“We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC for reliable news about religion. These news media simply don’t provide trustworthy information about religious faith—and sometimes they can’t provide it, either because of limited resources or because of their own editorial prejudices. 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.”

There are problems with this on so many levels, both substance and tone. Let me start with substance. Yes, of course there are problems with the media when it comes to religion. The level of basic religious education of the average journalist is quite appalling. There is no news there, it is what we have all known for years. The easy equation of Christianity with the religious right, who in many respects diverge from core Christian tenets, is incredibly frustrating.

But Chaput is not interested in making a broad point about religious illiteracy. He is instead making a narrow point about select secular news agencies he doesn’t like. CNN and MSNBC. What is the glaring omission? Where is Chaput’s mention of Fox News? And while we’re at it, where is the mention of poisonous talk radio? Is he so entranced with playing to his audience that he is willing to ignore the shameful demagoguery, the overt appeals to racism and base motives, the violent rhetoric, the liberties taken with the truth, and the grave distortions of the Catholic faith? Why does Chaput not mention any of this? Is he so insecure that he cannot handle criticism of the Church in the New York Times, and must instead run to those who use the Church for their political aims? Does he see no nuance and complexity? Is he not aware that he can learn far more about the economic mess from Paul Krugman in the New York Times than anybody on any alternative media source? As a Catholic voice, does he honestly prefer Bill O’Reilly to Peter Steinfels?

Chaput might be quiet about Fox News, but he does say what he likes: “Many of those choices include outstanding Catholic media like Catholic News Agency, EWTN, the National Catholic Register, and Our Sunday Visitor; Salt and Light and Catholic News Service; plus Catholic blogs, websites, and Catholic satellite radio stations.” Again, how thoroughly selective of him. I for one am appalled that an archbishop of a major diocese would shower EWTN with such glowing tributes while that network engages in dreadful distortions of Catholic social teaching to support an individualist and materialist ideology, and – even worse – claims that the intrinsic evil of torture is all fine and dandy. Chaput is stepping perilously close to scandal here. As for the others, I have no real beef with them. But where is Commonweal? America? National Catholic Reporter? These are all fine journals. Yes, they sway in certain directions, but no more so than National Catholic Register, and they are still within the Catholic family. Chaput needs to understand that he is a shepherd of all Catholics, not just the ones who hold particular political opinions. And what blogs is he talking about? I have a funny feeling that Vox Nova is not on his reading list! Funny, when the Church is starting to focus more and more on the anger and vitriol on daily display in the Catholic blogosphere, Chaput is telling Catholics to flock to it!

The sad thing about all of this is that criticizing the media is quite legitimate. There is a problem with the American media. The problem is too much corporate control, the dumbing down of the news, the reduction of everything to a he-said-she-said dichotomy, the obsession with sex, the focus on human interest trivia, and the merging of news with entertainment. If you want to see the lousy quality of American political and economic media coverage, just go to Europe. During the height of the financial crisis, prime-time TV debate in Ireland was talking about the differences between senior and subordinated bank debt. In the United States, it was screaming about socialism. This is the fault of the media. They thrive on controversy, real or manufactured. They live in a world where truth matters less than ratings. “A” says global warming is real, “B” says it’s false; “X”  says health care reform has death panels, “Y”says it doesn’t. There is never a sober attempt to probe the issues, even the ludicruous ones, just a partisan shouting match of slogans and talking points. This contributes to the poisonous political atmosphere, and the coarsening of the culture. Talk radio is the most extreme example, but this attitude is ubiquitous.

In sum, the media have abrogated any sense of public responsibility or civic duty. Catholics should have things to say about this. But Chaput neatly skirts all these issues, focusing instead on who criticizes the Church and who does not. A rather shallow distinction, that, one that simply avoids the difficult issues and retreats to the comfort of the familiar. Anti-Catholicism is a problem that cannot be addressed by climbing the barricades beside Bill Donohue.

And then there is the matter of tone. John Gehring puts it well when he concludes that “the Catholic intellectual and social justice tradition is not served well by embracing such an embattled, defensive posture”. This is Chaput’s problem. His essay will get him applause from a certain partisan wing of the Church, and their evangelical allies, but he is not engaging the wider culture with all its messy complexity. He is not embracing the optimism toward the world embodied in Gaudium Et Spes and more recently in Pope Benedict’s new evangelization project. Chaput should look to Diarmuid Martin, the archbishop of Dublin, who is facing an incredibly hostile media environment – far worse than the American bishops. But Martin refuses to attack the media. Here is what he said in his 2010 easter vigil homily:

“The spotlight of media and public opinion is focused on the failures and the betrayals of Church leaders and a damaging culture which has grown up in the Church. I am not criticising the media for that.  That is their job. In doing their job some will feel the media have been unfriendly to the Church, even unfair; others will welcome and recognise valid criticism, from whatever angle it comes, even if it comes from people patently unfavourable to the Church.  We have to remember that the truth will set the Church free, even if the truth is hard to digest.”

Notice how different this is from Chaput’s defensive and embittered posture. Chaput needs to take his head out of the sand. He needs to do the hard work of engaging the wider culture, and avoid the easy solution of preaching to his own personal choir. He’s smarter than that.

It was precisely this objectivity that angered the United States during the Iraq war. Remember, American media simply does not allow certain views to be aired, especially when it comes to the effects of American or Israeli policies. We all know that in the Iraq war, the media abandoned all pretense of objectivity and got in line behind the war machine. But just as Al Jazeera does not kow-tow to regional dictators, it does also not kow-tow to the Americans military either. This made Al Jazeera a breath of fresh air – a voice on the ground willing to challenge the official narrative and present the facts – and the deaths. Even today, it is almost impossible to get English-language Al Jazeera on American cable, which is a real pity as it offers the best coverage of the Egyptian protests by far.

The attacks on Al Jazeera during the Bush years go well beyond official frustration. They verge on war crimes. Consider this list:

* The Bush administration bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001.

* In 2003, the US military shelled the Basra hotel, where Al Jazeera journalists were the only guests, and killed Iraq correspondent Tareq Ayoub a few days later in Baghdad.

* The Bush administration imprisoned and tortured numerous Al Jazeera journalists. Cameraman Sami al-Haj spent seven years at Guantanamo.

* The Bush administration periodically banned Al Jazeera from reporting in Iraq, putting it in the same company as Saddam Hussein.

* After Al Jazeera showed that the US was indeed killing civilians in Falluja (against the official propaganda), the journalists were fired upon by tanks and fighter jets. The house where the reporters had spent the night was bombed, killing the owner. They had to stop reporting as fighter jets would target them and open fire.

* In a 2004 meeting with Tony Blair, George Bush proposed the bombing of Al Jazeera headquarters in Qatar.

While media attention has focused on the proposed building near Ground Zero, we’ve seen protests against proposed mosques across the country. I’ve read comments ranging from an assertion that Muslims have the right to practice their religion in their own countries, but not in ours, to expressed concerns that Sharia law might one day supersede our civil laws. I agree with John Henry that the former is a very marginal view. The latter is more common and understandable, given events in other countries, though I don’t see that the demographics here warrant so strong a concern. Besides, building mosques doesn’t establish Sharia law, even if the builders wish to impose Sharia law using the coercive power of the state. We as a society can therefore welcome Muslims and their places of worship while also insisting that we remain now and always a country hospitable to people of all faiths and none. We should encourage respect for religious pluralism. By refusing to give Muslims their rights to assembly and worship, even in one instance, we encourage the denial of religious freedom for those we perceive as a threat. We do to them precisely what we fear they will do to us. That’s hardly a prudent course of action.

The wish to politicize religious laws isn’t spoken just by some Muslims, though. Michael Voris of RealCatholic TV has a new interestingly-timed video out in which he argues for a “benevolent dictatorship” ruled by a virtuous Catholic monarch. How Voris thinks we could possibly achieve his ideal political system he doesn’t say. I suppose he speculates that when democracy fails in a suicidal fall (like a vortex?), which he thinks is sure to happen unless worthy Catholics are the only ones allowed to vote, his shining wielder of absolute power will rise from the ashes of the cataclysm, bible and catechism in hand. Maybe Voris can be his Karl Rove. He’s already proven himself quite the apologist of power. Anyhow, I’m grateful that Voris’ political theology isn’t shared by most Catholics. I’ll take religious liberty, thank you.

“As I talked with brother bishops in preparation for this presentation, there was consistent agreement that one aspect that is most alarming to us about media is when it becomes unchristian and hurtful to individuals.For example, we are particularly concerned about blogs that engage in attacks and hurtful, judgmental language. We are very troubled by blogs and other elements of media that assume the role of Magisterium and judge others in the Church. Such actions shatter the communion of the Church that we hold so precious.”

- Bishop Gabino Zavala, USCCB communications chair.

A lesson there for all of us. (Hat tip: Rocco).

Anyway, when searching for “apps” to download and try, I tried searching for “Catholic” and didn’t get very much. What I did get was mostly pretty bizarre. I’m not sure why one would want to pray the rosary on the iPhone or why one would need an encyclopedia of the popes in one’s pocket at all times. The best Catholic app I’ve seen — and really, the only one useful to me — is Catholic Calendar from Universalis, a free complete liturgical calendar that lets you access today’s, yesterday’s and tomorrow’s Hours, daily readings, and more. (The paid version allows access to the Hours in their entirety.)

Still, most of the apps designed for Catholics are embarrassingly bad. Many of them, though, do look like they’d be popular among the Catholic blogosphere crowd, especially the Heresy Detector app. Interestingly, on the page for the Catholic Calendar app, if you look under the “Customers Also Bought” section you’ll see an app called “iRepublican.” Figures.

Other general apps I’ve found helpful are the Facebook, WordPress, and RssRunner apps. For general music listening, Pandora and Last.fm are great. For songwriters, there are a lot of simple recording apps that are helpful for getting ideas down quick, including the mindblowing 16-track MultiTrack app. For news, the apps for NPR, the New York Times, Democracy Now!, and The Weather Channel are quite good.

For Vox Nova’s iPhone users, have you found any interesting apps for Catholics? 1) What are some of the best? 2) What are some of the worst/most bizarre? 3) What about just generally good apps, not just “Catholic-y” ones?

This is nonsense only Christians could come up with.

Get this. The American Family Association (you know we’re in trouble right there) has initiated a boycott of the GAP and all of its offshoot companies because of this year’s GAP ad campaign which AFA says does not feature “Christmas” prominently enough among other holidays which are also mentioned. From their website:

Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic, the three stores owned by San Francisco-based Gap Inc., are being targeted by AFA in a limited two-month boycott over the company’s failure to use the word “Christmas” in its advertising to Christmas shoppers.

Gap has refused to use the word Christmas in its television commercials, newspaper ads and in-store promotions despite tens of thousands of consumer requests to recognize Christmas as well as repeated requests from AFA to do the same.

Here is one of the ads that these people are upset about. Please note that the first holiday mentioned is Christmas.

The lyrics, in case you missed them, are:

2,4,6,8, ’tis the time to liberate
go Christmas, go Hanukkah, go Kwanzaa, go Solstice
go classic tree, go plastic tree, go plant a tree, go without a tree
you 86 the rules
you do what just feels right
happy do-whatever-you-wantaka
and to all a cheery night!

This past Tuesday, AFA announced that their campaign has resulted in something of a victory. From Tuesday’s press release:

UPDATE – 11-24-09
Gap responds, boycott suspended. Your actions make a difference! Company says “pro-Christmas” ad to air this weekend.

According to Bill Chandler, vice-president of Gap corporate communications, Gap’s Old Navy division will launch a new television commercial this weekend …which “has a very strong Christmas theme.” Chandler responded to AFA last Friday, after a poll showed 90% of AFA supporters wanted to continue the boycott as a result of Gap’s initial “holiday” ad that mingled Christmas with the pagan’s “Winter
Solstice” holiday.

Gap says the new ad will include the popular Supermodelquins proudly cheering “Merry Christmas,” and features Christmas trees, lights and ornaments as well.

In good faith, AFA is suspending the Gap boycott until it has an opportunity to view the new commercial this weekend.

As a result of your dedicated actions, we believe Gap is beginning to realize that Christmas is not just another “holiday” and will begin to advertise in a way that is respectful to Christians and Christmas shoppers.

SuperModelquins chanting Merry Christmas! Amen! Our God is not mocked!

Hey, idiots. You complain on the one hand that Christ has been “taken out” of Christmas, and on the other you fight to have Christmas included “more prominently” in consumer advertising? Any Christian with a brain knows that the linking of Christmas with capitalism is precisely the problem, and the use of Christ to sell sweatshop products — indeed any product at all — is utterly blasphemous.

In fact, contrary to the stunning stupidity of those Christians who insist that putting Christ back into Christmas means putting Christmas back into our shopping malls, I have written to the GAP demanding that they STOP referring to Christmas in their commercials. You can do so too by contacting them at this email address. They can talk about “doing whatever you wantaka” all they want. Just leave Christ out of it.

“‘Tis the time to liberate” indeed. It’s time to liberate Christmas from capitalism and to liberate Christ from stupid Christians.

It seems that now we are beginning to see some more visible, public responses to the scandalous behavior that we — we Catholics, and sadly the rest of the world who could not help but watch and be astonished at american Catholic “discourse” — witnessed during that election cycle. Santa Fe Archbishop Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan has publicly criticized the “combative tactics” of these right-leaning bishops, assuring that the majority of u.s. bishops disagreed with them.

David Gibson now reports on the sudden and shady resignation of Scranton bishop Joseph “The USCCB doesn’t speak for me” Martino, claiming that “there are strong indications that Martino was pushed before he jumped.”

Whatever the ins and outs of the internal church maneuvering, the upshot is that a leading voice in the anti-Obama wing of the church hierarchy has been silenced while both Obama and Biden continue to take center stage.

Although the efforts seem to me a little late coming, it is refreshing to see signs that, despite republican efforts to increase the volume of these marginal and extreme views, someone — maybe a number of someones — is finally reaching over to turn the amplifier down saying “Enough already.”

This silence likely mirrors the relative silence in the u.s. corporate media in general. Latin America simply has not mattered very much to most North Americans, including North American Catholics.

What it certainly shows, though, is that the predominantly right wing Catholic blogosphere, ostensibly interested in independent reporting and commentary on matters from a faith perspective, is simply no different from the rest of america. Interest in “freedom” and “democracy” only goes so far. Cries for democracy are reported and affirmed only when the results would correspond to the Catholic right’s political positions. When the democratically elected leader is a somewhat left-leaning figure, democracy matters little.

For those who are interested in keeping up on the events in Honduras, I recommend the following sites:

Upside Down World

Democracy Now!

The Narcosphere

UPDATE: Send a message to Obama and Clinton here.

Read more here. H/T The Christian Radical Catholic Worker blog.

Many people are rightly wary of negative depictions of members of various minority groups, on the grounds that they may serve to re-enforce stereotypes about those groups, particularly among those whose main experience of those groups is from film and television. In each case the basic principle is the same. When you lack much personal experience of a group, object, or environment, and encounter fictional depictions of it, you are liable to accept those depictions as accurate, even if they are not a true reflection of reality.

To the extent, then, that we lack much personal experience in an area and know that good fiction is liable to distort depictions of that subject in a particular way, we ought to try and take account of how this bias may effect our views on the subject. Another great Russian writer, for example, began one of his books by saying: “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” I don’t think this is true of life, but it does seem to be largely true of fiction. Happiness is not only harder to portray in drama than unhappiness, but it’s depiction is also less varied, and tends to consist in many cases of little else than an absence of happiness. If a child grows up seeing case after case of unhappy relationships, unhappy friendships, unhappy work, unhappy marriages, etc., with only an occasional scene or two of bliss before the credits roll, this could very well have an impact on their overall view of the world.

Or, to take another example. Business and commerce when depicted in fiction tend to be depicted negatively. Businessmen are greedy and unscrupulous, corporations are at the center of all kinds of plots and conspiracies, and trade is often a thin veneer placed over fraud and coercion. It is easy to understand, even apart from the ideological dispositions of artists, why businessmen and large corporations would make desirable villains and why positive depictions of the marketplace might not make for interesting drama. But for people who themselves lack much business instinct and have little direct experience of what goes on in a corporate boardroom, might not such repeated impressions create in their minds a more unfavorable impression of markets than they would gain from actually experiencing such things first hand?

Examples could no doubt be multiplied endlessly, but you get the idea. Thoughts?

“The media are perverse factories of lies. What they sell is poison.”

“El Nacional and El Universal are pathetic, the television stations—with a few exceptions—are pathetic…. They call cowards those who do not bow their head to the fundamentalist and dictatorial ideas and the infamous campaign by the media owners.”

–Hugo Chávez Frías

“President Hugo Chávez Frías repeatedly came before the television cameras to elaborate on his vision of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution and to denounce the opposition media, calling the television stations ‘terrorists’ and the ‘Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.’”

Also, a typical title that Chávez has for the media is “the oligarchy” or, in other words, the “media elite.” Frightening, isn’t it? 

I personally find it rather amusing that those who are doing the “socialist” name-calling are actually sounding like the real socialist himself! It never crossed my mind ten years ago when I moved from Venezuela to the U.S. that I would hear this same kind of “indoctrination.” Who would have thought? I don’t need political parties or the government to tell me which media outlet is “evil” and which one is not. We live in a democracy and as thinking persons, we can pick and choose which media outlets suit our tastes and meet our need to stay informed.

More…