Not quite
March 11, 2008 by Amy
In reflecting on the latest misreporting of Catholic news, I’m not seeing this as simple “anti-Catholicism” or “anti-religion.”
Because it seems to me that it would be very easy to report the 7 Deadly Sins story with an anti-Catholic angle without doing a whole lot of work:
“Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, in an interview conducted within view of the grandeur of the Apostolic Palace known, as is the rest of the Vatican for its vast collection of treasures gathered by richly-grabed pontiffs over the centuries declared that ordinary Catholics should be aware that the pursuit ”obscene wealth” was a serious sin that put their souls at risk.”
See, it’s not that hard.
No, there’s something different at work here - because even an idiot reading this article could see that Girotti said nothing even close to what was reported. I can’t get inside the head of a writer who would say, “Okay…he’s said this…let’s put it in the context of…wait, I’ve got it…the 7 Deadly Sins! Let’s say he’s replacing them! With recycling!”
My powers of empathetic thinking have clearly reached their limit.
And the Luther business…where did that come from? Was someone toying with a reporter or what?
I’ve gotten a number of calls today from friends and family members asking about this. They’re all confused. And when I tell them what truly occured I fear they’re not believing me because the disparity between what they read and what I’m saying is so wide. It’s so ludicrous and irresponsible.
I saw an ABC report, late at night, hosted by two women anchors, after which the anchors laughed and made fun of it in a jocular but sneering way. These reports are written. They have to be approved by managers. Of course the powers that be at ABC intended to leave the impression that this “list” is ridiculous, that wealth cannot be “obscene”, that the idea of “sin” is ridiculous, that the Church is ridiculous.
Would they ridicule a statement by a Muslim official? I’m not sure.
Would they ridicule a statement by an Israeli rabbi? I really don’t think so.
It isn’t just the coverage but the targeting and the deliberate intention behind the coverage that is noteworthy. We saw this play out in the sex abuse situation (Catholic priests only), in the early coverage of Pope Benedict (Nazi soldier, intolerant bully), and in the constant twisting and distortions in references to Vatican II. It’s too constant and predictable to be examples of “carelessness”.
I have never seen a news story in any media whose facts I have been associated with be accurately reported. This all the way from a reporter being unable to get names properly spelled or University of graduation properly identified (University of Pennsylvania vice Penn State, for example) up to adherence to nuclear specifications for a commercial power plant. Their reporting on science would get a high school sophomore a failing grade in an introductory physics class.
That being the case why should I give any level of credence to any story I see in the main stream media. If they can’t get some individual’s name right just because he or she isn’t famous, or correctly report the alma mater of the subject of their story why should I believe they are accurately reporting on Global Warming, national political figures or religious issues?
Surely, the headline and spin were used to get people to read a particular article, to get the newpapers the pick up a certain wire story, to keep a reader on a certain website longer.
It’s a lot more attention grabbing than, say, “Cardinal Gives Interview Encouraging Confession,” which is edifying and would invite some Catholics, but doesn’t sell papers.
I have the feeling that a lot of people read the article because of the headline, and I’m betting that maybe just a few who read it thought about sin in a new light, and maybe, just maybe, someone will be encouraged to go to confession this Lent.
Even if the original AP article was silly.
God works through the most unexpected ways, after all.
I’m not sure if it’s Anti-Catholicism, but it could be. The angle Amy suggests would fit the more “nefarious Catholicism” model and I’d agree it’s not that. However not all reporters or anti-religionists go by that one.
There’s another track that’s tended more toward mockery or condescension. This is especially popular in Britain from what I’ve seen, but exists elsewhere. Going by this method Catholics are weak-minded people who are expected to obey every ridiculous or irrelevant statement a Pope makes. Popes and Archbishops themselves are seen as skirt-wearing men with funny-hats. I think the coverage of the story fails to fit the “nefarious Catholicism” mould but fits the “irrelevantly silly Catholicism” viewpoint.
I don’t think it was even an intentional mocking. They really DO believe that this sort of thing (inventing new mortal sins for fun) is what the Catholic Church is all about and has always done.
I don’t think the Archbishop is so entirely innocent, the victim of malicious reporting. Consider his remark here:
“‘While sin used to concern mostly the individual, today it has mainly a social resonance, due to the phenomenon of globalization,’ said Archbishop Girotti, who heads the Apostolic Penitentiary.”
Sin “used” to concern mostly the individual? No longer? Today it has “mainly” a “social resonance”? This is not what we’re taught:
Pope John Paul II: “Sin, in the proper sense, is always a personal act, since it is an act of freedom on the part of an individual person and not properly of a group or community” (Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 16).
Beyond merely sloppy talk, the Archbishop seems to be at odds with Magisterial teaching on this point.
Last night as I was driving around suburban Boston, doing some errands, I came upon a talk show host (Michelle McPhee, also a columnist at the Boston Herald) - Catholic of course - taking great issue with the “new list of sins.” She took the AP story at face value, insisting that this was a official Vatican pronouncement, any was rather indignant that the pope, the head of the wealthiest organization in the world, who himself spends his summers in a beautiful lakeside mansion, has the audacity to declare “obscene wealth” to be a sin, but didn’t include pedophilia on the list.
Every caller that identified them selves as Catholic bought right into the whole thing. That’s the saddest part - none of them had enough understanding of their own faith to have an intelligent conversation on the topic.
Sin can only be personal. How can a group (which is composed of individuals) act as an indidivual? It cannot. Every member of the group may commit the same sin, but the group itself cannot sin.
I think there was an early heresy about “collective sin” and Original Sin.
Where can I find a good English translation of the article?
Amy,
I agree with all the comments made above on the London Telegraph article. I believe that is where it first appeared. The sad thing is that no one can check the facts of the interview because it appeared first in the March 10th edition of L’Osservatore Romano and that is a daily edition not readily available to most of us and it is published only in Italian which futher restricts its availability. Sadly I have only found you and one or two others who wrote about it. It would have been helpful if someone who had access to the article, as it appeared in L’Osservatore Romano, would have translated it for us, so we could all see what went wrong.
Of course the networks were alive with the misrepresentation and all accepted it as futher proof that Catholics are just a little nuts. The local talk shows were all alive with it and all of them accpepted the Telegraph’s angle or concocted one of their own, seeing in the ” new ” list another threat to their political ideologies.
Of course the original Seven Deadly Sins were not new when Pope Gregory listed them. They are all in the Scriptures in one form or another and all of them are violations of one or more of the Commandments. They differ from the Commandments in that they represent a habit of thinking, a habitual way of acting or behaving that has become so ingrained a violation of the comandments that one’s spiritual condition is in critical danger, violation of the Commandments has become an habitual life style, mortal sin has become a life style.
The same can be said for this ” new ” list. No sin on the list is new, they are all found in their fundamental form or root forml in the Commandments. And the attitudes they represent are condemned throughout Scripture and in the Tradition of the Church. They are nothing but modern manifestations of the first sins committed by man. They were called ” Deadly ” by the Archbishop because they represent habitual habits of sin. Each is an example of a violation of one or more of the Commandments in an habitual and serious way. In the old ” Deadly ” sins and in the new, one has adopted a life style of mortal sin.
Regarding the personal vs. public sin issue… while I agree that perhaps the phrasing wasn’t totally well-thought-out, nevertheless his emphasis on the “social resonance” is not saying that sin has become social. I think one has to read that with the view that while still a “personal act”, the effects of sin are now more social and far-reaching than ever. Distinguishing between “personal act” and “concerning the person,” as well as “social resonance” and “social sin” are two big points if you’re going to be picking apart theological ideas. It’s not fair to jump the gun and call the man at odds with magisterial teaching if he hasn’t said anything overtly contrary, especially if terms are not being clearly upheld. He certainly isn’t some kind of a heretic for such a remark. Perhaps only a little ill-spoken.
“…the grandeur of the Apostolic Palace known, as is the rest of the Vatican for its vast collection of treasures gathered by richly-grabed pontiffs over the centuries…”
Yeah our local anti-Catholic radio station with a Baptist pastor as host, had a field day with this.
It has truly become The Thing That Wouldn’t Die:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1722258,00.html
This article was in the issue of Time that arrived at my house today, long after corrections of the original story were available.
Time was outclassed by the Brown/RISD College Hill Independent, which had a short piece that noted the errors in the original report and actually quoted Philip Lawler! (It is not yet available online.)