Media gives greater attention to dead gorilla than beheaded Christians

Since April of 2014 I have maintained an ongoing daily update of news articles regarding the Islamic State. I have done the same with news articles concerning the Islamic State in West Africa (formerly known as Boko Haram) since February 2015.

I have invested much of my time in this way both because reading these stories helps focus my prayers for those suffering so greatly and because most of the media does not adequately or accurately report on the Islamic State. As evidence of this, consider the media coverage given to the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians by the Islamic State on the shores of Libya and the recent killing of a gorilla in the Cincinnati Zoo to keep a child safe:

Since the death of Harambe the gorilla through Thursday morning, the three networks have dedicated a total of 1 hour, 28 minutes, 17 seconds to the story during their morning and evening news shows.

....

In contrast, since February 2015, the networks have offered 14 minutes, 30 seconds total to the 21 Egyptian Christians beheaded by ISIS in Libya [more].

It should be clear every man and woman of good will which of these two situations deserves the greater treatment by the news media. It should also be clear why you cannot trust the news media.

UPDATED: Even Catholic headlines are misleading about the washing of feet

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments released today a decree signed on 6 January 2016 by His Eminence Robert Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the same Congregation, revising the text of the rubrics of the Roman Missal regarding whose feet may be washed during the Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy Thursday. Why it took two weeks to make the decree public is anyone's good guess.

The text of the earlier rubric clearly stated that the feet of viri selecti, which can only be translated as "select men," could be washed. It should be noted that the washing of feet was - and remains - optional; it is not required. Many - at least in the United States of America - took offense to this rubric and violated it each year by washing the feet of women, boys, and (rarely) girls.

The revised text of the rubric now states that the feet of qui selecti sunt, which can be translated as "those chosen," may be washed. Those chosen are to come from the populo Dei, from "the people of God," that is, from among those who have received the grace of Baptism. As the Code of Canon Law states: "Christ's faithful are those who, since they are incorporated into Christ through baptism, are constituted the people of God" (canon 204 § 1).

The decree goes on to say that those chosen may be selected from the following groups within the people of God: "men and women, and conveniently from young and old, healthy and ill, clerics, consecrated [men and women], laity." But you might never know this from the headlines in the Catholic media.

The headline from Crux declares, "Francis changes the rules: Women can have their feet washed on Holy Thursday." What about boys and girls?

The Catholic Herald says, "Pope Francis opens Holy Thursday foot-washing rite to women." What about boys and girls?

The National Catholic Reporter's headline reads, "Pope's decree opens Holy Thursday foot washings to women and girls." What about boys? What is more, it is not a decree from Pope Francis, but from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

America Magazine declares by way of its headline, "Pope Francis opens foot-washing rite to women in gesture of inclusion." What about the inclusion of boys and girls?

[UPDATE: The headline of the Catholic News Agency says, "Women may now have their feet washed at Holy Thursday Mass, Pope says, and that of Zenit says, "Pope decrees that Holy Thursday foot washing ceremony can include women." What about boys and girls? Zenit's lede goes a bid further, saying, "Those chosen should represent the entire people of God: Young and old, healthy and sick," but that simply isn't true. The decree says that those chosen can come from these goups, but it does not say they must or should come from them.]

However, there is one headline that gets it right, that of the National Catholic Register: "Pope changes rules for washing of feet on Holy Thursday."

[UPDATE: The headline of the Catholic News Service also gets it when it says, "Foot-washing ritual not limited to men, Vatican says in new decree." It should not be a surprise that the headline from News.va correctly says "the Pope decrees that not only men may be chosen for the washing of the feet in the Liturgy of Holy Thursday, as does Vatican Radio when it says, "Pope changes Holy Thursday decree to include all people of God."]

The change the Holy Father directed be made to the rubric affects more than just women; it also affects boys and girls. Headline writers would do well to recognize this and reflect it, so as not to mislead the faithful.

Remember: You cannot put too much trust in the media, not even in the Catholic media.

Pope Francis orders regulations of the Roman Curia "be scrupulously followed"

Just a few days after the Holy Father Pope Francis railed against the doctors of the law, the same Roman Pontiff has ordered the ecclesial policies found in Pastor Bonus and in the General Regulations of the Roman Curia to "be scrupulously observed."

The directive is given in a letter he sent yesterday to his Secretary of State, Pietro Cardinal Parolin, "both to guarantee the orderly conduct of work in the Roman Curia and in the institutions connected to the Holy See, and to ensure equitable treatment of employees and collaborators, also in economic terms."

The Holy Father has directed Cardinal Parolin to bring "the provisions I have mentioned ... to the attention of all the Superiors of the Dicasteries, the Offices and Bodies of the Roman Curia, as well as the Commissions, Committees and connected Institutions, as well as the Governorate, highlighting in particular the aspects requiring special attention, and that supervision of compliance be exercised."

Does this sound like the Pope Francis you read about in the newspapers and hear about on the morning and evening news shows? 

This is yet another example of why you cannot trust the media - whether secular or Catholic - to give a consistently authentic presentation of the words and deeds of Pope Francis. The above mentioned letter does not fit the narrative - whether "progressive" or "conservative" into which Pope Francis has been inserted since the first day of his pontificate.

After the Synod, a call for calm and the regaining of heads

For reasons I cannot quite grasp, the Catholic blogging world suffered a serious setback following the resignation of His Holiness Benedict XVI. We saw a demonstration of this setback over the past few weeks as many Catholic bloggers - even those who were quite sensible during the pontificate of Benedict XVI - lost their heads over the Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops which concludes today.

So far as I can tell, the reason for this setback has not so much to do with the election and the pontificate of His Holiness Pope Francis as it has to do with the politicization of the Church by her members. Simply recall how many bloggers were adamant that this synod was the "Synod of Doom" and would destroy the Church because Pope Francis and the Synod were bound and determined to change both Catholic doctrine and discipline.

N.B.: These claims were repeatedly made despite the fact that Pope Francis never said any such thing. People interpreted his words in this manner, but he himself never said it. Nor have Synod Fathers recommended any such changing in their final document which they submitted yesterday to the Holy Father Several in the media, both secular and Catholic, are claiming the Synod Fathers recommend changes, but the burden of proof is on them; their claims are not substantiated in the document. By a strange twist of their own manipulations all along, they have to insist that the synod is changing things, or else everyone will see that their narrative about Pope Francis has been false from the start and they lose all credibility. Frankly, they shouldn't have any credibility anyway.

All along the way, far too many Catholics ignored the fact any Synod of Bishops - whether ordinary or extraordinary - only meets "to discuss the questions for consideration and express its wishes but not to resolve them or issue decrees about them unless in certain cases the Roman Pontiff has endowed it with deliberative power, in which case he ratifies the decisions of the synod" (canon 343). Pope Francis, of course, never endowed this synod with deliberative power, nor did he ever indicate a possibility that he might do so.

Several days into the synod, the highly respected John L. Allen, Jr. wrote of what he called "the dirty little secret" about the media coverage surrounding the synod:

The dirty little secret is that we’re not really covering the synod at all. For the most part, we’re covering people telling us about the synod, which is an entirely different enterprise.

To actually cover the synod would mean being inside the hall during the discussions, being able to develop our own impressions of what’s being said, to gauge the reaction, to watch body language and intonation and atmosphere, and to get an overall sense of emerging themes for ourselves [more].

Too many people ignored this wise caution and took for Gospel truth everything reported in the media, despite the many contradictory reports from day to day.

Simply consider this: On October 8th, we were told the Synod Fathers said the Instrumentum Laboris - the document governing their work - was not too Western in its approach. Two days later, Bishop Thornton said the document did contain too much of a Western perspective. The next day, Cardinal Ouedraogo seemed to agree with Bishop Thornon, saying that while the document focused on Western difficulties confronting the family, his small group focused on issues confronting the family in Africa, implying these were not addressed in the Instrumentum Laboris. How is one to make sense of this if even the Synod Fathers cannot agree on what was happening within the synod hall?

These confusions and contradictions led to widespread panic and fear mongering, rather than to deep prayer. This was most unfortunate and demonstrated those stoking these fears viewed the Church - or at least the synod - not so much in terms of faith as in terms of politics. They forgot that a synod cannot change doctrine or discipline, that a synod only makes recommendations, recommendations that the Holy Father may or may not accept. The various impressions of what was happening with the synod hall simply could not be conflated together into a unified narrative. John L. Allen, Jr., alone noted three different narratives claiming to come out of the synod.

Now that the synod is (almost) over, I hope Catholic bloggers will regain their heads and get back to the work of imbuing the Internet with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is time to stop seeing Pope Francis as the enemy and to see him for who he is, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

It is time to renew our trust in the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit "will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13) and that the gates of hell "shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). During the synod, several people told me such trust was both simplistic and naive, but such has, of course, turned out to be well placed.

It is time to renew our confidence in the doctrine of papal infallibility, that the Pope cannot err when enunciating the teaching of the Church on matters of faith and morals.

It is time to stop to insinuating views of others without any corroborating evidence by their own words.

It is time to take up our abode in the pierced side of Christ like the dove who makes its whom in the clefts of the rock (see Song of Songs 2:14).

It is simply time to calm down because, as Tim Stanley wrote, "nothing of substance has changed."

UPDATED: Three Kentucky County Clerks Are Not Issuing Marriage Licenses. Why Is Kim Davis the Only in Jail and the Only One You Know About?

I noted yesterday that Kim Davis is not the only county clerk in Kentucky who is not issuing marriage licenses in the wake of the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges. The Washington Post reports that "two other clerks in Kentucky have taken a similar stand," though it does not provide the names of the other two clerks or what is meant by "similar." Even so, Davis seems to be the only one facing the wrath of the courts. Davis seems to be the only one facing the condemnation of the media. Davis is the only sitting in jail. Why?

The answer, I suspected, had something to do with Davis' past, but I did not want to believe the media could be so fickle and full of spite (though I know they have been, often are, and will likely continue to be in the future). Davis has been married and divorced several times. This, I suspected, was the reason the focus is on her, but I didn't want to believe it to be true. After all, her opponents are the ones always crying for tolerance and love and acceptance. Her opponents are the ones always condemning any sign of hypocrisy. How, then, and why, could they be so intolerant, so hateful, so un-accepting - so hypocritical - in their reactions to Davis' following of her conscience, which they frequently tell us we have to do?

Writing in The Federalist a few days ago and only seen by me this morning, Mollie Hemingway explored this very question. After noting that Davis' divorces and marriages took place before her conversation as an Apostolic Christian (which is no small misnomer, but that's a question for another day), which means she her refusal to issue marriage licenses now is not a matter of hypocrisy:

Now, any personal failings on her part are actually irrelevant to her legal argument, however much fun the media has in slut-shaming her. But I am hard-pressed to understand how she can be a hypocrite for failing to perfectly adhere to teachings of a religion she wasn’t even part of! Hypocrisy isn’t failing to practice what you preach. Hypocrisy is pretending to have beliefs that you don’t actually have.

After providing a large number of examples of the media attacking Davis because of her past (which bears no real impact on the fundamental question at hand, that is, of the free exercise of religion),  Hemingway goes on to note - quite rightly - that 

Ms. Davis has a record of Biblical transgressions. So do we all. She will continue to sin in the years to come. What she has found in her conversion to Christianity, however, is forgiveness of sins. Regardless of the media’s strong views in favor of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, it would be nice if they took the time to at least understand this central teaching of the Christian faith before attempting to report on it.

Is it possible that the other two County Clerks in Kentucky who, like Davis, are not issuing marriage licenses do not have such a questionable past and so are not ripe targets for the media? The evidence so far seems to indicate an affirmative response. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. It might be, for example, that the other two clerks are allowing their staffs to issue marriage licenses (I simply don't know and have not yet found the information).

We have now seen why the most frequent attack against Davis, that she is a hypocrite, is unfounded. What, then, about the hypocrisy of the media? For this, I turn to the blog of a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America in a post where she explains why she can't hate Kim Davis.

Nancy acknowledges her support of the LGBT movement and agrees that Davis should now be in jail. Still, she is trouble because, as she says, many of those who disagree with Davis and support same-sex marriage - and many others on what is normally seen as "the Left" - "seem to thrive on having someone to hate." She continues:

Because we perceive ourselves as open-minded, loving people, our hate must be justified, so we demonize the object of our hatred as someone who is pure evil, through and through. But folks, there is no truth in the demonization of others. The truth is, there is evil in each of us, just as there is good in each of us.

The demonization of Kim Davis helps otherwise kind people rationalize the venom they spew about her. There are tweets going around that have supposedly been sent from the person who works next to her. They are shared as if they are proof that the woman is crazy. I’m having trouble understanding how that might justify hating her, even if it were true. A lot of folks have made a huge deal out of the fact that she was married four times. It’s viewed as a sign of her hypocrisy about what constitutes a Biblical marriage, and that may well be. But if we’re going to start hating everyone who is hypocritical, we’d better avoid mirrors. As a person who has been divorced twice, when I heard she had been married four times, I felt compassion for her. No doubt, as someone who considers herself a Christian, her divorces are a source of great shame in her life. Attacking her shame is certainly an effective way to hurt her, if that is the goal. Those of us who have been publically [sic] shamed by others know that all too well.

Powerful words, these.

Kim Davis is not the only county clerk in Kentucky not issuing marriage licenses. We do not know about them, but - thanks to the investigative reporting of the media - we know about Davis' past because the media wants to use her failures to argue against her stand.

UPDATE 1:

A friend from college, who blogs at Brian's Coffeehouse, asked a good question on Facebook:

Did the media originate the story, or did they report on it because it was high-profile due to the court cases? The first I heard of this was when the Supreme Court weighed in. It is the judge who is saying she must be kept in jail.

I don't know the answer to this question because I haven't followed this story from the beginning; I've only been catching up on it over the last couple of days. Do you know the answer to his question?

Papal valet carries papal palm and briefcase

Remember when the Catholic media and the secular media made Pope Francis out to be the most humble man on the planet simply because he carried his own briefcase onto a plane on the way to the World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro? In case you don't, here's one of the photos:

PHOTO: Telenews/EPA

Curiously, a picture was taken yesterday following the Palm Sunday Mass of Pope Francis walking with Archbishop Ganswein which shows Pope Francis' valet carrying not only the Pontiff's bag, but also his palm:

PHOTO: CNS

This is a photo you don't likely see in the Catholic media or in the secular media. It's also not the only one of its kind. Consider this photo taken April 29, 2014:

PHOTO: CNS/Paul Haring

I am not sharing these photos with you because I do not like Pope Francis; rather, I am sharing these photos with you as a way of demonstrating why you should not simply follow the media - whether Catholic or secular - to know what Pope Francis does or says (as I have also urged here and here, and probably elsewhere besides).

Ignoring Hitler did not stop him, and ignoring the Islamic State will not stop it, either

For reasons that I cannot fathom, NBC did not cover the kidnapping of some 150 Assyrian Christians by the Islamic State. NBC was not alone in this, as Telemundo and Univison also did not cover it, and ABC and CBS gave it only a passing mention.

It has been suggested for some time now - by those both within and without the media - that the media should not cover the activities and atrocities of the Islamic State because doing so gives them more exposure and turns the jihadists into celebrities.

As you might imagine, I have never agreed with this line of thinking because it is akin to saying, "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." It seems to indicate a certain line of thinking that if we ignore the Islamic State it will lose influence and fade away. This is simply foolish and very dangerous.

The argument makes as much sense as arguing that the media should not have covered the growing influence and strength of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis or the horrors of the Holocaust. No one - so far as I have seen - would make this argument about the Nazis, so why use it in reference to the Islamic State?

In many ways, though, too many people - both within and without the media - did in fact remain silent. They refused to see evil, hear evil, and speak of evil and so Hitler rose to power and he and his Nazis moved to eradicate the Jews, as this video demonstrates all too well:

Because people did not speak out and act forcefully when they knew full well horrendous evils were being committed by the Nazis, 11,000,000,000 were killed.

It happened not that long ago, and it can happen again today. I dare say it will, unless we change our response to the Islamic State.

Ignoring Hitler did not stop him. Ignoring the Islamic State will not stop it.

BREAKING NEWS: Pope Francis wears a baseball cap!

I know this is something I simply need to "get over," but headlines like this irritate me to no end: "Pope Francis tries on baseball cap during his general audience." Am I the only one who wants to know, "Who cares?"

It isn't that the daily activities of Pope Francis aren't important, but is his attempt to wear a baseball cap really all that newsworthy? I say "attempt" for a reason:

Perhaps he hasn't warn a baseball cap before. They haven't been as popular in most parts of the world as they have been in the United States of America.

Even if this were news, where were the same headlines when his predecessor Benedict XVI wore a sombrero?

Not just once, but twice:

Maybe that's why it wasn't news.

But what about the time he put on a hardhat?

What the policeman's hat he tried on?

He tried on several on styles of hats at his Wednesday Audiences, as well, but I don't want to spend too much time looking for them. Of course, though, we cannot that Benedict XVI also tried on a baseball cap:

Please, don't pay too much attention when the media reports about the activities of the Pope.

UPDATED: Why isn't the media covering Cardinal Kaspar's words about the African Bishops?

DEVELOPING: His Eminence Cardinal Kaspar has denied both having an interview with Zenit and speaking about the African Bishops. This is curious. And a bit bizarre.

UPDATE: Edward Pentin has released a statement in response to Cardinal Kaspar's claims above. Pentin says:

His Eminence Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke to me and two other journalists, one British, the other French, around 7.15pm on Tuesday as he left the Synod hall.

I transcribed the recording of our conversation, and my iPhone on which I recorded the exchange was visible. I introduced myself as a journalist with the [National Catholic] Register, and the others also introduced themselves as journalists. I therefore figured the interview was on the record and His Eminence appeared happy to talk with us. In the end, I posted the full interview in ZENIT rather than the Register [more].

 This doesn't look good for Cardinal Kaspar.

ORIGINAL POST: 

In an interview yesterday with Zenit about the ongoing drama that is the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kaspar all but said the African Bishops should be quiet:

ZENIT: It has been said that he added five special rapporteurs on Friday to help the general rapporteur, Cardinal Peter Erdo. Is that because he’s trying to push things through according to his wishes?

Cardinal Kasper: I do not see this going on in the Pope’s head. But I think the majority of these five people are open people who want to go on with this. The problem, as well, is that there are different problems of different continents and different cultures. Africa is totally different from the West. Also Asian and Muslim countries, they’re very different, especially about gays. You can’t speak about this with Africans and people of Muslim countries. It’s not possible. It’s a taboo. For us, we say we ought not to discriminate, we don’t want to discriminate in certain respects.

ZENIT: But are African participants listened to in this regard?

Cardinal Kasper: No, the majority of them [who hold these views won’t speak about them].

ZENIT: They’re not listened to?

Cardinal Kasper: In Africa of course [their views are listened to], where it’s a taboo.

ZENIT: What has changed for you, regarding the methodology of this synod?

Cardinal Kasper: I think in the end there must be a general line in the Church, general criteria, but then the questions of Africa we cannot solve. There must be space also for the local bishops’ conferences to solve their problems but I’d say with Africa it’s impossible [for us to solve]. But they should not tell us too much what we have to do.

I cannot agree with Cardinal Kaspar in this, for two reasons.

Africa is one of the places in the world where the Church is booming. It is not booming, to put it mildly, in Germany. It may well be that the African Bishops know something the German (and even European and North American) Bishops do not.

This Synod has been touted as an opportunity for everyone to speak freely, without, as Pope Francis said, without fear:

Everyone needs to say what one feels duty-bound in the Lord to say: without respect for human considerations, without fear. And, at the same time, one must listen with humility and welcome with an open heart what the brothers say.

It seems that Cardinal Kaspar, who has claimed only to be expressing the thoughts of the Pope with his suggestions about the reception of Holy Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, has not taken these words of the Pontiff to heart. What Cardinal Kaspar advocates by telling the African Bishops to be quiet is simply not synodality.

At the same, if the African Bishops should not tell the European and North American Bishops what they have to do, why can the North American and European Bishops tell the African Bishops what they have to do? Surely there cannot be two approaches issued by the Synod for two different parts of the world; that would only bring the Catholic Church under the umbrella of the Anglican Communion, which is impossible.

As I keep looking at the Cardinal's words, my bewilderment grows. His words makes no real sense and have a tinge of racism to them, though some are denying this.

This morning, though, what strikes me most is that Cardinal Kaspar's words about the Africans have been blasted across the secular media wires. Why? Had Cardinal Burke, Muller, or Pell made the same comments, they would be rightly blasted left and right.

It seems to me that the only reason the secular is not covering Cardinal Kaspar's words is because his proposal regarding the reception of Holy Communion is precisely what the media wants to the Synod to decide. As such, they cannot shed a negative light on Cardinal Kaspar.

Is her teaching on homosexuality really the main reason people leave the Church?

In a piece of incredibly lazy journalism, Springfield's (IL) WICS-TV reports - for an unclear reason - John Freml ceased the practice of the Catholic faith and chose to join what is called the Holy Family Inclusive Catholic Community (which isn't actually Catholic at all, but the report does not both to note this rather important detail). Normally this simply would not be news.

At any rate, the only possible reason for the report - aside from a very slow news day - is because Freml left the Church because of her teachings on homosexuality, that and because "Freml believes the church not accepting the LGBT community may be to blame" for a decrease as much as 30% in some parishes in Mass attendance between 1996 and 2011. Never mind that some parishes also saw an increase of as much as 82% in the same time period, but, again, this is not an important detail for the story.

WICS quotes Freml:

Probably I think that's the primary reason, but of course Catholics simply don't agree with the hierarchy of a lot of social teachings. Not only on LGBT issues but contraception or on women's ordination.

In his assumption, Freml is quite incorrect.

The report references "a survey sanctioned by the church." Had the reporter bothered to consult this report - Joy and Grievance in an American Diocese: Results from Online Surveysof Active and Inactive Catholics in Central Illinois - he or she would have clearly seen that Freml is only correct that LGBT issues (where's the Q?) are not the only reasons why Catholics have fallen away from the Church or lapsed in the practice of the faith.

In fact, on page 18 of this report, a chart clearly gives the theological disagreements behind people's decision to leave the Catholic Church:

As you can see, the Church's teachings on homosexuality ranked as the 6th reason why people chose to distance themselves from the Church. The main theological difficulty people have with the Church is her teachings on artificial contraception.

What this shows is that homosexuality is not as prevalent in people's thoughts as the leaders of the gay movement would like us to believe. Only among those younger than 35 years of age was homosexuality the principle reason why someone chose to leave the Church.

This might have been important to include in the report, but it wouldn't, of course, support the aim of the "story," which is really nothing more than yet another attack on the Catholic Church in general and on Bishop Paprocki in particular.

The reporter then makes the odd suggestion that "change could be coming" to the doctrine of the Church regarding homosexuality, which is, of course, impossible.

Lisbeth Melendez Rivera of the Human Rights Campaign is quoted as saying:

We hope that Bishop Paprocki pays attention to our prayers. That he listens to what he has to say so when he is discerning. He goes through the same journey the cardinal took when the become Pope Francis.

Maybe someone should tell her that Pope Francis did not actually the journey she thinks he did.