You knew it and I knew
it. Whatever the Pope would have said in
his latest document on the family, Amoris
Laetitia, the secular media was going to misinterpret it. Not to lump all media together, and not to
pick on the New York Times, but I’m going to use them as an example. My reason
is that they are the New York Times. It
should mean something when reporters’ average pay is $100,000. I know it barely pays for an annual parking permit in New York, but there used to be a minimum standard for reporters called “the
facts.”
it. Whatever the Pope would have said in
his latest document on the family, Amoris
Laetitia, the secular media was going to misinterpret it. Not to lump all media together, and not to
pick on the New York Times, but I’m going to use them as an example. My reason
is that they are the New York Times. It
should mean something when reporters’ average pay is $100,000. I know it barely pays for an annual parking permit in New York, but there used to be a minimum standard for reporters called “the
facts.”
The Times’ headline on Pope
Francis’ latest document, reads: “Pope,
Urging Less Judgment, Signals Path for Divorced on Communion.” What exactly does the Times think a
“signal” is in the Catholic Church?
Someone needs to inform them that the Catholic Church doesn’t leave
hints in a document as a secret code for the clever among us. The Times’ headline revealed that in spite
of winning more Pulitzer Prizes than any
other news organization, they are still capable of making things up when the
mood strikes.
Francis’ latest document, reads: “Pope,
Urging Less Judgment, Signals Path for Divorced on Communion.” What exactly does the Times think a
“signal” is in the Catholic Church?
Someone needs to inform them that the Catholic Church doesn’t leave
hints in a document as a secret code for the clever among us. The Times’ headline revealed that in spite
of winning more Pulitzer Prizes than any
other news organization, they are still capable of making things up when the
mood strikes.
In a good news story, the
main points to be covered should be explained right away. This they did. “Pope
Francis on Friday called for the Roman Catholic Church to be more welcoming and
less judgmental, and he seemingly signaled a pastoral path for divorced and
remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion.”
main points to be covered should be explained right away. This they did. “Pope
Francis on Friday called for the Roman Catholic Church to be more welcoming and
less judgmental, and he seemingly signaled a pastoral path for divorced and
remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion.”
Everything
before the first comma is correct. But
since when does a lead sentence morph into ill-informed conjecture midway
through? The word “seemingly” alone
should have warned some editor that the reporters were using their
imaginations.
before the first comma is correct. But
since when does a lead sentence morph into ill-informed conjecture midway
through? The word “seemingly” alone
should have warned some editor that the reporters were using their
imaginations.
In their next paragraph, it is explained
that the document calls for priests to “welcome single
parents, gay people and unmarried straight couples who are living together.” The word “welcome” often throws people
off. Jesus “welcomed” sinners. It’s a Christian thing to do—to welcome
people. And to love them. And to
inform them correctly. That is why I’m
taking the time to inform the New York Times that wanting the world to be a
certain way doesn’t make it so. It’s
okay for little children to believe in Santa Claus but it is not okay for a
reporter to believe that the word “welcome” can mean, “change Catholic
teachings to accommodate your lifestyle.”
that the document calls for priests to “welcome single
parents, gay people and unmarried straight couples who are living together.” The word “welcome” often throws people
off. Jesus “welcomed” sinners. It’s a Christian thing to do—to welcome
people. And to love them. And to
inform them correctly. That is why I’m
taking the time to inform the New York Times that wanting the world to be a
certain way doesn’t make it so. It’s
okay for little children to believe in Santa Claus but it is not okay for a
reporter to believe that the word “welcome” can mean, “change Catholic
teachings to accommodate your lifestyle.”
What is very odd to me—the sort of thing
that reporters used to get fired for—is that in the very body of the article,
facts are reported that make the headline and lead sentence impossible. Contradictory
reporting is not good reporting. “The document offers no new rules or
marching orders, and from the outset Francis makes plain that no top-down
edicts are coming.”
that reporters used to get fired for—is that in the very body of the article,
facts are reported that make the headline and lead sentence impossible. Contradictory
reporting is not good reporting. “The document offers no new rules or
marching orders, and from the outset Francis makes plain that no top-down
edicts are coming.”
Think about that a moment. If divorced and civilly
remarried couples (no annulment and no sacramental marriage) were given a signal to a path to receive Holy Communion, that would have to mean at least one of the
following:
remarried couples (no annulment and no sacramental marriage) were given a signal to a path to receive Holy Communion, that would have to mean at least one of the
following:
·
Sacramental marriages can now be put asunder.
Sacramental marriages can now be put asunder.
·
It’s no longer adultery to leave your sacramentally wedded husband or wife for another.
It’s no longer adultery to leave your sacramentally wedded husband or wife for another.
·
Adultery is not a biggie anymore.
Adultery is not a biggie anymore.
·
Mortal sin does not preclude someone from receiving Communion now.
Mortal sin does not preclude someone from receiving Communion now.
Since none
of these is true, and since even by the Times’ own reporting there are no new
rules, why would their headline claim that the Pope just sent out a signal
stating otherwise? If the Church
suddenly reverses itself on over 2,000 years of Catholic teaching, it will not
just be a “signal.” No, the whole world
will know because it will be the end of the world and we won’t need to wait to
read about it in the Times.
of these is true, and since even by the Times’ own reporting there are no new
rules, why would their headline claim that the Pope just sent out a signal
stating otherwise? If the Church
suddenly reverses itself on over 2,000 years of Catholic teaching, it will not
just be a “signal.” No, the whole world
will know because it will be the end of the world and we won’t need to wait to
read about it in the Times.
(Note: Later in the day, the Times changed
the headline to Francis’
Message Calls on Church to Be Inclusive.
The rest of the article remains the same and the original headline was picked up by dozens of other sites.)
the headline to Francis’
Message Calls on Church to Be Inclusive.
The rest of the article remains the same and the original headline was picked up by dozens of other sites.)
~~~~~~~
