In this section of our previous issue we focused attention on the typical news coverage of the Vaticans call for a deep reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, a.k.a. the LCWR (Femi-Nuns in the Echo-Chamber, June). This liberal-leaning group has long served as a kind of trade association for a majority of congregations of American nuns. We noted that the medias response to the Vatican rebuke was successfully controlled by the LCWR public-relations machine. The groups leadership fired off its pre-emptive strike in a successful effort to turn the tables; consequently, news stories focused primarily on the LCWRs criticism of the Vaticans rebuke rather than on what the Vatican actually had to say on the matter. The disgruntled nuns successfully controlled the flow of information, turning this controversy into an assault on the Vatican, a remarkable media coup for the LCWR, no doubt about it.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this story is its familiarity. This media turn-of-events has repeated itself dozens, if not hundreds, of times in recent decades. The pattern: The Pope or the Vatican makes a pronouncement, rebuke, or other controversial remark; the media makes little attempt to understand the issue at hand; the media gives evidence that it isnt going to bother to read the primary sources too long or too deep or above their pay grade; lazy reporters and editors latch on to press releases from disgruntled critics whose liberal agendas as change agents in the Church are well known; news stories invariably focus on criticism of the Pope or Vatican rather than on what the Pope or Vatican actually had to say; hyperbolic terms such as bullying and crackdown pepper news reports; readers nationwide are swindled into believing that the group or person addressed by the Pope or Vatican is above criticism or rebuke. End result: A misinformed general public falls for the ruse that the Vatican amounts to a cabal of geezers running a medieval dictatorship, or that the Pope is himself a pompous geezer pretending to a medieval throne.
In the recent LCWR case, if reporters would have taken even a cursory look at the Vaticans eight-page rebuke of the U.S. nuns and then compared it to the responses from the LCWR and supporting groups, even the dull-witted ones would have found that its the nuns verbiage thats laced with vitriol and fallacy. As we noted, the LCWR leaders are masters at PR, and so far they have certainly won in the court of public opinion. But strip away all the public-relations rhetoric and bandwagonning (e.g., seven Franciscan provinces in the U.S. publicly backed the nuns) and were left with a reasonable Vatican critique of wayward nuns and a whole lotta whining from some cantankerous gorgons.
After a much-ballyhooed summit this summer in Washington, D.C., the LCWRs board of directors issued a statement calling the Vaticans assessment unsubstantiated, claiming the rebuke has caused scandal and pain and exacerbated polarization throughout the Catholic community. The group complained that the sanctions imposed were disproportionate to the concerns raised and could compromise [the nuns] ability to fulfill their mission. The Washington Post (June 1) characterized the nuns statement as an unusually bold reaction to the Vaticans doctrine-enforcing arm and seemed to imply the women may choose to rebel.
You have two options:
- Online subscription: Subscribe now to New Oxford Review for access to all web content at newoxfordreview.org AND the monthly print edition for as low as $38 per year.
- Single article purchase: Purchase this article for $1.95, for viewing and printing for 48 hours.
If you're already a subscriber log-in here.