Los Angeles Times Story Inflames Rather Than Informs

A Los Angeles Times story today on the case of the Portland priest being taken to court for child support is a classic case of media ignorance and seeming desire for sensationalism combining to inflame rather than inform the reader.

This is all the more surprising since the reporter, LAT religion writer William Lobdell, is a level-headed guy and (incidentally) a committed Christian who should know better.

In 1994, then-Archbishop of Portland William Levada offered a simple answer for why the archdiocese shouldn't have been ordered to pay the costs of raising a child fathered by a church worker at a Portland, Ore., parish.

In her relationship with Arturo Uribe, then a seminarian and now a Whittier priest, the child's mother had engaged "in unprotected intercourse … when [she] should have known that could result in pregnancy," the church maintained in its answer to the lawsuit.

It seems clear to me Lobdell is attempting to catch the now-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in having employed a legal argument that contradicts the doctrine of the faith.

Only what the Portland Diocese lawyer wrote the response doesn't say what the Times claims it says: that the young woman should have used birth control. It simply says the woman should have known she could pregnant is she had unprotected sex -- which is a plain fact unrelated to Catholic doctrine on birth control.

Which brings me to my next point. Lobdell writes:

And the fact that the church — which considers birth control a sin — seemed to be arguing that the woman should have protected herself from pregnancy provoked no comment.

When every third story on Catholicism that appears in the American media is about contraception, there is simply no excuse for the continuing failure of journalists to accurately describe Church teaching on the matter. There is even less of an excuse for religion writers -- that's their job, after all.

As Lobdell should know -- and if he does know, should of described so -- is that the Church teaches that artificial contraception is "intrinsically evil." The Church states clearly that:

"The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception)."

Lobdell could have found that out in less than 60 seconds by Googling "Catechism Catholic Church,  clicking very first result and then perusing the index for "contraception."

Lobdell then goes to the aging dissidents Richard McBrien and Frances Kissling for their thoughts on the matter. McBrien is bad enough -- though he is an inveterate enemy of orthodox Catholicism, at least he's an ordained priest. But Kissling? She cannot -- except in her own mind -- be even remotely considered a serious or observant Catholic.

To his credit, Lobdell does quote William Donohue of the Catholic League on Civil and Religious
Rights, as well as Michael Novak. Both men are critical of the legal brief.

Michael Novak's response is measured:

"On the face of it, [the argument] is simply appalling," said Michael Novak, a conservative Catholic theologian and author based in Washington, D.C.

On the face of it being the key phrase here.

I think Donohue's response is wrong and exaggerated:

William Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights based in New York, said the legal language was "simply code for, 'What's wrong with you, honey, aren't you smart enough to make sure condoms were used?' "

And that, he notes, is completely counter to the church's teachings, which hold that using contraceptives is "intrinsically evil."

Again with the inaccuracy about Church teaching on contraception. In this instance, either Donohue misspoke (because he knows better) or Lobdell just got it wrong again.

My point here is two-fold:

1) The statement in the 1994 legal brief, on its face -- in my opinion -- does not contradict Catholic teaching on contraception. It certainly doesn't rise to the level of an Archbishop contradicting a core Church doctrine for the sake of legal expediency.

2) If Lobdell were familiar with Church teaching on contraception -- as a religion writer for a major metropolitan newspaper should be -- this story would -- or at least should have -- taken on an entirely different character. Or maybe not have been written at all.

But I suppose the possibility of penning a gotcha story depicting the Catholic Church's doctrinal guardian sacrificing doctrine for potential legal advantage was a journalistic temptation too great to resist.

Comments

[carol]

On your point #2: I have ceased to expect that most religion writers in the main stream media will try to, or are able to, completely or accurately explain the position of the Church. This includes writers who I think ought to know better. In Chicago, we have Andrew Greeley (is he still a priest? He still calls himself Father.) who occasionally will write for the Sun-Times or the Tribune, I can’t remember which and much of what he says is shameless toeing of the liberal line that the Church isn’t ‘with it’. And after the Pope wrote a letter a few years ago restating the Church position on homosexuality especially in regards to marriage, there’s the classic example of the Sun-Times headline that ran the next morning: “Pope launches global attack on gays.” I’ve written many letters but have resigned myself to the fact that there are many papers and religion writers who are just trying to make the Church look as bad as possible. I’m sure others try to genuinely portray the Church and maybe they just don’t get it right, but I doubt they are in the majority.

On your point #1: Maybe I don’t understand but I am dismayed that Church officials would say that this woman should have known she could get pregnant so we are not going to support her child. The seminarian knew just as well as she did that she could get pregnant and the Church response should be – you both knew this could happen, it did and now the two of you have to take care of that child and I’m sorry but that means the man can no longer be a priest. Not only is that doing something, it’s doing the right thing. Because the point is she DID get pregnant and there is a CHILD that needs to be cared for and that is the FATHER’S responsibility and not the Church’s. As far as contraception goes, the mainstream media of course looks at it like if she was on the pill or something else, this whole situation could have been avoided - but contraception fails and they don’t like to talk about the failure rate. What you won’t read in the paper is that the only way all of this could have been avoided is if the man and the woman had practiced the Church teaching of chastity.

[Joel]

Your quote from the Catechism confirms Donohue's assertion.

[Joel]

Donohue was right, especially in using condoms as an example. Your quote from the Catechism confirms his assertion.