Could Parishes Fill the Social Welfare Gap?

 

During a recent Republican Party presidential candidate debate the following exchange took place as described in an ABC News story by Amy Bingham [You can also watch in the following YouTube video]:

CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer’s hypothetical question about whether an uninsured 30-year-old working man in coma should be treated prompted one of the most boisterous moments of audience participation in the CNN/Tea Party Express.

“What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself,” [Ron] Paul responded, adding, “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risk. This whole idea that you have to compare and take care of everybody…”

The audience erupted into cheers, cutting off the Congressman’s sentence.

After a pause, Blitzer followed up by asking “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” to which a small number of audience members shouted “Yeah!”

Paul, a doctor trained in obstetrics and gynecology, said when he got out of medical school in the 1960s “the churches took care of them.”

What could churches do today? What could Catholic parishes do more specifically? In the ongoing debates about the federal budget it is not unusual to see someone propose significant reductions or even an end to federal social welfare programs and that the country should instead rely on American churches and charities to fill the gap and help the needy and seniors.

For example, an article at American Vision (a self-described Christian non-profit organization that seeks to “restore America to its Biblical foundation—from Genesis to Revelation”) argues that, “Family, Church, and private charity can replace the Welfare State. ... [O]nly a small percentage of people truly do need wealth transfers in old age in order just to live a modest lifestyle, or especially just to survive. But once we reach that point, we are talking about an entirely different social circumstance: small cases can easily be met by private charity from families, businesses, and churches (as Paul commanded the churches to do by the way).”

In the Catholic blogosphere, similar arguments often include a reference to the principle of subsidiarity in an effort to engage the social teachings of the faith. The Catechism does note that, “The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.’ ... The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention” (1883, 1885).

However, this principle is limited to situations in which the local unit or community is able to address the problem(s) it is faced with (e.g., poverty, hunger, senior care). Could Catholic parishes be a significant part of a more local solution in replacing many of the functions of federal programs that provide assistance and health care to the poor and seniors? Is this a bit fairytale or a possible reality?

Data from a national survey of parishes for the Emerging Models of Pastoral Leadership project indicate that Catholic parishes in the United States have significant resources. For example, the average parish reports annual revenue of more than $695,000. Much of this, more than $477,000 per year on average, comes through weekly offertory collections from parishioners. However, the average parish has expenses of more than $626,000. This leaves little left over to deal with additional needs of the parish community that are not already being met in existing social assistance ministries and programs. Also, 30% of U.S. parishes indicate that their expenses exceed their revenue. Of those parishes reporting a deficit, the average size for the shortfall is 15.8% of revenue. Many of the parishes running deficits are in communities with some of the most dire economic conditions and therefore would have the most limited resources to respond to additional needs.

At the root of the issue is Catholic giving. If Catholic parishes are expected to take on significant new social assistance obligations (e.g., helping replace Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, food stamps) they would need significantly more in donations from parishioners than the current $9.57 given per registered household, per week (as estimated in the Emerging Models survey). Also, a strict adherence to the principle of subsidiarity would need some “elasticity” to allow for parishes within dioceses to cooperate so some of the parish collections from the wealthiest communities trickle over to parishes in communities facing higher levels of poverty and/or larger senior populations. 

In 2010, the federal government spent $68.3 billion on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (i.e., “food stamps”) providing children and low-income people access to food. More than 18.6 million households received this benefit at some point in the year.

In this same year, there were more than 77 million self-identified Catholics in the United States. CARA surveys estimate that about 68% of these Catholics attend Mass at least once a year and 56% are registered with a parish. Taking the larger of these two numbers, if we assume that 68% of Catholic households give an average of $9.57 every week to their parish (e.g., in pews, by mail, or electronically) this would result in a total weekly offertory nationally of more than $194 million from more than 20.3 million households. Assume this happens every week and you'd have a total of $10.1 billion for the year. That is an impressive total. But we know a full 68 percent of Catholic households are not giving this amount to their parish offertory every week and what is given is used to cover parish expenses which totaled an estimated $11.1 billion last year nationally (…the gap in offertory and costs is most often covered by other parish income from investments, other fundraising, and subsidies).

But then again, many argue that a cut in spending and taxes would lead to a sudden increase in charitable giving (I don't know of any empirical evidence or historical examples that would lead one to estimate that this would be likely). Let's assume the extraordinary. What if Catholics increased their giving by a factor of five and the average household offertory contribution was $48 per week. Parishes would then have annual revenue of $50.6 billion leaving $39.5 billion “left over” after covering expenses to spend elsewhere. If all of this were used to address hunger in lieu of federal money, it could provide 58% of the 2010 budget for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program. That is impressive and parishes may be able to do more with this funding than a large national bureaucracy can. But that is just food stamps. There is nothing left over for parishes to assist in filling other gaps if Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid also disappeared (all of which have budget numbers that make food stamps look like small change). More so this scenario still depends on the average Catholic being willing and able to give their parish nearly $50 per week! It all seems rather utopian when one looks at the real data.

Catholic parishes and many other Catholic charities, hospitals, and ministries already do extraordinary work in helping the needy in the United States and abroad. I have no doubt they would find a way to do even more if government social welfare programs were cut. With more contributions from Catholics they would be even better able to do so. But could parishes fully replace even a single significant social welfare obligation of the federal government? No. Not even if Catholics start giving five times more in offertory collections.

Some would likely respond that “social welfare programs have failed” because “there are still poor people” so we need to try something different (e.g., “let the churches take care of them”). My response to this always begins by noting that the policy and practice of the U.S. government (more specifically the Federal Reserve) is to maintain, at a minimum, 3% to 4% unemployment (i.e., NAIRU – the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment as lower levels of unemployment are thought to create inflationary pressures). When such a policy exists you will always have millions unemployed and they will be poor (the OECD estimates that NAIRU is actually about 5% to 6% in the U.S.). Second, when health insurance is so closely tied to employment and people get seriously ill and can no longer work… they lose the things they need most (an income and their insurance). Poverty will exist as long as you have people unable to afford essential medical care. Third, there comes a point when we reach an age where it is challenging to earn an income for ourselves. To the degree that we do not take adequate care of our oldest citizens—providing at least a basic standard of living and healthcare while acknowledging they may be unable to contribute to this at their age, there will always be poverty in America.

Catholic institutions have done, are doing, and will continue to do an enormous amount with what they have to combat poverty. But it is a quaint myth that the churches, or Catholic parishes more specifically, could somehow do all that is needed in 21st Century America to provide assistance to the poor and elderly if government programs were significantly cut or disappeared.

New Catholics, New Media: More 'Bread and Circus' than Eucharist

In a recent article in OSV, CARA researcher Melissa Cidade noted a surprising statistic: only 17% of adult Millennial Catholics (those born after 1981) are aware of liturgical changes that will occur at English language Masses on the first Sunday of Advent.

Millennials represent about one in five adult Catholics (19%) and the oldest members of this generation were in elementary school when the Internet began to gain widespread use in the United States. They are sometimes described as the digital or new media generation. Many in the Church assume that the way to connect with this emergent generation of Catholics is not through traditional print media, television, or radio but online—through blogs, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter accessed on smart phones, tablets, and e-readers. The hope is often stated that we may be able to use new media to get this generation “back into the real world pews” that are more often populated by their parents and grandparents.

The Catholic Press Association (CPA) of the United States and Canada recently commissioned CARA to conduct a national poll of adult Catholics to measure their media use. CARA partnered with Knowledge Networks to conduct the survey in May and June 2011. The survey was completed by 1,239 self-identified Catholics who were 18 years of age or older (resulting in a sampling margin of error of ±2.8 percentage points). The study also makes comparisons, where possible, to a parallel survey conducted by CARA in November and December 2005 for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Department of Communications regarding Catholic media use.

The findings (Download the Full Report) from these studies suggest that the emerging picture for new media use by Catholic adults overall—and especially among the Millennials is not as promising as many hope or assume. The problem is that putting something online is not the same as getting something on someone’s coffee table, front porch, or even in their mailbox. The Internet is a much more vast space and is navigated by search and social network. You can’t force people to consume your content. You likely won’t even get it on their computer screen or iPhone unless they are interested in it and looking for it.

First, the study shows that only a slight majority of Catholics (52%) pay “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of attention to national news (e.g., it is no surprise that many are unaware of the coming liturgical changes). In the new media age, they don’t have to. Thirty years ago many had only over-air television reception with three networks, and local radio and newspapers to choose from. The news was an inescapable part of the broadcast. With the development of cable television, satellite radio, the Internet, e-readers, etc. the content available to most has now expanded exponentially. In this new media environment, many have “narrowcasted” themselves into their interests—whatever these may be—and have largely tuned out the world that is not of their immediate interest. Entertainment has often trumped news, information, or other content when making these choices. Attention to news is lowest among young Catholics.

What about use of religious and spiritual content? Is Catholicism a part of adult Catholics’ narrowcasted media interests? The signs from the research suggest that too few Catholics are aware of and using religious new media resources for these to be considered a form of mass media. When it comes to Catholicism, more often than not, traditional media still have a much broader reach in a “new media” age.

While 22% of adult Millennial Catholics have read a print copy of their diocesan newspaper in the last three months (compared to 26% of all adult Catholics) only 4% of those in this generation have sought this out and read it online. 

Despite what conventional wisdom or anecdote may suggest, Millennials do not overwhelmingly prefer reading content online compared to print. A third of these respondents indicate a preference for online content (32%), while another third prefers reading print (33%). Thirty-five percent do not have a preference either way.

The study also shows that awareness of national Catholic media has dropped a bit in recent years. The survey respondents were provided a list of 28 national Catholic newspapers and magazines and asked about their awareness and readership of each of these. A majority, 56%, were not aware of any of the publications listed. When presented with this same list in 2005, a minority (46% of respondents), were not aware of any of the publications listed.

Overall, adult Catholics are most aware of the following national Catholic publications (i.e., more than 8% or 4.5 million adult Catholics): Catholic Digest (32%), Maryknoll (12%), Liguorian (9%), and Our Sunday Visitor (8%).  They were most likely to be aware of these same four publications in 2005. Adult Catholics are most likely to indicate reading the following national publications in print in the last three months: Catholic Digest (9%), Maryknoll (3%), Our Sunday Visitor (2%), and The Family Digest (2%).

Seventy percent of Millennials have no awareness of any of the major national print Catholic magazines and newspapers. Only one title, Catholic Digest, garners more than 7 percent awareness among Catholics under 30 and this publication has among the lowest web traffic of any title listed (Catholic Digest’s own tracking by Site Meter estimates globally a total of 423 visitors per day at the time of this post).

Of those Catholics who do read religious or spiritual content, most are doing so in print, not online. Catholics are also more likely to watch religious or spiritual video content on television than online and to listen to religious or spiritual audio over the radio or on a CD than in online podcasts. 

Of the new media offerings, Millennials are generally no more likely (accounting for margin of error) than older Catholics to say they have done anything online or through the use of e-readers related to religion or spiritually. Few Catholics report doing anything with new media that is related to religion and spirituality at all. It’s not that Catholics aren’t online or using new media. They just aren’t using these to do things related to their faith in any great number.

The study shows some evidence of younger Catholics going to the Internet for information on parish, diocesan, or school websites (see page 57 of the report). Yet, there is no evidence of widespread use of Catholic blogs, news, or entertainment media.

Seventy-one percent of Millennials have a social network profile of some kind (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn). However, only 43% of those in this youngest generation has one of these profiles and simply indicates that they are Catholic on them (i.e., 60% of those with profiles self-identity as Catholic on the profile).

Many of those who are using new media related to their religion and spirituality do not fit the stereotypical image that might first come to mind. The study identifies the typical Catholic who uses Facebook for following religious and spiritual content is not a Millennial at all. It is a non-Hispanic white, divorced, Vatican II Generation (age 51 to 68), woman, living in a home in the Midwest, with an income between $85,000 and $99,999 a year.

More troublesome for the future of Catholic new media is evidence of an apparent drop in interest in anything Catholic online in recent years. We have commented on this elsewhere and provided a new permanent tracking feature at the bottom of this blog. While U.S. Google search volumes for anything regarding religion and spirituality have remained relatively steady since 2004, there is a noticeable drop in search volume for anything containing the word Catholic that departs from the religion and spirituality trend beginning in 2007 and worsening since.

The news on YouTube is not much better. For example, the Vatican has created a channel that regularly includes videos of Pope Benedict XVI. At this time more than 33,700 subscribe and more than 5.7 million views of videos on the channel have been made. Even with this reach the Vatican’s channel ranks #3,562 on YouTube in video’s viewed globally (the U.S. traffic rank for the vatican.va website is a bit higher at #2,361). The single most viewed video on the Vatican’s channel was posted in January 2009 and includes images of Vatican Communications with background music. It has more than 100,000 views and is 1.36 minutes in length.

What is ahead of the Vatican? If you are exceptionally daring and not easily offended, visit the YouTube rankings yourself and have a look. Search for any video including a “Catholic” reference and sort by “most views.” But be very cautious as there is a vast amount of offensive content (with many, many views) and you’ll find much of it to be designed for entertainment rather than anything informational, educational, or devotional. You might come across “The Patron Saint of YouTube,” by author John Green, a video that currently ranks a bit above the Vatican’s most viewed content at 138,000 views. The content is by no means reverent (he is not Catholic) and is likely to be objectionable to some. But it is an example of a guy in his home office with a camera talking about Catholic saints that can pull a larger crowd online than anything the Vatican puts on YouTube. The most subscribed channel on YouTube belongs to Ray William Johnson, a comedian who reviews “viral videos” with an adult-themed commentary (content is offensive). More than 4.5 million subscribe to his channel generating 1.2 billion views. That is 133 times larger than the Vatican channel’s subscription count with more than 210 times the number of videos viewed. Ray’s channel is representative of what the Church faces in its competition for online views of content. Right now it is no competition. [For more research about YouTube watch this excellent lecture, with no offensive content, by Professor Mike Wesch from Kansas State University.]

The current discourse surrounding Catholic new media is often very rosy and optimistic. The data just do not match this conversation—yet. Traditional media sources continue to be more often used and preferred by Catholics for religious and spiritual content.

The survey’s respondents were asked in an open-ended question, “How would you feel if print versions of Catholic newspapers and magazines—including your diocesan newspaper or magazine—ceased publication and moved their operations entirely online?” Only 18% of those responding to the question provided a response that included a comment that was positive about this hypothetical proposition. Most either expressed a negative opinion (39%) or a neutral or mixed opinion (39%). Four percent provided a comment that could not be coded as positive, negative, neutral, or mixed. Negative comments often referenced a personal preference for print versus online content or a concern that others—especially the elderly and poor—would be unable to gain access to an online-only publication. Positive and mixed comments often cited an online publication as being more environmentally friendly and cheaper for dioceses to produce.

Although Millennial Catholics are using new media frequently, they have yet to use it for religion and spirituality in any great number. Will they ever? How can this be achieved? Those are unanswered and difficult questions for now. But what can be concluded is that creating content for new media does not mean people will use it. The era of broadcasting is over. In a narrowcasted world, people have to be aware of and want to visit and use your content. Right now not enough Catholics seem interested or aware. Is it the content? Is it the crowded media environment? Is it a culture consumed by pop media and entertainment? Is it secularization? This study generated just as many questions as it did answers. New media will require new research and a new understanding.

You likely have questions and comments (let me guess)…

Q: Only 26% of adult Catholics regularly read a diocesan newspaper or magazine? That is disappointing.

A: Sure it would be great if those numbers were higher (note that 55% of weekly Mass attenders regularly read) but this number is also equivalent to 14.8 million adults, which represent about 5 percent of the total U.S. population. That means 1 in 20 Americans regularly read these publications. If diocesan newspapers and magazines were a television show they would be in the top 10 of the Nielsen Ratings in terms of people reached. Diocesan publications collectively also have a broader reach than the circulation of any magazine not printed by American Association of Retired Persons (The AARP Bulletin circulates at more than 23 million copies). Also, unlike secular newspapers and magazines that are experiencing rapid declines in circulation and readership, use of print copies of diocesan newspapers and magazines has been stable during the 2005 to 2011 period.

Q: I never see young people reading print publications. There is always a device in their hands accessing and posting things online. 

A: But how often are they doing something related to their religion on those devices? The study indicates that this is not happening often or in great numbers. Also, when young people are looking for news and information about their religion or about what is going on in their diocese the study indicates this is still being done most often using traditional media.  

Q: There never has been a major Catholic presence in American media. Why would you assume there should be one now? 

A: You may recall that first on radio and then on television The Most Rev. Fulton Sheen was an unprecedented media superstar in his time (and still reaches many today in recordings). His television lectures, for which he won an Emmy, regularly competed against Milton Berle and Frank Sinatra on network television and often came out on top in ratings. At its height, his show was watched by more than 30 million people. Will there ever be someone like him again that can pull in that audience in the narrowcasted media environment today?





Q: What about EWTN? 

A: In our 2005 study, 9% of adult Catholics indicated that they have watched EWTN at least once in the six months prior to being surveyed (this question was not replicated in the 2011 study). The programming this channel provides (over television, radio, and online) is a big part of the U.S. Catholic media presence and EWTN is obviously a very successful media organization. However, estimates for ratings are difficult to find and its content does not likely compete well with other network or cable programming on the national level. EWTN more often speaks to the number of homes (and countries) its programming can reach rather than specific numbers of viewers, listeners, or readers. 

Q: What about catholic.org? 

A: For years, if you searched for “Catholic” online this would be the first website in your results and one of the sites with the most traffic. Its continued presence in this position generates many visits and views and you can see the estimated analytics for the site from both Google, and Quantcast. These appear to track between 20,000 to 60,000 visitors per day from the United States to the website (Note: catholic.org's internal tracking registers a higher number of visitors). This is one of the most successful Catholic websites on the Internet. But the volume of traffic to the site is not yet in the “major” media presence range. However, given its placement in search results catholic.org is likely the most valuable Catholic-themed real estate in cyberspace other than vatican.va.

Q: What about _____________'s blog? 

A: There certainly is no shortage of very successful Catholic blogs with significant followings (e.g., Whispers in the Loggia, OSV Daily Take,  Fallible Blogma, USCCB Media Blog, The Gospel in the Digital Age, American Papist, In All Things, Googling God, PrayTell, U.S. Catholic Blog, The Deacon's Bench, Dating God, Catholic Culture, American Catholic... ). But these typically do not reach audiences to where they would be considered mass media. The survey results indicate that only 6% of Catholic adults (and 8% of Millennials) read a religious or spiritual blog in the three months prior to being surveyed. More so this 6% likely represents a great variety of different blogs.

Blame Popestock?

Apparently Madrid will profit from World Youth Day. The Chamber of Commerce in Spain’s capital is estimating Catholic visitors brought in 160 million euros (or about $230 million) to the city. I’ve read this in Spanish newspapers but have yet to see it in the American press. Someone who read the Aug. 15 New York Times story “Catholic Clergy Protest Pope’s Visit, and Its Price Tag” (in the A section, page 5; by Suzanne Daley) will likely be surprised. The Rev. Eubilio Rodríguez is the featured source of the story (including his photo, arms crossed, looking angrily into the camera):

“How, he asks, can the Roman Catholic Church be getting ready for a lavish $72 million celebration in this city — some of it paid for with tax dollars — when Spain is in the midst of an austerity drive, the unemployment rate for young people is 40 percent and his parishioners are losing their homes to foreclosure every day?

‘It is scandalous, the price,’ he said. ‘It is shameful. It discredits the church.’”

The story did not include any quotes or references from an independent economist or analyst who might support (or deny) Father Rodríguez’s claims regarding this “lavish” event (he would presumably disregard this because the story informs us that he believes “costs are always fuzzy”). The story does note (in the eighth paragraph) that organizers clarified that the costs are pre-paid by those registered for WYD and corporate sponsors but then adds “critics are calling the claims ridiculous.” WYD was expected to impact the state only in terms of its costs for extra police and security (in part due to the threat of protests about the cost of the event), tax write-offs for corporate sponsors covering costs, and reductions in bus and train fares. At the same time, all of these costs were expected to be significantly outweighed by the financial gains brought by WYD visitors who were buying local goods and services, taking bus and train trips that otherwise would never have occurred. 

The New York Times followed this story with another a few days later entitled, “Protests Greet Visiting Pope as Austerity Grips Spain” (in the A section, page 8; by Raphael Minder):

“Even before the pope’s arrival, the visit was overshadowed by violent clashes in Madrid late Wednesday between the police and protesters furious over its cost to Spain, which they contended was excessive at a time when many Spaniards are scraping by.” 

Yet, the most important part of this story, and perhaps in all of the New York Times coverage of WYD, appears much later—in the very last sentence of the last paragraph, which reads:

“On Wednesday, José Blanco, spokesman for the government and one of Mr. Zapatero’s most senior ministers, added his support, saying that the government’s calculations showed that the event would yield a financial benefit for the Spanish economy.”

This does not seem to fit with the economic analysis of Father Rodríguez that was so prominently featured in the New York Times on August 15. How did this come to be buried in the last line of a follow-up story? I think I understand the discrepency better after reading the comments of Erik Wemple, of The Washington Post, who commented on Archbishop Charles Chaput’s criticism of the New York Times and other national media outlets. In Madrid, Chaput said:

“These are secular operations focused on making a profit. They have very little sympathy for the Catholic faith, and quite a lot of aggressive skepticism toward any religious community that claims to preach and teach God’s truth.”

Wemple’s response:

“Check, check and check. Chaput’s description is something that editors at the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN and MSNBC would support, if not frame and post as a mission statement. News organizations should have little sympathy for any entity as powerful as the Catholic Church. And are you really going to pound the media for practicing aggressive skepticism?”

Wait, what? These news organizations have sympathy towards some institutions (and contempt for others) based on how “powerful” they are? First, news organizations should report the news… reality is what matters and anything else likely represents bias. Second, did he say powerful? As a survey researcher I don’t often see the “power” of the Church in the attitudes or behaviors of American Catholics. If the bishops have some great command over the U.S. Catholic masses (or even its most prominent Catholic politicians) the evidence is weak. Finally, if the New York Times was practicing “aggressive skepticism,” the claims made by Father Rodríguez could have used a heavy dose of this medicine.

Another story featuring criticism of the Church by priests appeared on July 22 in the Times entitled, “In 3 Countries, Challenging the Vatican on Female Priests” (in the A section, page 1; by Laurie Goodstein). At first I thought this might be another of the infamous New York Times “trend” stories (more on this at Slate) where a reporter connects relatively obscure and separate events creating a narrative of the new realities facing us that we just haven’t noticed yet (the New York Times does not own a monopoly on this type of story but it is an industry leader. These are the types of stories that make statisticians cry). Examples include the emerging “realities” that more parents are sending their children to summer camp on private airplanes, growing numbers are also building playhouses for $100,000s, book clubs and Tupperware parties are being replaced by pole dancing, having a gut is now cool, women are all starting to dress like Elaine from Seinfeld, more and more single men love cats, alleged criminals are often Yankee fans, Christians are turning to mixed martial arts, and girls tournament sports are helping the economy.

Wait let me read that last one again. If you get hundreds of young people in one location they actually help the economy? I wonder what would happen if you had more than a million young visitors in one city?... Back to the July story… It turns out the reporter wasn’t connecting any dots at all. It wasn’t a New York Times trend story. It was heavily based on dots already connected in a press release. And then it hit me. Sympathies. Searching the New York Times database one finds prominent quotes (in lede paragraphs) from a small set of Church critics that get repeated coverage. I am by no means arguing that these voices do not deserve to be in the New York Times (I was once a reporter myself and deplore any notion of censorship or quieting dissent in the press), but it is unusual how these critics (regardless of the factual nature of their claims) seem to now be driving the coverage of the New York Times and in some cases almost writing its headlines. Criticism is needed when it has a basis in fact. Some of the criticism of the Church appearing in the New York Times appears to have a tenuous relationship with reality (e.g. Father Rodríguez) and good reporters should weed this out by checking data, conferring with experts, and simply applying some common sense. And by no means am I arguing Church leaders should be driving the coverage of the New York Times either! What should be? Facts, reality...

I believe part of the heavy reliance on critics is related to the New York Times devotion to the 1990s journalism school ethos of “how to be fair and unbiased.” Reality doesn’t matter (from a postmodern point of view it probably doesn’t even exist) and as long as you get quotes from both sides (all stories have two sides; bury the quote from the point of view you personally like less and put the one you favor in the headline and lede) you are reporting in a balanced manner.

I fully understand those who are critical of the Church for the sex abuse crisis and how it handled these crimes. Count me as a critic on this issue as well and I fully expect this topic will continue to be in the news for years where critics voices should be prominent. But I understand that Catholicism is much more than this crisis. There are more than 1 billion Catholics in this world and to them their faith is many things. Many good things and some bad. Catholics are painfully aware of the bad and are ashamed and angered by news of clergy sex abuse. But most are not giving up on their Church, their faith. More than 1 million young Catholics in Madrid made that statement last week as clearly as ever. That was news but it just didn’t make it in the headlines (or even the last paragraph!), which instead were all about WYD “price tags.” Will there be headlines now about the profits? Does someone need to send a press release on this?

The New York Times has claimed that it has no bias against the Catholic Church (1, 2). But I believe recent stories have made transparent some contempt for the Church. When I read about other religious faiths in the New York Times I don’t see the coverage of those institutions to be driven by their critics. I don’t see the adversarial point vs. counter-point approach that appears in almost any story the New York Times does about Catholicism. In the past, even when I found fault with their reporting, I have still defended the New York Times as mostly just using the healthy journalistic skepticism that Wemple highlights (which is good when applied to all sources). Yet, given the New York Times’ coverage of WYD and other recent stories, I am beginning to think Archbishop Chaput made some valid points in his comments.

Above photo courtesy of adKinn at Flickr Creative Commons.