Newspapers and news magazines have long been a mainstay for information and keeping up to date about the world around us. The Internet has increased accessibility and dramatically changed the way people gather and read their news, but it has not changed the perception of bias within today’s print media. Publishers learned long ago that sex, scandal, and controversy would sell copies, so it is not surprising that Catholics would perceive an anti-Catholic bias within those publications. In an age where abortion, sexual promiscuity, and same-sex marriage are commonplace, faithful Catholics find themselves at odds with many of the morals and values portrayed in today’s media. This anti-Catholic bias, whether it is simply perceived or otherwise, has a negative impact on the Catholic community.

       The perception of anti-Catholic bias does in-fact exist within members of the Church, therefore it is imperative to prove the reasons behind it. Rev. Avery Dulles, S.J., a Jesuit priest, provided an example of this perception when he wrote, “The church seeks to promote unity and reconciliation, minimizing discord and dissent. The news media, however, specialize in disagreement and conflict which evidently arouse greater interest and boost circulation” (Dulles, 1994). At first glance, his statement implied that the media is not merely biased, but was simply attempting to sell copies of their publications by creating an element of disagreement and conflict. Although every publication is in the business of selling copies, it is not logical, nor realistic, to conclude that all media outlets create hype in order to increase their bottom line. Dulles offered another reason for the perception of an anti-Catholic bias by pointing out that, “most newspapers and magazines have no professionally qualified reporters in the field of religion” (Dulles, 1994). Articles summarizing sporting events should be written by someone who knows the sport they are covering, and financial reports would not be credible if the writer did not possess a basic knowledge of our financial system, so the same should be required of those writing about religion. The veracity of information comes into question when the person writing it has little to no training or has limited understanding of the subject.

       Catholic journalist Amy Welborn acknowledges, “Reporting on the Catholic Church is quite a challenge, given the historical depth and complexity of the subject matter” (Flynn, 2008). Given the complexity of the subject matter, it is no surprise that many reports contain inaccuracies. In a recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, one-third of Catholics surveyed could not name the four Gospels, and 45% did not know that the Church teaches the bread and wine used in Holy Communion actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ (Pew Research Center, 2010). Welborn also offered her own recommendation for her fellow journalists in the print media, “Deepening their knowledge of the Church would be a step forward for journalists covering Catholicism… This does not mean losing objectivity, but reporting on events in their proper context” (Flynn, 2008). Her recommendation supports the position that anti-Catholic bias exists because of misunderstanding and ignorance rather than an intentional bias against the Church.

       The Los Angeles Times has a history of providing editorial space to those who appear to write from an anti-Catholic prospective. For example, Tim Rutten wrote, “Many Catholics worry about a Vatican that fires an Australian bishop for speaking in favor of ordaining women and married men, but declines to act against a Belgian prelate who unapologetically admits to molesting young boys” (Rutten, 2011). His statement appears to be a valid argument against Church hypocrisy, but Rutten purposely misled readers by failing to mention that the Vatican suspended the Belgian prelate immediately, while the Australian bishop was allowed to remain in his position for five years before his removal (Wooden, 2011). In this example, Tim Rutten was clearly attempting to sway readers into being sympathetic for relaxing the rules of the Church by claiming that the Church itself was not enforcing its own standards.

       While sex scandals involving priests are definitely newsworthy, some news outlets go out of their way to make reference to those scandals while covering a wide variety of other topics within the Catholic Church. For example, during his homily at the funeral for Cardinal John Patrick Foley of Philadelphia, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York City said, “any diocese that can turn out such a noble, gentle man is a church which can endure and come out even stronger” (O’Reilly, 2011). The author of the article, David O’Reilly, attributed Archbishop Dolan’s comments as “an apparent reference to the difficulties the archdiocese will face next year – a sex abuse trial, school closings, decisions on 27 priests under internal investigation for possible misconduct with children” (O’Reilly, 2011), when the Archbishop could have simply been referencing the endurance of the Philadelphia community and the effect the loss of their beloved Cardinal Foley will have on them over time. Other news outlets simply quote the most radical thinkers as if they are an example of the Catholic faithful (Seiler, 1999) and some make an intentional effort to undermine Church teaching. Although there are examples of intentional anti-Catholic bias within some segments of the media, the majority of the bias is not intentional, but rather a misunderstanding and ignorance of the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

       Tim Mattingly, director of the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges commented on the “amazing ignorance by some of the reporters that cover religion” (Flynn, 2008). His comments support the claims made by Dulles and Welborn, in stating that many covering religious topics should be trained and educated in the field they are reporting. This lack of knowledge and training has resulted in an anti-Catholic bias perpetuated by misunderstandings and ignorance, rather than the intentional exclusion of facts.

       The sex abuse scandal within the Church has long been a topic of discourse. While the response from the Church was nothing short of controversial to some, the reaction by the media caused a backlash of unprecedented proportions. In his book, The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice, author Philip Jenkins wrote, “the sex abuse scandal in the United States has resulted in a public outpouring of anti-Church and anti-Catholic vituperation on a scale not witnessed since the 1920s” (Anonymous, 2003). Allegations of abuse were widespread within the Catholic Church creating an illusion that the entire Church was to blame for the violations. While the investigation of criminal activity and misconduct on the part of Church authorities was completely justified, Jenkins wrote that many reports of abuse, “segued effortlessly into grotesque attacks on the Catholic Church as an institution” (Anonymous, 2003).

       Any attack on the Catholic Church is dangerous because many Catholics today are ill informed about the faith they profess. The U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey, from the Pew Research Center, showed that Catholics answered just 14.7 out of 32 questions (46%) correctly (Pew Research Center, 2010). The results of this survey are not hard to believe, given the influence of today’s media. Rev. Dulles wrote, “It must be recognized that many Catholics learn about what is happening in their Church primarily, or in great part, from the secular media” (Dulles, 1994). As Catholics glean more information from the media than their Church, the influence of that media permeates their lives and begins to distort the teachings of the Church. Jenkins concluded that anti-Catholic bias, “has become so ingrained that reporters do not even recognize their own anti-Catholic attitudes” (Anonymous, 2003). Catholics do not always know their own faith, so we cannot expect them to recognize this anti-Catholic attitude either. Gerald P. Fogarty, S.J. writes, “anti-Catholicism in America today is far more subtle and perhaps even insidious in a culture where religion is too often merely a matter of private opinion” (Fogarty, 2003). Although the result was unintentional, we must realize that the media unknowingly exacerbated the problem of anti-Catholic bias in our society as they continued to report the sex abuse scandal.

       The best recourse for the Church, at this point, is to fight fire with fire. For too long, the Church has ignored the words of Pope Paul VI, who declared in 1975, “The church would feel guilty before the Lord if she did not utilize these powerful means of communication that human skill is daily rendering more perfect” (Dulles, 1994). By utilizing the media to combat inaccurate information, the Catholic Church can establish a new pattern of effective communication and proper context that would contrast the existing media bias and balance the negative messages currently being delivered. The leaders of the Church must learn to use the media as a tool to support their message, rather than to control it. Any attempt to control the message would be seen as censorship and rejected by some of their own members, let alone those working as journalists in the secular media (Dulles, 1994).

       As subtle forms of anti-Catholicism become more prevalent in our society, many people see the Catholic Church as “authoritarian and opposed to freedom of thought” (Fogarty, 2003). This message is deliberately misleading and completely unfounded, yet the Church has done little to dissuade the message from pervading society. “The Church is not without blame in this farrago of vilification. Bishops obfuscate, cardinals equivocate, and Church spokesmen prevaricate as the tide of media condemnation surges around them” (Anonymous, 2003), which is why the leaders of the Catholic Church must embrace new media if they hope to relieve tension and communicate a message that combats anti-Catholic bias in the media.

       As people continue to rely on newspapers and news magazines to keep informed, those sources of media are unintentionally perpetuating an atmosphere of anti-Catholic bias. Publishers of print media focus on stories that will sell copies, often filled with sex, scandal, and controversy and they fail to hire qualified personnel to cover the topic of religion. The consequences of their actions result in misunderstandings about the Catholic Church and ignorance of the Catholic faith itself. The Church must take a pro-active approach and begin participating in the message rather than responding to criticisms after the fact. Until they do so, anti-Catholic bias will continue to create discord and Catholics will become more secular because of that influence. While the existence of anti-Catholic bias in the media may be unintentional, it poses a threat that has a negative impact on the entire Catholic community as well as society as a whole.

References

Anonymous. (2003). Church rounds on anti-Catholic bias by Media. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2171705581&sid=1&Fmt=3&client
Id=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Dulles, A. (1994). Religion and the News Media: A Theologian Reflects. America 171, no. 9, pp 6-9. Retrieved from http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/media/me0005.html

Flynn, J. (2008). The Media and Misreporting Religion. Retrieved from http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31225

Fogarty, G. (2003). Reflections on Contemporary Anti-Catholicism, U.S. Catholic Historian , Vol. 21, No. 4, Anti-Catholicism (Fall, 2003), pp. 37-44. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25154876

O’Reilly, D. (2011). Funeral for Cardinal Foley draws church dignitaries. Retrieved from http://www.kansascity.com/2011/12/16/3324188/funeral-for-cardinal-foley-draws.html

Pew Research Center (2010). U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey. Retrieved from http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

Rutten, T. (2011). Tim Rutten: Is Pope John Paul II fit for sainthood? Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0504-rutten-20110504,0,963466.column

Seiler, J. (1993). Pope’s visit unleashes anti-Catholic media. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=145475401&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Wooden, C. (2011). Church unity motivated papal action against bishop, Australians say. Retrieved from http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104169.htm

What would you do if you could fundamentally change someone’s life?

How would you feel if you knew that one single action on your part, in one single moment of your day, could fundamentally change the lives of an entire family forever?

What if you could do the same thing for many other families?

A disabled veteran needs help. He just returned from serving his country and he is confronted with unpaid bills, empty cupboards, and an eviction notice. His disability check will pay the monthly bills, but he has no way to stop the eviction process or pay the utility bills that have piled up in his absence.

He is dejected. He wants to provide for his family, so he swallows his pride and makes a phone call. He prays that God will send the help he so desperately needs.

A single mother and her family are barely surviving. She has cataracts and is legally blind. She can’t drive, she can’t work. She has two sons, both of whom need glasses themselves. They are maintaining their grades in school, but they could be doing much better if they themselves could see clearly. They spend much of their time helping their mama, and daily life is a constant struggle.

She is desperate. She wants her sons to succeed, so she too swallows her pride and makes a phone call. Her faith is strong, so she offers it up to God.

A young man is diagnosed with a serious eye problem. If he doesn’t get treatment, he will lose sight in his eye. His family gets him the immediate medical help he needs, but without insurance they soon find the bill unmanageable. The father is under-employed and the wife does what she can to supplement the family income, but no matter how much they try they just can’t seem to get ahead. They make payments when they can, but that cloud of debt will linger over them for a long time.

They are despairing. They want what’s best for their children so they turn to the people in their parish for help. They pray and put it into God’s hands.

As I volunteered to handle the helpline for our local Society of St. Vincent de Paul this month, I didn’t realize how each call, each story, would affect me spiritually. Truth be told, I was a bit nervous and I wasn’t sure how I would handle it. Each call for help was unique. Each case was heartbreaking, yet inspiring at the same time. Each story was another chance to learn more about Jesus and how to see Him in every person we meet.

The disabled veteran wept openly when he found out we could (and would) be helping him. With a wife and two small children, he was under unsurmountable stress to provide for them and with the help of another agency we were able to stop the eviction process, pay his rent and utilities, and give him the hand up he so desperately needed. He thanked me for helping them, and I thanked God for allowing us to serve this family in their time of need.

The single mother couldn’t believe her ears when she found out that a local eyecare business would be providing glasses to both of her sons at no charge, but she was completely stunned when she found out we would also be helping her with the bill for her cataract surgery. She was praying we could help her sons become more independent with better eyesight. Through the grace of God we were able to do the same for her. God doesn’t see the way we do. In fact, we see just a small part of His great design, but God sees into each of our hearts. Only He knows our true potential, and He helped us offer this family the gift of sight and an opportunity to reach for their own potential and change their lives forever.

The young man’s mother was relieved when we spoke to her about her family’s situation. Just having someone who will listen can relieve so much stress for those in need. We arranged for her son to get a pair of glasses from the same eyecare business that helped in the previous case and we helped the family pay a good portion of the debt that had been clouding their future. That night a mother went home with a light in her eye, and a renewed hope for her family. I went home with joy in my heart, and a renewed desire to know our Lord better through the faces of those we serve.

St Vincent de Paul once said, “You must see God in the faces of the poor.”

Words really cannot express what I feel when I help someone through the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Sometimes their need is small, sometimes they need more than we can offer, but I truly can see the face of Christ in every person I meet, and it’s a humbling experience each and every time. I thank God for the opportunity to serve Him and pray I never lose this feeling of humility.

What would you do if you could fundamentally change someone’s life?

Thought #1

This makes no sense.

The Iraqi government is building concrete walls around churches in Baghdad and Mosul to provide security for worshippers.

When terrorists attacked Our Lady Of Deliverance Catholic Church in Baghdad on November 1st they stormed into the church on foot. I don’t think concrete walls will stop foot traffic. If so, how will anyone get inside the church to worship?

While the appearance of the wall will make worshippers feel more secure, it will be a false sense of security when the next terrorist walks through the front door.

Thought #2

The “tax cut” deal is going to cost us approximately $857 billion dollars. What deals were cut to get this on the table?

Check this out:

Business, Investment and Other Tax Extensions: $77.2 Billion
Includes:

– Depreciation and other business incentives, through 2012: $22 Billion
– Research and experimentation tax credit, through 2011: $13.3 Billion
– State and local sales tax deduction, through 2011: $5.5 Billion
– Ethanol tax credit extension, through 2011: $4.8 Billion
– Restaurant and retail tax credit for capital improvement, through 2011: $3.6 Billion
– Biodiesel and renewable diesel tax credit, through 2011: $2 Billion
– Tuition tax deduction, through 2011: $1.2 Billion
– Railroad track maintenance tax credit, through 2011: $330 Million
– Rum excise tax change, to increase the tax floor on rum from Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands:
$262 Million
– Washington DC investment tax credit, through 2011: $138 Million
– NASCAR and other race tracks, credit for capital improvement. Through 2011: $36 Million
– Mine rescue team training credit, extend through 2011: $5 Million

Wow. And that’s just part of it. Check out Jamie Dupree’s blog for all the details.

Mo’ Money, Mo’ Money, Mo’ Money

Thought #3

Honestly, I had no idea Helen Thomas was still a news item, until yesterday.

Helen Thomas, the long-time White House correspondent who was forced to apologize and retire last spring after making comments about Israel and Jews, stood by those remarks yesterday at an event in Dearborn, Michigan — and then made even more fiery statements.

What could be worse than telling Israeli Jews that it was time to “go home”?

Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists,” Thomas said during her remarks at an Arab-American workshop, according to The Detroit News. “No question.

Wow. What else is there to say? Of course, it doesn’t matter, because I don’t think anything she has to say is relevant anymore anyway. How many any’s was that, anyway?

It seems that people within our government, both local and national, have forgotten the very basics about mathematics. You see, no matter what they want to tell you unemployment numbers cannot drop if the workforce is declining and jobs are not actually picking up.

Carroll County unemployment numbers for October are significantly down from last year, a sign local officials say is indicative that the local economy is on the uptick.

According to the Georgia Department of Labor, the jobless rate for last month was an even 10 percent, which is down nearly a point from the 10.9 percent rate of October 2009. While the total labor force has shrunk in the last year, going from 52,040 last year to 51,307 as of last month, and the total number of employed residents has also declined, the latter figures haven’t declined as sharply, dropping only from 46,346 to 46,179.

Officials claim the unemployment rate has dropped from 10.9% to 10% over the course of the past year. Meanwhile the size of the workforce has dropped from 52,040 to 51,307 was well. The reduction in the workforce just happens to be 0.986%. Do you notice anything about these figures? Unemployment has “dropped” 0.9% while the size of the workforce has also dropped 0.9%.

They don’t account for all the people who have utilized the full extent of their unemployment benefits and have dropped off the official unemployment rolls, nor have they accounted for the fact that the only reason the numbers seem to have dropped is because employers are not hiring as many people.

These local officials who are in awe that the unemployment numbers are “dropping” are going to be the ones who are shocked on the day the news breaks that unemployment has “unexpectedly” risen again.

I received an email yesterday that told me I could order a NASCAR BEANIE BABY for FREE! It sounded too good to be true, but who doesn’t love FREE? I couldn’t resist. Well, yes I could. Let me show you why.

Although the e-mail ad (shown above, click to enlarge) said the NASCAR BEANIE BABY was FREE, the word FREE was nowhere to be found on the website. The NASCAR BEANIE BABY was now going to cost $1.95 for shipping and handling.

That’s just not right. The e-mail stated that the NASCAR BEANIE BABY was supposed to be FREE, but the website was states that it actually costs $1.95. Again, the word FREE was nowhere to be found. At the bottom of this page, I noticed the little disclaimer about the NASCAR BEANIE BABY.

“NASCAR® is a registered trademark of the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. NASCAR, Inc. is not a sponsor of this promotion. This promotion is not affiliated with nor endorsed by any NASCAR driver. All product images are subject to change without notice.”

Say what? The product images are subject to change without notice? Well, heck. The price of the item changed without notice (in the click of the mouse) so why should anyone expect to receive the actual NASCAR BEANIE BABY they choose at the time of ordering?

At this point, I almost closed the browser, but I was interested in what might appear on the next page. So, knowing the NASCAR BEANIE BABY was going to cost $1.95 and could change without notice, I filled out the form and clicked the “Confirm Your Order” button.

Suddenly, it all made sense. Although I knew it before I clicked the original link in the e-mail, the next page out everything into perspective.

Check out section three. It seems, once you pay $1.95 for the NASCAR BEANIE BABY, you get a BONUS GIFT. How awesome is that? $1.95 not only gets you the NASCAR BEANIE BABY, but you get a BONUS GIFT as well!

So what is the bonus gift? A Risk Free 30 days in the Official NASCAR Members Club! Do you have that tingly feeling yet? You get 30 days FREE membership in the “Official NASCAR Members Club”. Okay, now wake up! Dream time is over. Snap out of it!

Once you give them your credit card information, they bill you $1.95 for the FREE NASCAR BEANIE BABY and thirty days later they bill you $84 for the annual membership fee in the Official NASCAR Members Club.

At the end of 30 days, your Official NASCAR Members Club benefits will automatically continue for $84 and will renew each year at the same annual rate. We will bill or deduct the annual membership fee to the credit card or debit card you registered. The benefits of the Official NASCAR Members Club may be enhanced or modified at any time without prior notice. If you are not completely satisfied at any time, simply call the Official NASCAR Members Club at 1-877-696-2722 to let us know you wish to cancel your membership benefits. If you cancel at any time within your 30-day review, you will not be billed. If you cancel at any time within 30-days after you have been billed, you will be able to receive a full refund. No refunds will be available after 30 days of being billed

It doesn’t stop there. If, by chance, you’re fool enough to place the order, you also opt-in to receiving their DAILY email newsletter containing each day’s NASCAR’s headlines!

So, let’s review.

That FREE NASCAR BEANIE BABY, along with the ensuing membership in the Official NASCAR Members Club, just cost you $85.95 and you’re going to be reminded of your mistake every day via e-mail “for the majority of the calendar year”.

Read the fine print people. Nothing is free. I knew that. You knew that. Get over it.

We found out this week that our neighbors at our old house lost their house too. What a shame. I hope they landed on their feet.