories, such as NFL stars charged with dog fighting and killing dogs. Today he has another post about Vick, this time examining the media coverage of Vick's public statement, after having plead guilty to several counts, which contained numerous references to God, Jesus, and so forth. Now Christianity Today has a poll asking readers what their response is to Vick's statements (so far, those who are "skeptical" are winning, hands down. No word on the odds from Vegas.)

But the big scoop seems to belong to ESPN.com, who has discovered that the NFL has a Sacred Book that is filled with Cosmic Secrets about scoring touchdowns and blocking the right defender: the Playbook.

In the NFL, the playbook is a sacred hardbound diary of trust. It's an accumulation of decades' worth of knowledge, tweaked and perfected, sectioned off by scribbles and colored tabs. It's the first thing the fresh meat get when preseason workouts start in the spring and the last thing that is pried from a player's sweaty mitts when The Turk arrives and utters those dreaded 11 words.

Coach wants to see you in his office. Bring your playbook.

No two playbooks are alike. Some are as massive as 800 pages; others are thinner than the Mankato, Minn., phone book. No layman or superfan could get through the first section without being completely confused. But therein lies the trick, to sort through the clutter, learn fast and play faster.

Chad Greenway, who plays for the Vikings, expressed his reverence for the Authorized Playbook: "So you always have it with you. That's the one thing that's sacred to football. It has all our secrets."

It is sometimes said, in jest (or half-jest), that football is religion for some people. Undoubtedly. After all, it has:

• Days of Obligatory Worship: Usually Sundays, but also Mondays (Monday Night Football) and Thursdays.
• A Great Feast Day: Super Bowl Sunday
• Clergy/Celebrants: The players
• Laity: The fans
• Cathedrals: Stadiums
• Parishes: Sports bars
• A Sacred Book: The playbook.
• Saints: Past superstars and great coaches
• Vestments: Approved by the NFL. Very spendy
• Tithes: $200-$1000 a ticket
• Missals: Programs, quite expensive
• Cantors: cheerleaders
• Sacred Music: Usually classic rock, rap, or unmentionable, or all three (Kid Rock, anyone?).
• Lectors: The announcers
• Curia: The coaches
• Magisterium: The owners
• Pope: The commissioner
• Fellowship: tailgate parties, BBQs, etc.
• A liturgy: Divided into the liturgy of the first half and the liturgy of the second half. The liturgy is based around "plays" and each play is announced among the celebrants using a foreign language usually unintelligible to the ordinary lay man.
• A liturgical calendar: The Season and Ordinary Time, and The Draft.
• Liturgical police: Refs. Zebras. The guys who cost your team the game.
• An eschatology: "If we lose this game, my life is over."
• A soteriology: "If we win this game, I'll be in seventh heaven!"
• Confession: From celebrants: "I missed the tackle" or "I should have caught that pass". From laity: "I missed the first two minutes of the second half; I can't believe it!"
• Penance: benching, or, in the case of extreme sins/mistakes, fines or suspension
• Excommunication: Being cut or waived
• Dissenters: Those who refuse to watch the NFL (atheists/skeptics), or prefer college football (Protestants) or Arena Football (Mormons, JWs)

Why do I bring this up? Well, if you have to ask, you must not know what time of the year it is...

"Presto! She just appeared outta nowhere!"

It seems that the Associated Press may have missed the sports story—or even the story—of the year:

At only 31, Tiger Woods is uncovering personal dimensions that have little to do with his championship golf game.

The latest came earlier this week when Woods said he would design a course in the North Carolina mountains -- his company's first U.S. project.

"The reason I waited so late is I wanted to make sure the timing is right," Woods said Tuesday when the announcement was made about the new course. "And the timing is right. There's a wonderful balance in my life."

A big reason is 2-month-old Sam Alexis, the first child for Woods and wife Elin.

"It's hard to believe," said Woods, his eyes lighting up when discussing his daughter. "When we first had her that night, Elin and I just looked at each other and said, 'How do you love something so much that didn't exist an hour ago?"' [emphasis added]

That's a good question, but I can think of another one that is equally important: If the baby didn't exist until she was born, what exactly was in Elin Wood's womb the last nine months? 

The Curtain Closes on PNAC

The Curtain Closes on PNAC with Loss to Redemptoris Mater | Joseph Previtali | May 26, 2007

The Pontifical North American College was defeated by Redemptoris Mater, 1-0, in the first round of the playoff section of the 2007 Clericus Cup on Saturday, May 12. With the loss, the NAC's 2007 Clericus Cup run comes to an end.

Read the entire story...

Further proof that men and women are different

First, a bold confession: I like watching professional (NBA) basketball. I even prefer it over college basketball, (although I think the two are apples and oranges, but that's another post: the ontological quiddity of pro vs. college b-ball ). What does that have to do with this blog, being Catholic, and Ignatius Press? Very little, of course. But as the NBA playoffs have transpired over the past couple of weeks, I've noticed that a certain aspect of such sporting events offers proof of this equally bold statement: men and women are different.

Yes, I know, this is outrageous, wild stuff, but press on, brave reader! Here it is: as it has become commonplace for many sports broadcasts to have a female reporter on the sidelines, the questions asked of athletes by those reporters have changed. For example, a male reporter might question an NBA player as follows:

"Coach Miller said before the game that he planned on using a match-up zone, especially when they had both Jones and Crouch on the floor. Do you think that was a key to the game, especially during the third quarter when you held them scoreless for five minutes?"

Or: "I noticed that you were attacking the baseline more this game, and that when you encountered the double-team, you were kicking out to Boris for three-pointers. Was that a strategic move on your part, or did it just work out that way in the course of the game?"

Or: "Why hasn't the screen-and-roll been working for you tonight?"

In the case of a female reporter, the questions are more likely (not always, but more often than not) to be along these lines:

"Coach Miller said before the game that he wanted to see more energy and intensity, especially when both Jones and Crouch were in the game. Talk about how you were able to generate that energy and what it means to you to beat the Spurs after losing to them last year."

Or: "I noticed that you seemed very focused tonight, and your mother told us from the stands that you were definitely on a mission. Describe how it feels to set up the winning three-pointer and what it means to the fans here at the Pabst Palace."

Or: "Can you describe what you're feeling right now?"

I'm not implying, of course, that this trumps the Theology of the Body, or outshines biblical teaching, or tops Tradition. But I think it does lend support to the belief that men and women are different. Give it some thought. Give it a sporting chance.

Next week: How basketball and jazz offer compelling analogies to the diversity within unity—as well as the proper relationship between authority and freedom—found in the Catholic Church and her teachings.

PNAC Upset by O.M.I. in Clericus Cup

PNAC Upset by O.M.I. in Clericus Cup | Joseph Previtali | April 19, 2007              

Hampered by Easter-break rust, the absence of three starters, and the loss of one key defender to injury, the Pontifical North American College soccer team was upset by the previously winless O.M.I. (Oblates of Mary Immaculate) Team by the score of 3-2 on Saturday, April 14th, in Clericus Cup action.

The O.M.I. side got on the scoreboard early in the first half when, five minutes into the game, they converted on a free kick.   

Read the entire article...

Wilberforce and Baseball

The name of English abolitionist William Wilberforce  (much better known now due to the recent movie, "Amazing Grace") isn't likely to be associated with America's national pasttime. But, as Justice George E. Nicholson III explains in a piece for The Independent Institute, there are important, if not direct, connections:

Branch Rickey was a baseball man, through and through. During more than a half century in the game, he brought remarkable players and World Series championships to three great cities, St. Louis, Brooklyn, and Pittsburgh, and countless innovations to the game of baseball, many of which still abound.

Rickey’s story, however, is not just a baseball story. It is a story of vision, courage, and service, a story not unlike that of the great abolitionist William Wilberforce as will become evident on March 30th, when an historic panel will be held at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis. The distinguished panel, moderated by Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree, will focus its attention on baseball and freedom. Rickey’s grandson, also Branch Rickey, is president of the nation’s top minor league, the Pacific Coast League. He will be on the panel too.

On the following day, Major League Baseball will host in Memphis the first Civil Rights Game between the World Champion St. Louis Cardinals and the Cleveland Indians. As Baseball Commissioner Allan Selig notes, “This game is designed to commemorate the Civil Rights Movement, one of the most critical and important eras of our social history. I am proud of the role that Major League Baseball played in the Movement, beginning with Jackie Robinson's entry into the big leagues.” The game will be televised on ESPN, beginning at 4:30 CST.

The panel will be heard and the game will be played in observance of the 60th anniversary Robinson’s first game with the Brooklyn Dodgers. Selig says, “[Rickey] was not only the greatest sports and baseball executive of the 20th century, but his bringing Jackie Robinson to the big leagues will forever stand as baseball’s proudest moment.”

Read the entire piece.