Media on the Pope's anniversary: a broken record.

Assessments of John Paul's papacy, around the 20th anniversary of his election on October 16th, were generally disappointing. The major media outlets used the same cliche criticisms, the same broken record, that they have been using all these years. Most stories alluded, first, to his deteriorating health, and then to his opposition to abortion, contraception, and the ordination of women as priests (hereafter, A,C, and WO). There was no serious effort to capture the Pope's overall legacy or to understand him in anything but superficial, political terms.

Canada

The day before the anniversary, the Toronto Star ran a story focusing on his "uncompromising" views on faith and morals, beginning with the "truth" that the continuation of this papacy is "a nightmare for liberals."

Liberal North American Catholics, the story said, have balked at the Pope's teachings, on A, C, WO, and priestly celibacy. The story quoted Frances Kissling, president of "Catholics for Free Choice," a front for depopulation foundations, as saying that the Church needed to decentralize authority.

On October 21, the Star ran a column by Joanna Manning, author of the forthcoming book Is the Pope Catholic? She labeled his teachings on sexual morality "obsessive," and declared that his "efforts to turn back the clock have been admired by conservative Catholics but unheeded by the majority of believers." (Editor: For more, read Paula Adamick in this issue, page 7.)

The Globe and Mail ran a long story on October 12 (beginning on the front page) by international affairs columnist Marcus Gee, and another news story on October 16. The latter, by Lisa Sarick, chronicled the work of 139 groups that want a new, more "democratic" Church.

It gave prominence to the dissenting "We Are Church" movement, which wants "all Catholics to share governance in decision-making, especially in the election of Church leaders." The story quoted three people from groups which signed the statement, against only one (Catholic Civil Rights League president Thomas Langan) who supported John Paul. The story ended with Saundra Glynn of "Catholics of Vision" saying, "People admire the man but he hasn't touched their minds." Earlier in the week, Marcus Gee came to the same conclusion: "He has touched the hearts of millions, but changed the minds of few."

Bob Harvey of the Ottawa Citizen had a similar pathetic presentation from Ontario dissenter Saundra Glynn in "Critics want a better Pope," reprinted elsewhere, for example in the Moncton Times Transcript (Oct. 24).

Most Canadian newspapers used British stories picked up from Reuters and American ones from Associated Press. They reported on the Pope's weariness, use of a cane, and other signs of declining health, but again lacked any attempt at analysis. An October 18 Reuters story said that the Pope's critics accused him of being "distant and authoritarian," but did not elaborate.

A CBC broadcast on the same date featured a loyal bishop and a liberal Catholic theologian, Michael Walsh. The latter made the astonishing statement that people don't accept John Paul's teaching because he is a celebrity without any moral force. "His message," he said, "is so far removed from people's experience that it becomes irrelevant to them."

Overseas and USA

The New York Times could do nothing better than declare that the Pope has tried to rein in Catholics on issues like A,C, and WO, and had rigorously clamped down on dissent. The paper described the current papacy as marked by a "rigid" return to "conformity in doctrinal matters."

Overseas, the British Broadcasting Corporation was unrelenting in its criticism, calling the Pope an "arch-conservative," an "autocrat," and a "ractionary." Its coverage confirmed what Father Neuhaus has said about the secular media: they cannot tell the difference between authoritarian and authoritative. (Despite the protests of his critics, the Pope is the latter, not the former.)

It is almost a mantra of the media to at least note, if not criticize, the Pope's position on A,C, and WO. The BBC, ABC, the CBC, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Independent (London), were among the many news outlets which included this tiring repetition in their coverage. There were two notable dissenters, however: the London Telegraph and, surprisingly, Newsweek.

Telegraph reporter Bruce Johnston had a different catalogue of the ills of the Church: sex and money scandals, inter-Vatican rifts, the widening gap between Rome and Eastern Orthodox leaders, and widespread defections from the Church!

Newsweek, however, took a positive approach, with Kenneth L. Woodward seriously examining the newest encyclical, Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason, released the day before the anniversary). Woodward said that the Pope's legacy as a Christian humanist "is more important--and comprehensive--than his occasional headline-making pronouncements on abortion and birth control."

Perhaps the best article appeared in the October 6-12 Weekly Telegraph (London). Charles Moore did not even mention the familiar criticisms until the 31st paragraph of a two-page feature story. He called the critics "fierce, though not as numerous as might appear from reading the Western press." He also noted that it's impossible to understand John Paul using the left-right or liberal-conservative categories. On human rights, poverty, and ecumenism, for example, he is slightly more "liberal" than "conservative"--but such labels are unhelpful in understanding this man, who speaks not merely for himself but for the entire Church.

Paul Tuns is a freelance writer in Toronto.