I'm agreeing (gulp!) with The New York Times (gasp!) about Benedict's visit

Or, more precisely, with what the Gray Lady says about the unhelpful way the Pope's visit will be covered by some in the media. Peter Steinfels, in a piece titled, "Pope Is Coming, as Is Clichéd Coverage in the Media" (Mar 29th), makes some excellent observations:

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.

Quite right. And:

Of course, part of the problem in getting a fix on Benedict is simply the feebleness of accepted categories for understanding any serious religious leaders — and hence the impulse to deal with them as celebrities or politicians. Of all the words he speaks during his trip here, the ones that will probably go least examined are no doubt the ones he treasures most, the words of the Mass.

Or, as I wrote a couple of days ago: "Let's put it bluntly: for large swaths of the population, if you aren't an actor, musician, athlete, entertainer, or celebrity, you really aren't that important or memorable." I dare say, that pertains to large swaths of the media. Perhaps we get the media we deserve. Or we simply accept what the media has to serve. Whatever the case, there are, I fear, going to be far too many stories that will "report" about the media's reaction to media-created stereotypes soaked up by people who trust the media for 99.9% of their information. Such stories will miss the importance of what the Pope says and does—and why he will say it and do it:

But the pope is not just another spiritual guide or priest. He has enormous institutional powers and responsibilities. To what extent does Benedict conceive of his papacy as a work of prayer and teaching? To what extent does he conceive of it as a renewal of structures and institutions? How does he see those aspects interacting?

His trip to the United States will presumably provide some clues. But they will be missed if it is greeted and framed with all the ready-made reflexes.

Well said. Mollie Hemingway of GetReligion.org comments on the same piece.

There are, as you might know, several Catholic blogs that will covering the Pope's visit in great detail, as well as the media coverage of the visit. Here are some that I'll be following:

• "Benedict in America", moderated by Christopher Blosser
• "Pope2008", moderated by Tim Drake of National Catholic Register
• "The American Papist," operated by Thomas Peters
• "USCCB's Papal Visit Blog"

And, of course, this blog will offer witty banter, deep insights, revelatory observations, and otherwise indispensable fodder for thought about the Holy Father's visit. But you probably suspected as much already.

Comments

[Jeff Miller]

Probably one of the better Steinfels column's, but I found it ironic in an article about cliches that he uses "papal positions" which is as cliche as they come in trying to make dogmatic statements a mere papal talking points.