I sometimes think that Catholic theology operates on a super high frequency that just doesn’t register on some people’s hearing. That’s the conclusion I came to when I read veteran NY Times Vatican-beat reporter Alessandra Stanley’s summing up of the papal visit so far. Comparing it to Prince Charles’ second wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles, (in contrast to JPII’s more Princess Diana-like “extravanga” visits) was clever, but trite. Has the trip, for her, really been about “seamlessly binding together the thorniest Vatican troubles ”” pedophile priests, shrinking parishes, nonobservant believers ”” with papal mystique and fun Vatican facts.” This is someone who has covered the Vatican for years. She has ears to hear (and eyes to read)””did she miss the substance of the Pope’s statements, which were nothing less than a radical critique of how American Catholics live their faith?
Does not the media have a proclivity to “miss” what it wishes to miss?
I suspect that the media’s missing the pope’s message goes even deeper than not wishing to hear what he is saying. I suspect that for many, he is speaking in a foreign language.
As Kendall said, read it all.
This essay is very helpful, not just in critiquing the journos look at B16; rather it gives a quick, yet well thought out commentary on what just happened.
I agree with the Pope’s words about the proclivity of Americans to relegate serious to the private realm, partly due to our Individualistic tradition. But I should observe that this is common in Europe also, re abortion and other issues. Maybe these issues are a problem for the whole western, or even Christian, world.