The biggest Vatican stories of the decade

[Editor's note: John Allen's column is being posted early this week, because his usual posting day, Friday, is Jan. 1, New Year's Day and the Feast of Mary, Mother of God.]

'Tis the season for end-of-decade countdowns, like “best baseball comebacks” and “worst fashion blunders.” In that spirit, this column is dedicated to the biggest Vatican stories of the first decade of the 21st century.

Usually these lists reflect somebody’s opinion, and they’re designed more to entertain than to edify. You rarely learn anything you didn’t already know, but the debates they trigger can be loads of fun, and I considered going that route. For example: “Biggest Vatican stories that never happened,” including the resignation of John Paul II or a sweeping reform of the Roman Curia under Benedict XVI. Another would be “most under-appreciated Vatican stories,” such as the fact that despite the church’s reputation for strict uniformity, we now have a de facto policy of liturgical pluralism within the Latin Rite (the extraordinary form for the Tridentine liturgy and new Anglican personal ordinariates, assuming they ever get off the ground.)

In the end, however, I decided to take a more empirical tack, seeking to identify what really were the decade’s biggest Vatican stories in the American media market. I did two month-by-month keyword searches under “Vatican” using Lexis-Nexis, the most comprehensive on-line media database, one for headlines in major American publications and the other for mentions in transcripts of national radio and TV broadcasts. Both searches began in January 2000 and ended in December 2009.

Of course, “most covered” and “most important” are hardly equivalent terms, but at least we can say with certainty which Vatican stories of the past decade generated the most buzz in the United States -- making them most likely to shape the perceptions of the average American about what the Vatican and the pope are up to.

At the big-picture level, the results should surprise no one. By a considerable margin, the three stories that topped the charts were:

  • The sexual abuse crisis
  • The death of John Paul II and the election of Benedict XVI
  • The visit of Benedict XVI to Washington and New York in April 2008, the lone papal journey to the United States during the decade.

Of the three, the John Paul II/Benedict XVI story was easily the biggest. In an average month during the last decade, there were roughly 71 headlines about the Vatican in the United States, but in April 2005, that number soared to 573. In the broadcast arena, the spike was even greater. Considering coverage in January, February and March of 2005, when John Paul’s illness was the lead global story, the papal transition accounted for a staggering one-third of all mentions of the Vatican by national radio and TV outlets for the entire decade.

NCR: February 3-16, 2012

Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:

- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy

- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more

- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America

Subscribe now!

Other stories that produced significant up-ticks were:

  • John Paul II’s March 2000 visit to the Holy Land.
  • The 25th anniversary of John Paul’s election to the papacy in October 2003, coupled with speculation about the next pope.
  • Pope Benedict XVI’s Sept. 12, 2006, lecture at Regensburg, which triggered a firestorm of protest across the Islamic world by appearing to link Muhammad with violence.
  • Benedict’s June 2007 decision to authorize wider celebration of the old Latin Mass.
  • Debates over the relationship between Catholicism and other religions (including a tough 2000 Vatican document titled Dominus Iesus and several investigations of theologians).
  • The Vatican’s critical reaction to the U.S.-led war in Iraq in 2003.
  • A 2005 Vatican ruling that homosexuals should not be admitted to seminaries, meaning that they should not become priests.
  • Faith and politics, including the Vatican’s still-debated position on refusing communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians, and its openness to U.S. President Barack Obama.
  • Catholic-Jewish relations, including stories that bookended the decade: The controversial beatification of Pope Pius IX in 2000, and movement towards sainthood for Pope Pius XII in 2009.
  • Vatican reaction to two pop culture sensations: Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code and Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.”

The two charts in this column illustrate the spikes in print or broadcast coverage, or both, associated with each of these storylines.



While little of this is especially shocking, there are at least three interesting lines of reflection suggested by the data.

1. The Difference between Print and Broadcast

The most obvious impression that literally leaps off the two charts is that while the death of John Paul II and the election of Benedict XVI were only relatively more covered in print, it was a landslide winner in broadcast. The papal transition accounted for around ten percent of print coverage of the Vatican during the decade (narrowly edging out the sexual abuse crisis), but a full one-third of broadcast interest.

In a sound-bite, the death of John Paul and election of Benedict XVI was by far the greatest TV phenomenon of the decade, but only a relatively more compelling print story.

Other differences also emerge. John Paul’s October 2003 anniversary (which included a consistory for new cardinals) was a big broadcast story, but didn’t make much of a dent in print, while the opposite was true for the theological controversies ignited by Dominus Iesus in 2000 -- it was a big deal in print, but didn’t generate as much heat in the TV world. The two Holy Land journeys of the decade, John Paul in March 2000 and Benedict XVI in May 2009, produced jumps in broadcast coverage big enough to show up on the charts, but less so in print. (That’s especially true of Benedict’s trip.)

The explanation seems reasonably obvious: Stories with a dramatic visual and audio component are more likely to be widely followed by broadcast media, whereas stories about policy or theological disputes are more at home in the print world. The Vatican has always been adept at stagecraft, which makes it a natural for TV.

Given that contrast, it might be an interesting exercise for a Catholic college to conduct a study of differences in perception of the Vatican and/or the pope among Americans who are mostly dependent upon TV for their news (presumably, a substantial majority) and those whose outlooks are more shaped by newspapers and journals. Though it’s no more than a working hypothesis, my hunch would be that people more attuned to broadcast media may have a slightly sunnier impression of where things stand.

2. Impressions of Media Bias

Among some Catholics, it’s an article of faith that the secular media in the United States is hostile to the Catholic church. During the past decade, that conviction was solidified by the sexual abuse crisis, and amplified by the way the media sometimes cast the church as a heavy in the culture wars over abortion and homosexuality.

Simply adding up the total number of references to the Vatican doesn’t distinguish between positive and negative coverage, but it’s worth noting that two of the three clear winners for biggest stories of the decade were, by common reckoning, good ones for the Vatican: the global outpouring of affection for John Paul II at the time of his death, and the visit of Benedict XVI to the United States. Polls taken shortly after that trip showed the new pope winning high marks for his candor on the sex abuse issue, including the first-ever papal session with victims, and for the image of basic kindness he managed to project.

CNN actually carried three papal events more or less bell-to-bell during Benedict’s American swing: a Mass at Nationals Stadium in Washington, D.C., a Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, and the concluding Mass at Yankees Stadium. That had to be a record for most Catholic liturgy ever broadcast on an American commercial network in a single week. (As CNN’s commentator during those events, I can add a touch of personal astonishment that there’s actually money to be made simply by knowing the parts of the Mass!)

To be sure, the sex abuse story was a cancer for the church, including the Vatican, which ran throughout the decade. Coverage in the decade pre-dated the American crisis, beginning with revelations in March 2001 (first reported in NCR) about the sexual abuse of nuns in Africa by priests, and a November 2001 apology by John Paul II to the church in Oceania for sexual abuse by priests and religious. There were plenty of other negative storylines too, including fallout from Benedict’s Regensburg lecture and his decision to lift the excommunication of the Holocaust-denying (or, at least, Holocaust-minimizing) Bishop Richard Williamson.

Nevertheless, looking back at patterns of coverage over the last ten years, it’s difficult to sustain an impression of systematic anti-Catholic or anti-papal bias. On the whole, the press in this country seemed to cover the good with the bad -- and, based purely on statistical counts, the good (from the Vatican’s point of view) often seemed to prevail.

3. The Two Popes

Comparing the two popes of the decade, John Paul II is conventionally seen as the more charismatic media figure, and that’s certainly reflected in TV and radio coverage. Setting aside April 2005, when the two popes overlapped, John Paul was mentioned on American TV and radio an average of 89 times a month during the first half of the decade, roughly a 25 percent better clip than Benedict’s average of 66 references a month.

In print, however, Benedict XVI actually comes out slightly ahead. During the 63 months that John Paul reigned during the decade, the Vatican garnered 71.3 headlines a month, while over Benedict’s 56 months the average was 71.9.

Those numbers seem to confirm a bit of conventional journalistic wisdom, which is that while John Paul II was the ideal pope for the TV age, the cerebral Benedict is often better suited to print. My friend and colleague Delia Gallagher was, I think, the first to say that Benedict XVI is a great pope for the Internet, because he’s meant to be read, and virtually every word he either speaks or publishes is now available in real time.

Here’s a final impression, which I can’t confirm statistically, but it reflects my experience: Much coverage of John Paul II during the first half of the decade was cast either in the past tense or the future, while Benedict’s is more firmly in the present.

That is to say, a dominant storyline regarding John Paul II from 2000 to 2005 was the health watch. (I used to grouse that I lived for the day when I would never again have to begin a TV bit with the phrase, “Well, I’m not a doctor, but …”) Much print and broadcast coverage was either retrospective, looking back at John Paul’s legacy, or trying to peek ahead at what (and, inevitably, who) might come next.

A much greater share of Benedict’s coverage has been rooted in the here-and-now. He’s been in office less than five years, so legacy pieces are premature, and there’s been no health scare to kick-start speculation about a successor. While he’s amassed a mixed record as a communicator, at least his major stories have been about substantive issues: the “clash of civilizations” between Islam and the West, his battle against a “dictatorship of relativism,” Christian-Jewish relations, faith and politics (including the relationship between the Vatican and the Obama administration), and so on.

In other words, we’re in that “sweet spot” within a papacy in which the focus is on ideas -- we’re beyond profiling the new guy or summing up his early moves, but not yet ready for obits and prognostications. Moreover, that sweet spot could last a while, since there’s little indication that Benedict XVI is on the brink of decline.

As I’m fond of saying, German machinery is built to last. The way Benedict XVI rebounded from that collision on Christmas Eve would seem to suggest he’s remarkably resilient for a guy of 82 … but, of course, I’m not a doctor.

I enjoyed reading this

I enjoyed reading this article and especially the final 3 paragraphs. Made me *smile*.

I think John's referring to

I think John's referring to the "national" media.....not "local" media.

For example, our local newspaper, on their front page, suggested a parish priest be suspended for actions he took over 30 years ago. His crime? He suggested another priest be evaluated because that priest had been accused of sex abuse. So instead of instantly "firing" the accused priest, he suggested an evaluation. Even in hindsight, his actions don't seem out-of-line. But the local newspaper created a sensational story implying this parish priest was still in a parish even though he was tainted by actions he took over 30 years ago. It wasn't until you read the entire story when you realize their story was a sham - there wasn't a story at all!! In fact, at the very end, they indicated the diocese implemented successful processes to prevent sex abuse.

"Of course, “most

"Of course, “most covered”....The sexual abuse crisis"

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the "most COVERED-UP" story.

Nice graphics, BUT incorrect

Nice graphics, BUT incorrect usage of a PAST TENSE verb here:

"To be sure, the sex abuse story WAS a cancer for the church, including the Vatican, which ran throughout the decade."

This story IS far from over.

You are right on both counts

You are right on both counts Craig. This story is far from over. Inevitably more shoes, and, hopefully, more miters will drop. The Vatican pretends that this problem is over and was confined to the English speaking world. Their capacity for denial is undoing the church.

Steve

Aw, c'mon. The article is a

Aw, c'mon. The article is a retrospective look. The use of the past tense is the only correct tense when describing the DATA which is a past tense quantity. Making it present tense is editorializing, not reporting.

Thank you for a good review

Thank you for a good review which I appreciate for giving a clear perspective.

Nothing about Cardinal Rode

Nothing about Cardinal Rode and his witch hunt against American nuns or the impostion of liturgical change when none is needed?

JR

As always John is interesting

As always John is interesting to read, but what a delight to hear.

I'm a physician, who has

I'm a physician, who has never examined the pontiff, nor do I know anything of detail about his medical history but, I can agree with John's assessment. He's mentally sharp, with a spy gait, a normal body mass index, and I presume no serious vices like smoking -- we may very well be discussing his health again in 10 years time.

He is certainly likely to

He is certainly likely to live longer than some of the folks in Africa he has condemned to death by denouncing the use of condoms. What a sad, dangerous, evil thing to do.

Um, Benedict did not force

Um, Benedict did not force people in Africa to take risks that lead to death.

Or are you saying that these people know they are sinning, so they listen to Benedict on one sin but ignore Benedict on a second sin? That's not really logical.

What is so sinful about a man

What is so sinful about a man who has HIV/AIDS from birth and wants to have a sexual relationship with his married partner but does not want her to get the diease?

"was a cancer"? Shouldn't

"was a cancer"?

Shouldn't that be is a cancer?

At least the guilty Irish bishops resigned. More than we can say for the USA.

I always enjoy John's

I always enjoy John's articles. I think that perhaps this one should be titled,"The Biggest Vatican Stories of the decade, So Far." The decade will last through this year; it is only 9/10ths over.

When is John Allen going to

When is John Allen going to talk about the REALLY important issues: 1) the fact that in spite of an overwhelming majority of John XXIII"S and Paul VI's personally appointed Commission of men, women, doctors, theologians, bishops and Cardinals, and in spite of today's overpopulation that is killing our planet, John never mentions Benedict XVI's failure to simply follow the majority of his predecessor's advisors and announce that artificial birth control is NOT immoral? And, 2) in the light of his own clear insight that the sex abuse scandal is not over and has caused immense harm to the whole world's view of the Catholic Church: fewer and fewer see the Church as genuinely preaching and practicing the love, purity and non-violence of Jesus. and 3) the fact that the present pope has made beautiful overtures to the Orthodox Church--whose bearded, be-cassocked priests I recently saw walking with their wives in St. Petersburg's lovely museums--why does John never suggest that a married clergy in our Church would unquestionably aid (though of course not completely cure) the sex-abuse scandal? My thirteen years as a Benedictine taught me that both the unmarried Catholic clergy and the monasteries requiring perpetual vows where--unlike the Theravada Buddhist monks--they cannot leave and get married when they find that celibacy is impossible for them is a major and direct cause of the sex abuse crisis. I personally saw this situation draw homosexuals into the Catholic priesthood and the Orders like honey draws flies. They can manage to look very holy (and of course many of them are both wonderfully holy priests and/or monks) even while making love to each other and abusing boys. I am holding John's The Future Church in my hand as I write. He alludes to the sex abuse crisis ten times in his work, and yet he can say about his future church, "It's improbable that the Catholic Church will ever simply abandon priestly celibacy..."(p. 49). This in spite of the fact that the Catholic Church had married priests for the first 1,000 years of its history. I spent four years doing a doctorate in Catholic Moral Theology, under Fr. Bernard Haring, during the Second Vatican Council. Haring was on the Commission on Birth Control and he let his students know very clearly where he stood on the issue. He respected John XXIII's withholding the matter of married priest from discussion at the Council--but after the clergy sex-abuse scandal I feel sure both Good Pope John and Fr. Haring would be ready to go back to the practice of the first hundreds of years of the Church, when not only priests but popes were often married--like Peter, upon whom Christ "built" his Church.

It makes no sense to me to

It makes no sense to me to blame the sex abuse crisis on the rule of celibacy. Celibacy is supposed to be a charism. If those entering religious life don't have the charism, then they should not enter. In religious life, there is plenty of time to discern this. The initial vows only last a year at a time. It is awhile before perpetual vows are taken.

If a person finds in time that they don't really have the charism, then they should be allowed to leave. And I'm sure they can be dispensed from their vows in that scenario. Your experience with the Benedictines (the order of Sr Joan Chittister) shows that there is something wrong with that order in more ways than one! We also know that Weakland was in charge of the Benedictine order, so the lax rule of chastity should be no surprise either!

You're talking about homosexuals who managed to get into religious life with no intention of being chaste. How do such persons get admitted in the first place? Why are they not expelled when discovered in their duplicity?

On the other side of the coin, the abuse crisis showed that priests in religious life were only half as likely to have engaged in abuse as diocesan priests were. This most probably relates to the actual vow of chastity taken by religious priests as opposed to a promise of celibacy to the bishop made by diocesan priests.

The mainstream media in the

The mainstream media in the USA is hostile to the Catholic Church; that goes without saying! That's why the sexual abuse crisis was grist to their mill. Not to say that the Church didn't deserve criticism, even a black eye on this one, but she got two black eyes & a further pounding from the media. This raises questions about just how bad the crisis really was since the reporting was so biased.

Media hypocrisy came out in various ways. Normally the media is for a rigorous application of the rule of law, following the precept that it is better for 99 guilty men to go free rather than for one innocent man to be found guilty. But when it came to priests, the media didn't seem to be concerned with the rule of law. They also had no concern for maintaining statutes of limitations except when it came to Roman Polanski, one of the establishment's own! And states would make exceptions to statutes of limitations retroactively so that the so called victims could sue the Church. Not a peep from the media!

Then there is the question of homosexuality. Homosexuals seem to be a protected class nowadays. So any question of the real connection between priestly homosexuality & priestly abuse was shunted aside. We see this in the John Jay report which claims that there is no link. Let us bear in mind that John Jay or whatever the name of that group is, is part of the establishment which like the media is politically correct. For this reason I believe their study has no real value.

Then there is the question of the so called victims. Who are these people and how reliable is their testimony? I could never find any media coverage of this topic. There is the whole issue of recovered memory syndrome (RMS) which has been discredited. That certainly played in the abuse crisis. Why were the victims not required to take polygraph tests or to be deposed in a court of law before they had tons of money thrown at them? Not a peep from the media!

And as bad as the media was, our own bishops pretty much gave themselves a free pass and then just threw money at the victims. I would not call our own bishops enablers of the abusers as some have done. I think in hindsight they handled this issue very imprudently and perhaps even violated canon law. But I think they deserve very strong criticism for the way they handled things after the crisis broke to include their hypocritical Dallas Charter.

For some odd reason the bishops got something of a pass from the media. Maybe it is because the USCC used to come out with a lot of liberal political baloney on things like capital punishment, nuclear & regular war, poverty & economic issues. That was back in the day of bishops like Bernardin & Weakland et al, of unfond memory!

Post new comment

NCR Comment code:

  1. Be respectful. Do not attack the writer. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
  2. Use appropriate language. Avoid vulgarities and slurs.
  3. Keep to the point. Deliberate digressions don't aid the discussion.

For more detailed guidelines, visit our User Guidelines page.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
(if you have one; if not, leave this blank)
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <font> <swf> <swf list>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may use <swf file="song.mp3"> to display Flash files inline

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This is to prove you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.