“In speaking to reporters covering the story, it was clear that even after four or five days of covering the story, they were not clear about what precisely concerned the Church.”
“In my experience, the media are fascinated by the Church and eager to learn how and why the Church does what it does.”
Okay, why is it that, after four or five days of covering this story, these “really bright people” who are “eager to learn” about the Church can’t connect these dots. I’m sure I’m not as really bright as many reporters, but I understood the Church’s concerns from day one after reading my first story on the matter, and that was from a secular news source.
“I have encountered ignorance of the Church’s ways but never hostility.”
As Seth and Amy would say, “Really, Mr. Winters? REALLY?”
There is no doubt that the Church could do a better job in PR and in getting the word out. But, let’s face it people: The Church and the culture are in conflict with each other because they have different interests. This is not simply a matter of the media, which reflects and often attempts to shape the popular culture, misunderstanding the Church. The media and the Church have different interests in these matters, and the media is hardly hesitant in pushing it’s interests.

Maybe an unbiased media would have a better understanding.

“I have encountered ignorance of the Church’s ways but never hostility.”
As Seth and Amy would say, “Really, Mr. Winters? REALLY?”
I have to say, Bob, I’m siding with Winters here.
I worked in the secular media for 26 years, as a writer and producer at CBS News. I never encountered anything resembling hostility. Everyone I encountered was respectful, tolerant and, in fact, intrigued to have a member of the clergy on staff. (A fun fact: when I was there, all the writers of the CBS Evening News were practicing Catholics.)
I can’t speak for other outfits, but the newsroom at CBS was always Catholic-friendly.
Dcn. G.

“In my experience, the media are…eager to learn how and why the Church does what it does. I have encountered ignorance of the Church’s ways but never hostility.”
Apparently the Boston Globe’s readership is more narrow than I’d thought.

Deacon Greg
I think there’s a valid point in Bob’s comment that your response fails to address, perhaps because it’s implicit rather than explicit. It lies in the difference between “the newsroom” you speak of, and the programming that uses news items as fodder for opinionated entertainment, both of which are characterized as “the media”. Perhaps “journalists” are merely ignorant, not hostile, but I daresay Chris Matthews, at least in his “Hardball” persona, is hardly a journalist. Why else would Michael Sean Winters have commented, “Matthews’ show is called “Hardball” for a reason and the bishop never should have been on it.”

John V, thanks for the backup.
Deacon Greg, I’m glad your experience of the media was Catholic-friendly, and that all the members of the CBS Evening News were practicing Catholics during your tenure there. Certainly, we want practicing Catholics in the media, just as we want peace-minded men and women in the military. My own daughter hopes for a career in journalism, and I encourage her. I have never worked in the media. But I do read the newspaper, and watch some TV news, and read the occasional magazine. So, while I don’t see who goes in to the shop, I do see what comes out of it.
I’ll concede this point: I accept it on his word that Mr. Winters never encountered hostility from members of the press. My incredulity was understandable, however, considering that his statement was in a column he wrote that was inspired by Chris Matthews’ verbal bludgeoning of a Catholic bishop on live television. Consider, as well, Archbishop Dolan’s recent complaint of the anti-Catholic bias at the NYT. Did you read the AP summary of L’Affair Kennedy in which the AP accused Bishop Tobin of bringing on his criticism of Kennedy so soon after “his father’s death”? Nice touch, that. Especially given that it’s an outright lie. Also, going back to the gay marriage controversy in DC, an employee of the archdiocese commented that journalists did call the archdiocesan office and spoke with the communications director and were given a detailed and thorough explanation of the Church’s concerns. They still roasted the archdiocese. Needless to say, our friend Bill Donahue could provide a detailed and long list of this kind of treatment of the Church.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure there are many fair and gracious and honest journalists out there. Certainly I’ve seen any number of stories and articles treating the Church with fairness and showing the Church in a positive light. But I stand by my original thesis: the media is not merely a benign, objective player in our culture, but one that assumes an active role in attempting to shape the culture, both on the right and on the left. That culture is, in many ways (not in every way) and on both sides of the aisle, hostile to religion in general and Catholicism in particular. Much of the hostility toward the Church found in the media is rooted in that tension.

Obviously Jesus Christ had a terrible image problem with the Romans ahd the Pharisees.

I really admire Bishop Tobin for going on Hard Ball, especially considering this agenda driven Kenndy-Political set-up. I thought Bishop T looked pretty unaffected by Matthews, quite calm actually, but I don’t understand why he didn’t just say “Look, I’m a Bishop, my job isn’t to make laws, only to protect the souls of my flock who imperial their souls. What’s clearly my job is the protection of my flock by proclaiming the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church.” Heck, considering the audacity of Matthews, I’m not so sure Bishop T shouldn’t have thrown his own ‘hard ball; and thrown in a “hell segment.”
For any who want the “real story” of how American Catholicism got to where it is today, I highly recommend “The Faithful Departed’ by Philip Lowler. At the very least, read the reviews on Amazon, and all will make sense. Hint: Thank the Kennedys!

I really admire Bishop Tobin for going on Hard Ball, especially considering this agenda driven Kenndy-Political set-up. I thought Bishop T looked pretty unaffected by Matthews, quite calm actually, but I don’t understand why he didn’t just say “Look, I’m a Bishop, my job isn’t to make laws, only to protect the souls of my flock who imperial their souls. What’s clearly my job is the protection of my flock by proclaiming the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church.” Heck, considering the audacity of Matthews, I’m not so sure Bishop T shouldn’t have thrown his own ‘hard ball; and thrown in a “hell segment.”
For any who want the “real story” of how American Catholicism got to where it is today, I highly recommend “The Faithful Departed’ by Philip Lowler. At the very least, read the reviews on Amazon, and all will make sense. Hint: Thank the Kennedys!

It seems to me that the root of the problem is that Catholic Bishops have an abundance of arrogance and a lack of humility.

Are you serious, Ricardo?!!
Here’s the actual problem; are you listening?
The problem is that way too many bishops for way too many years have been, well, frankly, cowards. (And I’m not even talking about the Bernardins, Hubbards and Weaklands of the world, who are/were just flat-out frauds, and don’t even bear thinking about (except to ask God’s mercy upon them.))
Now we FINALLY have a few intrepid bishops, including Tobin, Chaput, Burke, and hopefully more to come, who are actually behaving like men, who have the audacity to preach the Gospel out of season, just as they’re called to do, and purported Catholics are having their fragile little feelings hurt over it, because they’re personal brand of the faith is about 1/4″ deep!!
Screw your “abundance of arrogance and a lack of humility”, Ricardo, and maybe try reading the Catechism; maybe THEN you’ll get.

Frank you have to give it to Ricardo that there are some arrogant bishops out there, like the Mahonys of the world!

…funny you should invoke the name of that poser from LA, RGB; his name specifically occurred to me when I was citing the frauds.
Anyway, the point is that Ricardo’s confusing arrogance with Bishop Tobin speaking the Truth that is the Gospel to the power that is the policital machinery which Patrick Kennedy and many, many other Catholics-in-name-only inhabit. The very suggestion intimates the gross ignorance that he been sown by the fraudulence and cowardice which for far too long has characterized the American hierarchy.

Deacon Greg,
I have to agree with Bob and John V. I have known only a few journalists, so I can’t say anything about them first hand. But I do read and view a lot of media and I can say something of that. The reality is that the media has a pronounced anti-Catholic bias. It certainly isn’t very deep most of the time, but it is quite wide.
Now, I for one don’t attach any or much malice to it, I think that it is a simple reflection of our society. It shows itself in the willful and/or lazy ignorance of Catholicism and Catholic reasoning. It shows how un-critical the media is when it comes to old anti-Catholic prejudices. Reporting is often based on what “everyone knows” about Catholicism rather than actual Catholicism. And Catholics, not even the practicing kind, aren’t immune to this. My Catholic school education was even tainted with an anti-Catholic bias. I learned what “everyone knows” about Luther and the Crusades and the Inquisition. What a shock then reading Luther himself was, or seeing scholarship from outside the US about the Crusades or the Inquisition. My painfully secular university was less anti-Catholic than my Catholic school, even though it was more malicious and intentional in its anti-Catholicism.

It is hard to argue that Chris Matthews demonstrated anti-Catholic bias; Matthews is a practicing Catholic. The interview was a representation of a very deep divide within the Church itself, between segments of the Clergy, between segments of the laity, and between some members of the Clergy and the laity. Matthews represented the view of many practicing Catholics quite well. Bishop Tobin is a an intelligent, eloquent spokesperson for his position. His position did not come off well because it doesn’t stand up to to the arguments raised by Matthews.

As someone who has worked on political campaigns at the state and national levels, I have found that many, if not most, politicians base their stands on how many votes they can expect to receive, not on what is right or wrong. As the great theologian HL Mencken once noted, if cannibals could vote, politicians would be serving up missionaries for dinner. For all the pro-life candidates elected since Roe v. Wade, I don’t see where it has done us much good. It seems most take our votes and then forget about us until the next election.

Chris Matthews was and is a blathering fool. “Practicing Catholic”? Please! The only reason he could be a practicing Catholic is because he obviously has a coward for a bishop in his diocese. No one who shows such ignorance and disdain for the teachings of our church should be viewed in any shape, manner or form as a spokesperson for same! The same is true for that shining beacon of catechetical ignorance Nancy Pelosi. Lets just coin a new acronym – CINO (Catholic in name only)!

Dave: in my mind, being hostile to the Church is not necessarily the same as being anti-Catholic. While the latter certainly includes the former, the former doesn’t necessarily include the latter. There are many in the Church, many even who still practice the faith and would never think of leaving, who are hostile to the Church for any number of reasons. Matthews’ behavior toward Bp. Tobin was certainly hostile, regardless of the strength or weakness of either of their arguments. It was obvious that Matthews was disgusted with Bp. Tobin, and that he has a very different template from which he considers the relationship between the Church and the state than has Bp. Tobin. For Matthews, Rep. Kennedy being a politician somehow exempts him from any spiritual guidance to be offered by his bishop on any matter that is in any way political, which abortion certainly is (though not only, which is, of course, what justifies Bp. Tobin’s rebuke of Rep. Kennedy as a pastor to a member of his flock). For Matthews, politics trumps any obligation a bishop might have toward the salvation of a Catholic politician’s soul.
Your Name: CINO is not a new acronym for “Catholic in name only.” It’s been around for a while. If you ask me, it’s been around too long and is thrown around too often.

To all with the modern “Meism” of their beliefs and attempt to attached to their faith or Church teachings. May God have mercy on your souls. I have friends who are reporters and they say many are liberal expounders of their beliefs and wish to force it upon the Catholic church. Sorry, but Bishop Sheen used the term even in the 50′s of fair weather Catholics. They use their Catholicism only to get votes and then forget about the teachings of the Church on Faith and Morals. I listen and then reread what Bishop Tobin said to Mr. Kennedy and it was not what Mr. Kennedy expoused to the press. The majority of the press is eager to print anything that they feel that will take down the Church. As one reporter friend told me because it sells newspapers. So, do they have a bias, yes, they do. He said many of his fellow reporters would do anything to take down the Church, even so called Catholics reporters if it doesn’t folow their beliefs.

Tried to find a way to get this information posted concerning the mis-informed comments of Governor Kaine on WTOP re: DC Council bill to approve same sex marriage. No way to do it so it is quoted here:
Recently the Archdiocese of Washington sent an alert that the District of Columbia City Council was nearing a vote on legalizing same sex marriage in the District of Columbia. That bill (18-482) is set for a vote in the full Council on December 1, 2009. It will require a second vote before it can be enacted, possibly before the end of December. The Archdiocese continues to oppose the bill and efforts to redefine marriage. However, because this bill has 10 co-sponsors in a 13-member Council, it is likely to pass. Our efforts therefore have focused on finding a balanced solution.
Why Our Concerns Remain
As the United States bishops recently stated, the legal recognition of same sex marriages “affects all people, married and non-married: not only at the fundamental levels of the good of the spouses, the good of children, the intrinsic dignity of every human person, and the common good, but also at the levels of education, cultural imagination and influence, and religious freedom.”
Religious freedom is at the heart of our debate and it is the very principle we defend when we urge the Council to include an exemption for religious organizations in this bill.
Why Our Concerns are Reasonable
In every state where same sex marriage has been legalized through the legislature, the final bills have made room for the free exercise of religion. As the scope of the legal debate surrounding same sex unions has evolved from one previously limited to domestic partnerships to one addressing same sex marriage, the need for protecting religious liberty has become even more pressing. Laws enacted in other states in the last few months have shown that it is possible to address such interests while preserving religious freedoms. Particularly in the District of Columbia, where protective federal statutes come into play, this balanced approach must be used as a guide to developing fair provisions for this bill.
Committed to Finding a Balance
The Archdiocese has sought to work with the Council to craft a bill that more fairly balances the interests of all involved. Representatives of the Archdiocese have continued to reach out to council members to explain why a meaningful religious exemption must be included in the bill. The Archbishop has written, publicly and privately, to urge the Council to amend this bill in a way that protects all interests involved, in particular, those of the most vulnerable.
Focused on the Facts
Sadly, much of the public discussion has been presented in the framework of words like “ultimatums” and “threats” supposedly made by the Archdiocese of Washington or Catholic Charities, even though this is not true. The Archdiocese recognizes the Council intends to legalize same sex marriage. All we have asked for is an opportunity to work with the Council to fashion legislation that makes room for everyone so we can all continue to work for the good of this community.
Committed to Serve
The Archdiocese of Washington and our agencies, including Catholic Charities, will continue to serve those in need without regard to race, gender, creed, nationality and sexual orientation, as we have for over 80 years, with the resources available to us. If governmental restrictions diminish those resources, we will look for other ways to replace them. A properly crafted religious exemption would help to protect ministries that serve the residents of this city. The Archdiocese and the Council should be able to work together to fashion a solution that achieves the best possible results for the people of the District of Columbia.
Why an Exemption Is a Workable Solution
The Church cannot abandon its beliefs about the nature and meaning of marriage. It can, instead, offer respect for other peoples’ views, yet reasonably request that all religious interests be protected. The Archdiocese is committed to a dignified debate in the public square, and encourages mutual respect for all persons participating in this dialogue. Because a reasonable accommodation on this issue seems possible, the Archdiocese believes both sides should mutually agree to work towards it.
For more information, visit http://www.MarriageMattersDC.org.

Gee Bob, way to pick apart with nuance, and miss your name’s main point that all too often the public face of the church is some idiot like Princess Pelosi, or until recently – Dead Ted (that’s Kennedy) for any lib out there who didn’t get that. Stop missing the facts by spending your time being too smart by half!