One of the worst habits many Catholics had at the start of the clergy sex abuse crisis, including many bishops, was to minimize a very grave problem. But news media show many of the same patterns of denial, vanity, obstinacy and institutional defensiveness in dealing with criticism of their own failures.
Some of the best proof of the problems I’m talking about is published every day by the journalists at getreligion.org. We now commonly see religion coverage that’s illiterate about the subject matter, or narrows the scope of facts or sources to fit an unfriendly narrative—especially when it comes to the Christian faith and its traditional content. Coverage of Islam tends to be equally ill-informed and confused on matters of history; but also more respectful and even sympathetic, as in the recent New York mosque controversy.
In contrast, the Christian story now told in mainstream media often seems to be a narrative of decline or fundamentalism, or houses divided against themselves along predictable lines of sex and authority. It’s a narrative of institutions and individuals that—insofar as they stay true to their historic beliefs—act as a backward social force and a menace to the liberty of their fellow citizens.
Freedom of the press clearly includes the right to question the actions and motives of religious figures and institutions. Our constitutional safeguards for the press developed partly in response to efforts by Puritans like Cotton Mather to have editors and publishers tossed into jail for satirizing local pastors and mocking Christian beliefs in their pages.
But freedom doesn’t excuse prejudice or poor handling of serious material, especially people’s religious convictions. What’s new today is the seeming collusion—or at least an active sympathy—between some media organizations and journalists, and political and sexual agendas hostile to traditional Christian beliefs.
When this happens, the results are bad for everybody.
Read the entire address on the Public Discourse site.
Very significant as a reflection of Archbishop Chaput's inner beliefs is how his address was formed. Step by step in the course of his dissertation we detect a twofold intent; the first to please a favourably disposed audience, the second to state his personal ideological opinion.
Inasmuch as I dread being cynical about a generally respected man, one has to say his phrases sound empty, counterfeit and deceiving..
Examples:
1) "A Free Press is part of the American Identity". I say the Media is clearly controlled by Secularism, Relativism and deceit.
2) "I value what journalists do for the same reason I value the importance of religious Faith in American's life". Say what ?
3)" A responsible Press and a Faith shaped by the God of Charity and Justice share two things in common: a concern for human dignity, and an interest in truth". A responsible Press? The Most Reverend archbishop lives in a dream world.
No wonder he later declares : "my own thinking as a young priest was heavily influenced by groups on the religious left like Pax Christi"...
Somehow this reminds me the words of the ex-judge in that jewel of a movie ' Separate Tables': "The problem of being in the right is that sometimes you find yourself in the company of questionable allies"'.
Posted by: Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto | Monday, September 27, 2010 at 04:39 PM