If you think about it, journalism is about conflict. A news story is generally about an issue and how two sides (or more) view said issue. The top of the story, known as the lede, is about something someone said or did. The rest is information to support that new information.
In 2020, of course, all that is easier said than done. The fast-paced nature of news in the Internet age, the concept of objectivity being questioned by some mainstream journalists and this desperate need by some to highlight one side over another has made for some murky waters in the news.
Case in point: Pope Francis’ bold proclamation released on Oct. 21 that he endorsed civil same-sex unions. Clearly, this announcement represented some kind of turning point for the Roman Catholic church, a change in tradition on LGBTQ rights and the dawn of a new, more loving era.
Well, that’s what the mainstream press said. Here’s how The New York Times opened its report:
Pope Francis expressed support for same-sex civil unions in remarks revealed in a documentary film that premiered on Wednesday, a significant break from his predecessors that staked out new ground for the church in its recognition of gay people.
The remarks, coming from the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, had the potential to shift debates about the legal status of same-sex couples in nations around the globe and unsettle bishops worried that the unions threaten what the church considers traditional marriage — between one man and one woman.
“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered,” Francis said in the documentary, “Francesco,” which debuted at the Rome Film Festival, reiterating his view that gay people are children of God. “I stood up for that.”
Clearly, the pope — as head of the church — had in three sentences changed Catholicism forever.
Not so fast, said numerous on-the-record voices in the world of Catholicism.
This was typical Francis, who is known for his off-the-cuff comments (as the Times story noted) that often come into direct conflict with doctrine or they appear to do so. The key is that they produce a tsunami of headlines and news reports.
I have found that the news media isn’t so great at parsing Francis’ statements on deadline. Whenever they do, it is often to highlight Francis as a progressive who heads an evolving church.
It is also crucial that some major Catholic voices tend to be overlooked in the coverage. For example, did you hear what the Archdiocese of New York said, in response to these Pope Francis comments?
Probably not.
But let’s start with reactions from the Vatican press office (members of the staff there should be used to this by now) frantically tried to do damage control.
Their response: This was nothing new. The pope had apparently made similar remarks in a May 2019 interview with a Mexican TV network Televisa (where those comments regarding civil unions never aired) and that as cardinal of Buenos Aires in 2010 had held a similar position about a secular law. A Televisa spokesman accused the Vatican — which owned and controlled the cameras used for that interview — of removing those comments from the segment.
This is where nuance, past statements and journalism in the 21st century come into direct conflict.
You see, to make matters worse, Francis’ statements exposed a progressive vs. conservative doctrinal divide on marriage and sexuality that we have already been seeing in Catholic media, Twitter, Catholic academia and in voting patterns in the United States and throughout Europe.
This brings us to that uncovered news story in New York.
It was telling that the Archdiocese of New York — headed by Cardinal Timothy Dolan — posted commentary on its website rebuking Francis’ comments. In a blog post, under the headline “Dealing with Papal Mistakes,” Ed Mechmann, director of Public Policy for the Archdiocese of New York, wrote the following, which is long, but essential:
One of the most common misunderstandings, both by Catholics and non-Catholics, is that we believe that every word from the Pope must be accepted as infallible Church teaching. That’s not at all what we believe, as I will explain in a moment. But we must be clear about this, because sometimes we have to deal with and explain papal mistakes.
This is really important, because like every other human being, popes make mistakes. I think it’s fair to say that every single pope who ever lived has made mistakes. Nobody is error free. But it does us no good to ignore these lapses when they happen, or try to explain them away as if they don’t matter.
I want to make clear that I deeply love Pope Francis, and am making these comments with great respect for my brother and father in Christ. I unequivocally accept and submit to the teachings of the Church. May God forbid that I ever say anything contrary to the teachings of the Church or anything that leads anyone astray from the truth.
Further on, Meacham added:
Even though the Holy Father’s comments were informal and not an official pronouncement of policy, they clearly can be construed as “formal cooperation”. So this is a serious mistake by the Holy Father and it can lead to a lot of confusion.
The teaching of the Church is clear that the Holy Father exercises great authority in his regular teaching on faith and morals. This is called his “ordinary magisterium”, and Catholics are bound to “adhere to it with religious assent” (Catechism 892). This is especially true when the Holy Father is teaching in union with the College of Bishops, either gathered together or in their own home dioceses.
This is in contrast to the formal exercise of his “extraordinary magisterium”. This only takes place when the pope makes a solemn proclamation of a doctrine that must be accepted as a matter of faith. This is also called a teaching ex cathedra because it is (at least figuratively) given from the papal throne (the “cathedra“) as the Successor of St. Peter. These teachings are guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to be free of error (the doctrine of “papal infallibility”).
An example of how the Pope exercises this ordinary magisterium is the issuance of an encyclical. Pope Francis just issued one last week, Fratelli Tutti, on the need to develop a fraternal society based on love. Other ways in which it is done is through the regular formal addresses given by the Pope, such as his Wednesday Catechesis, his comments at the weekly Angelus, or in his homilies at pontifical Masses.
Informal comments during an airplane news conference, or remarks to documentary film-makers, are clearly not formal exercises of the Pope’s teaching authority. While we are always bound to respect the Holy Father and his statements, we are not bound to accept as infallible every word that comes from his mouth. These are subject to all the ordinary human fallibilities – ambiguity, incompleteness, and even outright error.
These are strong words coming from someone who not only works for Dolan, but wrote this on the archdiocese’s official website.
While true that the posts come with the disclaimer that these words “are my personal opinion and do not represent official statements of the Archdiocese,” one has to really wonder why this blog even exists if not to uphold church teaching and to defend — or at least be consistent with — Dolan’s own views.
The New York response was one of many cautious reactions. Bishop David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh stressed that the pope’s words “in no way signal a departure from the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning marriage or homosexuality.” Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, said the “pope's statement clearly contradicts what has been long-standing teaching of the church about same-sex unions.” Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco said: “The nature of marriage, the place of sex within a virtuous life, these great teachings of the church come to us from God, are illumined by reason, and do not change.”
The strongest words came from a bishop in Kazakhstan. Bishop Athanasius Schneider dared to say:
Most Holy Father, for the sake of the salvation of your own immortal soul, for the sake of the souls of all those persons who through your approval of same-sex unions are by their sexual acts grievously offending God and exposing their souls to the danger to be eternally lost, convert, retract your approval and proclaim with all your predecessors the unchangeable teaching of the Church.”
News coverage of these kinds of comments were, of course, limited to Catholic publications and so-called “right-wing media.”
But here is the key point: Criticism coming from a branch of the New York archdiocese were not included in the major New York Times story or even in the newspaper of record’s follow-up pieces. Instead, they were limited to reporting at the Fox News Channel website and Religion Unplugged, where I also frequently contribute news stories and commentary.
It should be noted that Dolan, no stranger to controversy himself, isn’t usually afraid of making public comments on an array of issues and has often annoyed Catholics both on the doctrinal/political left and right.
That’s not to say that blistering rebuke from cardinals — such as Raymond Burke, a frequent Francis critic — didn’t make it onto social media and other places.
Popular Google searches such as “Is the pope infallible?”, “pope civil unions” and “pope homosexuality” were trending in the hours after news stories started popping up in people’s text alerts and social media feeds. The National Catholic Register did a great job detailing all this in their explainer essay. Another wonderful commentary, by National Review’s editor-at-large Kathryn Jean Lopez, details the comments and the context with which they should be taken.
At the same time, Father James Martin was widely quoted in news articles and on television. Martin is a Jesuit priest who has made supporting LGBTQ Catholics a major part of his ministry. As a result, he is often widely quoted in the news media and very active on Twitter. His views fit the dominant narrative, in other words.
Here’s a thread from him on the issue:
Martin, who is the go-to Catholic to be quoted by many elite newsrooms, appeared in numerous places such as The New Yorker, CNN and The Washington Post on this issue.
Once again, the cultural right and the left have created their own distinctive media ecosystems that are now impacting church debates about doctrine.
For some, Francis’ comments are the ushering in of a new era. For others, what he is being quoted as saying is contrary to church teaching and these words even clash with the pope’s personal doctrinal views expressed in other settings. Journalists need to quote what he is saying about the sacrament of marriage, as well as what he has now said about secular unions.
This is all becoming sadly normal. In 2016, many decried the political “bubbles” in which way too many citizens (and Catholics) are choosing to live.
Four years later, it seems as if we have embraced it. This unfortunate reality plays out mostly in political coverage, but as Pope Francis’ comments on civil unions shows, it is now a major part in the way we also digest religion news, as well. Who needs accurate, informed news coverage that listens to voices on both sides of these debates?