Word Up

John Allen's got some good stuff this week -

On his skepticism about Ratzinger being a likely pick:

Every journalist covering the Vatican to some extent reflects the limitations of his or her own nationality and cultural experience, and on this point, in hindsight, I see how much of an American I was. In Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe, Ratzinger has no such profile, except in very restricted theological circles. Cardinals from those parts of the world did not bring such concerns. It's really only in pockets of Western Europe and North America that the broader Catholic public had any sense of the man prior to his election, explaining why some of the initial reservations about Ratzinger's candidacy came from American and German cardinals. In the end, they too seemed persuaded that the man the world would know as Benedict XVI would not match the public profile sometimes associated with Ratzinger, whom I once dubbed "the Vatican's enforcer."

On this score, it may be that the cardinals had better instincts than I did.

On his 1999 bio of Ratzinger:

If I were to write the book again today, I'm sure it would be more balanced, better informed, and less prone to veer off into judgment ahead of sober analysis.

He would have like to write a new preface, he says, but the US publisher rushed it back into print without giving him an opportunity.

Moreover, it was fascinating listening to seasoned media professionals, including some of the biggest names in the business, wrestle with why these events -- especially those infinite lines to pay last respects to John Paul II, and the overwhelming outpouring of emotion at his funeral Mass -- had an impact on them. As if for the first time, some journalists found themselves wrestling with profound questions about God, themselves, and the meaning and purpose of human existence. What will come out of any of that is of course unknowable, but at least it had network executives in the last couple of weeks pondering whether they had under-valued the importance of religion stories.

Comments

[SiliconValleySteve]

I read Allen's book "Conclave" and it was just dead wrong. Even though he had access to plenty of information, he was probably more motivated by wishful thinking than clear analysis.

It seems that John is on a journey to discover just where the center of the Church is and finding out that NCR is a small dying corner and not the vital center that he had assumed. And yet, they continue to be his patrons. It will be interesting to see how this drama plays out.

[Gerard E.]

A lot of shake rattle and rolling happened in newsrooms all over the world in the past month. Over issues many of them thought were above their view, old-fashioned, hopelessly retro. The nature of life and death. The existence of a handicapped bedridden woman versus her husband's desire to.....well, snuff her (sorry, no pretense for objectivity there.) The staggering, mindblowing achievements of the Last Great 20th Century Giant (no, ultralibs- not Fidel Castro.) The overwhelming outpouring of grief and homage to that man. The emergence of a man whose ethnic heritage, personal background, and work as that Last Great 20th Century Giant's Aide (no, not Raul Castro) caused great wailing and gnashing of teeth among their fellow Chattering Class members. Eternal Issues. Not jury testimony in the M. Jackson case. Or steroid use among former baseball players. Or poor Aaron Rodgers for dropping so far in the NFL Draft. Going back to the usual flow of trivia will be difficult for some of them. But they'll certainly try.

[C Neumeier]

It's interesting to see that Allen is capable of recognizing his own (past?) bias and working against it -- probably goes a long way to explain the high quality of his reporting over the last month. In that respect,the most interesting sidelight is the excerpt from a 2004 speech in which he admits that his 1999 bio was in fact guilty of what a reviewer called "Manichaean journalism" -- a realization which had a sobering effect.

[Don Boyle]

It is good to see the John Allen of the weekly Word from Rome column back again. I found his daily dispatches during the interregnum to be very unlike his WFR columns--much more like the usual NCR stuff--over and over about the po' theologians "silenced" by JP2 and the CDF. I wonder if someone else was writing them for him--really, they seemed so different from the WFR columns.

[Ian]

Amy,

John Allen's *column* from April 16, 1999 was a vicious, nasty liberal attack on the Pope. I started reading him via your "Word from Rome" links, and had no idea what a hateful man he was until I read that one column.

You would think he would have grown up a bit since then, but

"At the most basic level, many Catholics cannot escape the sense that Ratzinger's exercise of ecclesial power is not what Jesus had in mind."

"In May 1985, Ratzinger notified Franciscan Fr. Leonardo Boff that he was to be silenced. Boff, a Brazilian, was a leading figure in liberation theology, a Third World theological movement that seeks to place the church on the side of the poor."

Still there in his 2005 version...

I don't trust this man.

[Ambrose]

This was the best WFR I ever read, and I am such a silly fan of the column.

[Rich Leonardi]

I suppose the major reason I entertained doubts about Ratzinger as a papabile is what might be called the "baggage" factor. Fairly or unfairly, in some Catholic circles Ratzinger is a lightning rod, a beloved hero among conservatives and something of a Darth Vader figure for Catholic progressives. ...

Every journalist covering the Vatican to some extent reflects the limitations of his or her own nationality and cultural experience, and on this point, in hindsight, I see how much of an American I was. In Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe, Ratzinger has no such profile, except in very restricted theological circles.

Wasn't all of this obvious well in advance of the Conclave, e.g., that pelvic obsessions and "'gotta be me!" theologizing are priorities only to the shrinking West?

And I'd love to get a demographic breakdown of the 9% who opposed our new Pope vs. the 30% who supported him. 'Betcha lunch that the latter is far younger than the former.

[Christopher]

Allen was showing a change of heart even has he was composing his (admittedly flawed) biography of Ratzinger -- in his preface he expressed his belief that Ratzinger "is not the vengeful, power-obsessed old man who lurks like a bogyman in the imaginations of the Catholic left". He mentioned that on the several occasions he Ratzinger, he found him to be "charming, with a shy personal style and an active wit", possessing "a calm, peaceful spirit and the remarkable ability to listen". With regard to Ratzinger's thought, he found his "arguments are more than ex post facto rationalizations for exercises of authority" and spoke of "a deep, logical consistency to [his] vision".

And -- in a remark that would raise a few eyebrows, shouts of 'Treason!' or concerns about his mental health from the progressivist camp -- he exclaimed: "in the unlikely event I ever had access to Ratzinger as a personal confesser, I would not hesitate to open my heart to him, so convinced I am of the clarity of his insight, his integrity, and his commitment to the priesthood."

He's coming around. Give him time. =)

[mio]

Since John Allen does often seem to have good sources, I used his pre-conclave article on 20-or-so possible papabile with a group at our parish. Luckily, it occurred to me to add a paragraph about Cardinal Ratzinger to Allen's list!

[Rich Leonardi]

Boff, a Brazilian, was a leading figure in liberation theology, a Third World theological movement that seeks to place the church on the side of the poor

That's the same way he describes LT in his recent "Not a Transitional Pope" NCR cover story. The Church has always been on the side of the poor, but never on the side of welding the Redemption to a political movement. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger said "The fact is that when politics want to bring redemption, they promise too much."

[WRY]

Well, Allen told the NY Post on April 17:

"There is a strong push to choose Ratzinger, though it's very unclear if he will be able to get two-thirds of the vote," said John Allen Jr., author of "Conclave: The Politics, Personalities and Process of the Next Papal Election."
Ratzinger, the dean of the College of Cardinals, leads a powerful Vatican office that enforces church doctrine.
But his conservatism is both his strength and his weakness.
"Nobody disputes his talent and that he is a pope-ready sort of guy, but he's a polarizing figure. You either love him or hate him," said Allen.
"He took strong positions against liberalism. He essentially squelched the Second Vatican Council."

So are we to hail as the (recently-discovered) voice of reason someone who believes that Ratzinger "essentially squelched the Second Vatican Council." ??

[ambrose]

And we are supposed to trust the NY Post of getting his quote correct in the right context? A newspaper who's biggest draw is Page Six?

[Kevin Miller]

See? SEE? This is the sort of stuff of Allen's that I had in mind a few days ago when I posted on HMS Blog a reader's email about a HPR critique of his book on Ratzinger. When I noted that post in a comment box on this blog, people objected that the book was five long years ago, that Allen is a wonderful journalist, etc.

[Grant Gallicho]

Read and imbibe:

"While occasionally one can spot instances of bias or sloppiness in any profession, I would argue that it will be difficult after this experience to assert that the secular media, in any systematic way, is "'anti-Catholic.'"

Ian: it doesn't seem to me that you have sufficient grounds for calling John "hateful."

[kyle]

A willingness to publicly and candidly confess errors in judgment is not a small virtue in a journalist, however misguided he or she may be about other matters.

[Jay Anderson]

If I were to write the book again today, I'm sure it would be more balanced, better informed, and less prone to veer off into judgment ahead of sober analysis.

Oh yeah, now that he's Pope, you say that. Whatever. Sorry if I'm not impressed by your "change of heart".

I'm still smarting over the CNN interview where Allen referred to JPII as "divisive" and "a bit of a divider".

[kyle]

Grant, I've read and imbibed and that statement strikes me as not so much inaccurate as wildly, ridiculously preposterous.

As in: some quote from supporter

And actually, if I recall correctly, you don't have to take my word for it. I think you can take the word of the New York Times public editor about a year ago and his comments on the newspaper's treatment of social issues and how welcome those of devout religious faith would feel in the paper's pages.

[Jay Anderson]

Oh yeah, now that he's Pope, you say that. Whatever. Sorry if I'm not impressed by your "change of heart".

My initial reaction to Allen's comments were somewhat judgmental and based on things he's said and written in the past with which I disagreed. Upon further reflection, I should have given Allen the benefit of the doubt.

[Richard]

John Allen still has a habitus of mind that I find disagreeable.

The publication he works for is, of course, a dwindling, increasingly irrelevant progressive "Spirit of Vatican II" boomer backwater which I only trouble to surf in order to read the Word From Rome - the only really worthwhile part of the magazine.

So, having read the comments on Allen, I would acknowledge that he has said some biased and wrongheaded things about John Paul II, Benedict, and other affairs related to the Church - ones which often make me cringe (especially the laughable description of Boff and why he was slappped down) but for all that, this column today demonstrates his good qualities: he shows signs of growth and openness to changing his opinion and even more importantly, some humility. In terms of liberal Catholic commentators, there is no one better out there. And in terms of more conservative, or orthodox ones, some could learn to absorb some more of these virtues from Allen.

I'll keep reading him.

[Bob Kunz]

What SiliconValleySteve said.

Well put.

ambrose:

When you are able to unwrinkle your nose, just what do you dispute about WRY's excerpt? That John Allen would say such a thing? If so, you don't read much of him. That's what makes his post-conclave stuff so pinch-me remarkable.

[Zhou De-Ming]

Its an epidemic of hope. After all, disappointed Catholic can't really commiserate each other over soy lattes and dream of moving to Canada. Even Sr. Joan Chittister, OSB has hopeful things to say about Pope Benedict XVI:

And therein lies my hope.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI is said to have taken the name ‘Benedict’ to indicate that the model of his papacy would be the great Patron of Europe, Benedict of Nursia. If that’s really the case, I can’t think of anything more hopeful for the church. ....

Believe me, if this pope really takes Benedict of Nursia for a model, this will be a very healthy church."

I think that regardless of what people felt and thought of Cardinal Ratzinger, nobody knows what God has planned for Pope Benedict XVI.

Hope seems to be the appropriately virtuous response.

[Radactrice]

People write throught their personal filters, but people read through personal filters as well. I've noticed that as long as people agree with whatever a reporter writes, the reporter is seen as fair, balanced and unbiased. If they don't agree, the reporter is seen as prejudiced, partial and terribly biased. It cuts both ways: liberal and conservative.

[Rod Dreher]

And I'd love to get a demographic breakdown of the 9% who opposed our new Pope vs. the 30% who supported him. 'Betcha lunch that the latter is far younger than the former.

I saw an interesting PBS special last night on the conclave. It was quite interesting to see footage taken on St. Peter's Square, when the identity of the new pope was announced, of various characters they'd been following throughout the film. Sister Joan Chittister and journalist Margaret Hebblethwaite, aging liberals, were stricken, but two younger Catholics -- a curial monsignor named Magee, and an Englishwoman named Citra Abbott, were ecstatic. I thought: past, meet future.

I hate to burst everybody's straw man (and to mix metaphors), but the media really isn't systematically anti-Catholic. The phrase means that they -- we -- go about being anti-Catholic from a pre-set plan. It's simply not true. Journalists view the world through their own biases, just like everybody else. They think their own worldview is normative, just like most people. Joan Chittister, in her NCR column this week, says that nobody could have imagined that the cardinals would have picked a man like Ratzinger, given the needs of the Church right now. That statement says very little about Ratzinger or the College of Cardinals, and everything about the worldview of Joan Chittister and the circles in which she moves.

Similarly, the American media are obsessed with pelvic issues to the exclusion of nearly everything else in the Church because that's what American liberalism has come down to. And if there were no black and Hispanic Catholics in the world, you can be sure they'd be obsessed with racial equality too. That is the mindset you're dealing with in American journalism. It's not systematically anti-Catholic. To the extent that it's anti-Catholic at all, it's because the Catholic Church clashes with the liberal American worldview on issues that are most important to liberal Americans in newsrooms. (And you can be sure that most of the liberal Americans in newsrooms are middle-class and upper middle class people for whom economic and class issues, about which the Church has a lot to say, are on the back burner).

I think it's wrong to call John Allen names based on his reporting of six years ago, when he clearly says today that the experience of the past few years has changed his views. I myself grew more conservative in my views after I got out of college and into the, ahem, real world. I know conservative ideologues who moderated with real-world experience. If, after eight years covering the Vatican, John Allen had exactly the same views that he had when he first showed up, I would be very surprised, and in fact disappointed. I think few of us who had genuinely open minds would be left unmarked, one way or another, by the experiences a Vatican correspondent has.

[Rod Dreher]

I just read Allen's column, and was deeply impressed by this passage, which he uses to assure readers that his "conversion" on Ratzinger didn't come because Ratzinger is now the pope:

In a lecture delivered at the Catholic University of America as part of the Common Ground series, on June 25, 2004, I said the following about the book:

"My 'conversion' to dialogue originated in a sort of 'bottoming out.' It came with the publication of my biography of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, issued by Continuum in 2000 and titled The Vatican's Enforcer of the Faith. The first major review appeared in Commonweal, authored by another of my distinguished predecessors in this lecture series, Fr. Joseph Komonchak. It was not, let me be candid, a positive review. Fr. Komonchak pointed out a number of shortcomings and a few errors, but the line that truly stung came when he accused me of "Manichean journalism." He meant that I was locked in a dualistic mentality in which Ratzinger was consistently wrong and his critics consistently right. I was initially crushed, then furious. I re-read the book with Fr. Komonchak's criticism in mind, however, and reached the sobering conclusion that he was correct. The book - which I modestly believe is not without its merits - is nevertheless too often written in a "good guys and bad guys" style that vilifies the cardinal. It took Fr. Komonchak pointing this out, publicly and bluntly, for me to ask myself, 'Is this the kind of journalist I want to be'? My answer was no, and I hope that in the years since I have come to appreciate more of those shades of gray that Fr. Komonchak rightly insists are always part of the story

Bravo, John Allen! If everyone in my impression, myself included, would review our own work at the end of each week and ask, "Is this the kind of journalist I want to be?", American journalism would be much better off. I don't know John Allen, but he strikes me as a journalist of deep integrity, a reporter worth emulating.

[SiliconValleySteve]

I don't think Allen is a bad guy or anything and he has shown an admirable ability to grow but my comments are on the quality of the work.

After all he has been covering the Vatican for many years now and presents himself as knowledgeable and informed. On this basis, he has sold a book (that I bought and read) that presented a thesis on how the coming conclave would be decided. His protestations and references to contrary articles aside, he didn't even put B16 into the top 10 candidates.

Among the top 10 candidates were some prelates who it now appears are completely out of the mainstream. This is lousy reporting. Given his contacts, I can only assume one of the following things: he is a very poor listener who doesn't get the language of the Vatican, he is an extreme ideologue who uses his reporting to push his point of view, or he so filters his imformation through liberal Catholic opinion that he arrives at false conclusions.

Because I don't think ill of him personally, I expect it is his liberal filters that do him in. This should give anyone who reads his columns and books reason to be very skeptical.

[Jay Anderson]

I just read Allen's column, and was deeply impressed by this passage, which he uses to assure readers that his "conversion" on Ratzinger didn't come because Ratzinger is now the pope:

Yeah, Rod, I somehow missed that passage the first time I read Allen's piece. Which makes my initial statement, since retracted, all the more embarassing for me.

[kyle]

Rod,

While I agree with much of what you have written above, I think you are excessively splitting hairs when it comes to what constitutes systematic anti-Catholic bias. The bias on "pelvic issues" -- as well as life issues and matters of religion in public life -- is unmistakable, and it results in a de facto bias against faithful Catholics as well as devout evangelical Protestants that is very much systematic. It's anti-Catholic in exactly the same way the the Senate Democrat strategy of obstructing candidates whose "deeply held beliefs" on abortion and sexual morality trouble them is anti-Catholic.

The bias is real and it's systematic, even if it is not directly intended. Intent may be a distinction worth making, but in practice it seems to be more semantic than substantive.

And I'm not sure it isn't sometimes directly intended. Just how did it come to pass that the primary sources most MSM rely on for matters Catholic are people who dissent from Catholic teaching? Just how is it that the lead on (I think) the first AP story and the first-day stories in so many major American newspapers reporting on the new pope used some variation of the words "conservative" and "hardliner" without attribution -- just as "voice of God" editorial fact? Just how is it that all these news sources were so quick to manufacture a Nazi angle to the new pope that was so readily shown to be a non-issue?

For that matter, if it's just pelvic issues, how do you explain some of the indefensible bias evident in coverage of Terri Schiavo's death? Are defenseless, disabled women being killed by their husbands not among the groups liberals in American newsrooms would normally rush to defend?

Finally, I suppose you can say it's not specifically anti-Catholic, but may I direct your attention to the AP Stylebook? Mine's an old copy, but I have verified this in more recent versions. Under the entry for "religious movements," please look to the sub-entry under "liberal." AP recommends against using this word, suggesting instead "activist, more flexible, and broadview (emphasis mine)." It's fine with "conservative," though. So, for example, I'd take the following as acceptable in AP style:

Editors of the National Catholic Reporter, a newspaper for more flexible Catholics, expressed reservations at the selection of Benedict XVI, while the conservative National Catholic Register was elated.

Is that systematically biased, in your estimation? Does it have an effect on how Catholics are covered?

[Rod Dreher]

Steve: After all he has been covering the Vatican for many years now and presents himself as knowledgeable and informed. On this basis, he has sold a book (that I bought and read) that presented a thesis on how the coming conclave would be decided. His protestations and references to contrary articles aside, he didn't even put B16 into the top 10 candidates.

But Steve, I don't know that many people would have done that until late in the game. George Weigel was down here in Dallas about two weeks before John Paul died. He had just returned from Rome, and I asked him what people were saying about who the leading candidates for pope were at the present moment. He told me, "Ratzinger." It seemed clear to me that he was surprised to have learned this on his recent visit.

"Conclave" came out last year, as I recall. I don't know about you and your friends, but I don't know a soul who would have thought Ratzinger a realistic candidate, though I know plenty of people who, like me, only dreamed of a Pope Ratzinger. Most conservatives I know placed their (our) hopes on Arinze. Something happened in the first few months of this year to strengthen Ratzinger's hand. I wonder what. Answering that question will require some ace reporting. I hope Allen's on the trail.

[Sandra Miesel]

If anyone wants to see the negative review that John Allen refers to, it's linked at the Ignatius blog, http://insightscoop.typepad.com

[Rod Dreher]

Kyle, your example is a great one, and yes, that is totally biased. Again, I don't want people to read me as saying the media aren't biased against Catholicism; in my experience, they definitely tend to be. I only want to offer my own experience having been an openly conservative Catholic in several American newsrooms for 12 years now. The bias is real; but if you call it systemic, that implies a conscious attempt to be unfair to Catholics, or to unfairly represent the Catholic point of view. The real scandal is not that there's a nefarious scheme to trash Catholics; the scandal is that so many reporters and editors and producers honestly don't know that they're being biased.

As to calling up liberals like McBrien for commentary, I'd chalk that up to laziness and ignorance more than anything else. The thing to realize about your average American newsroom is that the level of religious literacy is utterly appalling. Your average beat reporter -- not on the religion desk -- who is told to call someone for "the Catholic perspective" probably has only the faintest idea about the deep fault lines in American Catholicism. I mean, look, in my parish I daresay not too many people have a working knowledge of these divisions, and I'd bet you my wallet that your average Catholic layman doesn't know that there is a correct Catholic position on a wide variety of issues.

Don't believe me? You should have the kinds of arguments I have with other Catholics, who find it offensive that I say there is a such thing as authoritative Catholic teaching, and that they're wrong about this or that issue, even though it's been clearly defined in dogma.

So: your average reporter is not likely to be religious at all, or perhaps nominally religious. He is asked to "get some Catholic commentary" into his story, on deadline. He thinks, "Catholic, hmm...I'll google 'Notre Dame' and 'priest' and 'papal,' and see whose name comes up."

Guess whose name comes up most often, or in Nexis? The reporter calls McBrien, who is no doubt very good about returning calls, and who is eminently quotable, and ba-da-bing, the reporter has his quote from the "Catholic perspective," and on he goes.

Is it lazy journalism? Yes. But that's not the same thing as conspiratorial journalism.

[ambrose]

Hi, Bob Kunz--I do read him (Allen) often. I just hadn't come across his saying ever before "He essentially squelched the Second Vatican Council." He is so incredibly cautious with his word choices that something that sounds so broad doesn't sound right. He's never even used the word squelched in print in his columns. For Allen to know that Ratzinger was active in the Second Vatican Council, and that Ratzinger perhaps believes that some of that Council's work has been hijacked by "liberals"---that's not squelching. And with Allen doing all the mea culpas about the tone of his writings six years ago, being quoted as saying Ratzinger squelched Vatican II when Allen has been writing these past 2 weeks about how committed Benedict XVI is to Vatican II (as when he discussed the first Mass http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/conclave/pt042205b.htm)--seems he would take back a squelching comment, too.
But maybe I don't read him enough.
And I don't wrinkle my nose. I pull in my lower jaw and bite my lower lip :-)

[kyle]

Rod,

Thanks. I think we disagree about how we're definining the word "systematic." If taken to mean "built into the system and thus likely to produce the same results over and over again," I think the arguments you gave support rather than refute the term. But if you take it to mean "conspiratorial," which does involve intent, it's the opposite, and you may be right.

If I may prod a bit more, though, I suggest you are begging the question a bit when it comes to quoting folks like Father McBrien. How did it happen that his name turns up at the top of a Google or a Nexis search such as the one you described? You see, it's really the same question. And the answer is that journalists were quoting him frequently, even back before those tools were in such wide use. And we're back where we started: Why?

[kyle]

I actually disagree with myself about how to define the word "definining."

[William Tighe]

There is a good, long, detailed review of John Allen's book on Cardinal Ratzinger in the October 2001 issue of the *Homiletic and Pastoral Review*; it is accessible online. The author, Fr. Vincent Twomey was one of Ratzinger's doctoral students in the 1970s, and an ongoing member of the Ratzinger schulerkreis.

[Rick Lugari]

heh... Am I the only one shaking his head in amazement that Sr. Joan thinks that the world would be a better place if the Holy Father emulates St. Benedict? With his [St. Benedict] being the father of western monasticism and the creator of the monastic rule that bears his name, in which Sr. Joan has professed her vows, I wonder what choice words he would have for his wayward daughter. Does she somehow think that the St. Benedict would approve of, or sponsor her heterodox causes? It really is amazing how the human mind works...and sometimes doesn’t work.

[Richard]

Rod makes a great observation when he talks about media bias - havign worked for the Kansas City Star for a several years, I can echo that. There *is* bias, and it does end up largely reinforcing a certain worldview; but it is rarely conspiratorial or organized or even conscious.

The media is not so much anti-Catholic as simply areligious - and caring very much about certain lifestyle issues, on which the Church happens to say some things very disagreeable to them.

And as regards Allen, this is spot on:

I think it's wrong to call John Allen names based on his reporting of six years ago, when he clearly says today that the experience of the past few years has changed his views. I myself grew more conservative in my views after I got out of college and into the, ahem, real world. I know conservative ideologues who moderated with real-world experience. If, after eight years covering the Vatican, John Allen had exactly the same views that he had when he first showed up, I would be very surprised, and in fact disappointed. I think few of us who had genuinely open minds would be left unmarked, one way or another, by the experiences a Vatican correspondent has.

Allen, as I said, shows a willingness to reconsider his opinions, even when the conclusions suggested run counter to his personal principles. It takes a big man to do that. It reveals character. It is a rare trait. Especially in the press.

I can actually respect or at least esteem that kind of character growth over one that is merely static and virtuous. I end up with a greater impression of character in regards to someone like Nathan Bedford Forrest, slavetrader and KKK Grand Wizard, who late in life showed tremendous liberality of attitude toward freed blacks, than I can, say, an Upper West Side activist who imbibed liberalism in his mother's milk and marched with Dr. King.

So as I said, I'll keep reading John Allen. For all his flaws, he's one of the best at his trade working today.

[Rod Dreher]

Kyle: If I may prod a bit more, though, I suggest you are begging the question a bit when it comes to quoting folks like Father McBrien. How did it happen that his name turns up at the top of a Google or a Nexis search such as the one you described? You see, it's really the same question. And the answer is that journalists were quoting him frequently, even back before those tools were in such wide use. And we're back where we started: Why?

Well, who can really say about McBrien, but let me tell you something that really happened to me, which should tell you how this often works.

It's 1994, and I'm working on the national desk of the Washington Times. I wrote some kind of political story, can't remember what it was about, but my editor told me to get a quote from a direct-mail political marketer. Turned out that one of my housemates worked for a Democratic firm that did this kind of work. I called the firm, talked to the director, and got my quote. It was not a well known firm at all, but when you're less than half an hour before deadline, you don't go for the big boys.

The next day, my housemate said CBS News called her boss asking for an interview for a political story. This could only have happened because some producer at CBS read his quote in the paper, and decided he was a good expert. Now, there was nothing more expert about that guy than anybody else I could have called; I rang him because he was in the business, and I guessed I could get a quote from him real fast. But suddenly, he was on national TV as an "expert."

That made me think about how often back then I used Nexis to find out who the "experts" were on a given story. What makes you an expert? To turn up often in Nexis. It's kind of like a celebrity is somebody who is famous for being famous.

Like I said, it's lazy journalism.

[Ian]

I'd give John Allen the benefit of the doubt regarding a "conversion of heart" if he didn't copy verbatim his nasty attack on the Pope (Benedict) from 1999 into his column on April 19th, 2005.

I don't trust him, but I'll pray for him.

[Rich Leonardi]

I saw an interesting PBS special last night on the conclave. It was quite interesting to see footage taken on St. Peter's Square, when the identity of the new pope was announced, of various characters they'd been following throughout the film.

It was Wide Angle. I was struck by that too, all these young, articulate kids excited about the Faith contrasted against these nutty, carping holdovers from 1978. The producers actually went to the trouble of tracking down the only theologian to be excommunicated by the "authoritarian" Cardinal-turned-Pope. He denied the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, recanted, and his excommunication was lifted. And, 'natch, he complained to the reporter about the need for more inclusion.

[michigancatholic]

"....it may be that the cardinals had better instincts than I did." You don't say! What a shock. How could anyone have better instincts...why, working for NCR alone must qualify him for some kind of claims about his instincts....

I'm shocked that this man gets the press he does--working for NCR and all. I've seen much better insight this last month out of a half-dozen others, most of them on EWTN.

[WRY]

John Allen's remarks to the Chicago Tribune suggest that he's trying to say that *Ratzinger* changed:

John L. Allen Jr., author of the 2000 biography Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vatican's Enforcer of the Faith, said the speech indicated the new pope understands that his role has abruptly changed.
"He's not a leader of a faction anymore. He's the leader of the universal church," Allen said.
Under Pope John Paul, Ratzinger was the unofficial spokesman for church leaders who believed that expanding the reach of Catholicism around the world was less important than emphasizing the core principles of the faith. He led the crackdown on liberation theology in Latin America and stripped authority from the church's regional bishops. On Monday, as a cardinal, he delivered a homily excoriating what he called modern society's "dictatorship of relativism."
But even with the apparent triumph of Pope Benedict's theological point of view, evident in his swift election, Allen said the new pope seemed to recognize yesterday that he now speaks for the entire span of the 1.1 billion-member faith.
"It's not at all an accident that he chose to touch on these issues," Allen said. "It was a virtual laundry list of the things his critics are most concerned about."

[michigancatholic]

Besides, here's the article by Sandro Magister, with the info that (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger was the frontrunner on April 14th. Online, folks. Fr. John Neuhaus was talking it too....So were other folks.

It was with great joy that I heard that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had been elected, but it wasn't a sheer surprise at that point. Were you *that* surprised? The progressive cause has been sunk for years now--they didn't even have anyone they could decide on, I'd bet.

[michigancatholic]

There were other clues around too, mind you. For instance, Cardinal Hummes, the press favorite, preached a retreat at the Vatican last year and reportedly bored everyone to death, giving some insight on his personal eh...properties.

And the situation with Cardinal Martini was complex and historical and involved Cardinal Tettamanzi in such a way that the later could not have gotten enough support to pull together anything....but in turn Cardinal Martini, regardless of the loyalty he engenders, is seriously chronically ill. So that could go nowhere....

Three cardinals were absent, due to illness, leaving 58 from Europe and 57 from everywhere else. Voila, the makings of a European pope.

It just narrowed down and down.....

[maura]

"John Allen's remarks to the Chicago Tribune suggest that he's trying to say that *Ratzinger* changed:"

Nah, he didn't change, his job description & duties did.

The more I read about Benedict XVI the more the adjective comes to mind: relentless.

That may not sound like a compliment. It kind of is though. I mean: relentlessly honest. Relentless competent. Relentlessly dedicated to serving the truth and the Church, and doing his job to the best of his ability.

Well. A relentlessly dedicated enforcer of the faith is going to alienate some people. A relentlessly dedicated Pope is going to be regarded more warmly.

Changing job titles can make a big difference. I didn't care for Condoleeza Rice as NSA, but she seems to be doing pretty darn good as Secretary of State so far. Alberto Gonzales was very different on the Texas Supreme Court and as President Bush's advisor on clemency cases, and I just have to hope he makes a very different Attorney General than White House Counsel.

But most of all I think of Robert Kennedy, who had a reputation for being ruthless and heartless when he was running his older brother's campaign and Department of Justice, and has a very different reputation after his campaign for the Presidency and his assassination. No doubt he changed a lot in the intervening years--no doubt his brother's death shook him to the core. No doubt part of his current reputation is the sort of hagiography and nostalgia that we're often prone to when someone dies young. But I think part of it is a change in the job description: before, he was relentless in the service of his brother's campaign and adminstration--afterwards he was relentless in serving a much broader group of people.

I doubt, mind you, that Benedict XVI and Robert Kennedy have much in common at all. I'm just giving the first example that comes to mind. And both men did have that reputation for ruthlessness, that I think may have really been about dedication and loyalty and a fierce determination to do one's job right.

[maura]

As far as the conclave: John Allen writes honestly, but he is influenced--not so much by ideology as by his own hopes. The same thing that leads him to be fairer to Benedict XVI even when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, and that helps him to have a much better relationship with Rome than the rest of NCR, is probably what led him to botch his conclave predictions a bit more than most. (I mean, even I could tell that someone like Rodriguez Maradiaga had no chance at all; my guess was Bergoglio.)

It makes him a lousy handicapper of conclaves but a good reporter. There are very few people who are consciously doing wrong; most sin lies in self-deception. So if you impute bad faith to people, you're going to have a rough time understanding them or their motivations; you may correctly describe their actions but you will not be able to make even an educated attempt to get inside their heads. Since understanding individuals who do NOT put themselves out there for press scrutiny the way most public figures do is key to Vatican reporting, this is invaluable.

[Whitcomb]

On experts:

It's sort of like quoting Norm Ornstein all the time on Congress. He's certainly a qualified source, but it gets a little old seeing his name in the paper all the time. I think there's some pundit's award--for how many times you get quoted in the newspapers every year--that Norm has won many times.

I write as someone who does not reflexively curse when I read Father Richard McBrien's name in the paper. I like Father McBrien, even when I disagree with him. I like him even more when I agree with him. But he's not the last word on the American church, and reporters and editors have a duty to find out that he's not the last word. It really isn't that hard. Just talk to people. Do some research.

Newsroom conspiracies? I don' think so. As a green reporter, I was once thrown into a story at the last minute to explain an issue roiling the various denominations of Judaism. I, a Catholic, screamed back at my Presbyterian editor: You've got to be (expletive) me! What the (expletive) do we know about Judaism, much less this particular dispute!

(Explainer: Newsrooms of 25 years ago were, shall we say, a little less genteel than they are today. They were havens for cursing, irreverence, gallows humor, sex jokes, invective, etc.)

My editor's reply: You've got 60 minutes to find out, and stop bitching about it.

I had the good sense to speak to a Jewish colleague who pointed me in the right directions. I wrote my hapless story. I am so pleased that it was written pre-cyber age; it can be found now only by the masochists who would actually seek it out in the paper's morgue.

[Paul McL]

I think a real difficulty for John Allen (and others who rely on Vatican contacts for information) is that because so much of their work relies on anonymous sources, they can never know whether they are really getting the inside story or if they are being fed a line to further a particular person's own political agenda.

Eg, it appears Cardinal Silvestrini was doing all he could during the pre-Conclave period to derail Ratzinger's election by feeding the press stories, which they happily printed. (Robert Moynihan comments on this in one of his 'Inside the Vatican' newsflashes.)

And now, most of the stories about how Benedict XVI will probably be less of a bulldog than Ratzinger are mostly quoting people who are unlikely to have supported his candidacy. They are projecting their worst fears about his papacy by feeding the press soundbites that suggest the opposite, hoping it will paint him into a corner by building a particular expectation.

Notice that the Cardinals who are showing up most in articles about the Conclave and the expectations of the Papacy are the liberals: Mahony, Danneels, Murphy-O'Connor, Martini (and those who are assumed to be in the running for Ratzinger's former job: Bertone, George, Pell).

As for Richard McBrien and why historically he has been so quoted, don't forget that in the dark ages before the Catechism was eventually published in English, the most widely-read book English-language book that tried to explain Catholicism in a comprehensive way to the popular masses, was McBrien's "Catholicism" - which was full of his dissenting opinions.

[John]

I am surprised that - so far - little has been said about the pervasive influence of Wetern cultural 'values'on journalists in this case John Allen. Not directly anyway. Rod defends him and others like him saying that these people are ignorant that is why they write wrong-headed, venomous stories.

Ignorance is no defense when you should know better. And a Catholic journalist ought to know better. J. Allen consciously rejects orthodox Catholic positions whether coming from the Bible, the CDF or the Pope himself. He trusts his liberal peers so much that even when confronted by Truth he will turn away. He is growing in knowledge but to be fully Catholic he will have to have a complete conversion. Do you see him becoming an absolutist a la Pope Benedict XVI?

[kyle]

Rod, Whitcomb, if you're still hanging around:

I am also a journalist and know of what you speak. I suppose the next few months will be a good test. It's hard to make the case after the last couple of weeks of coverage that folks don't know the fault lines in the church anymore, and in addition to Father McBrien, Google and Nexis searches should also turn up names like Neuhaus and Fessio and Janet Smith and Welborn.

If those sorts of names start turning up with appropriate frequency, I guess we'll know it was just lazy reporting before.

[Bob Kunz]

Hi, ambrose,

Touché.