That was the question on the mind of the television news anchor, as he turned to his guests to discuss the new proposal from the White House. President George W. Bush had announced that his administration would work closely with “faith-based organizations” (FBOs) in carrying out welfare policies. Visibly apprehensive about that idea, the newsman asked whether the President’s program was a threat to the separation of Church and state. Would the US be taking a step down the road toward the establishment of a theocracy?
True, none of the leading American networks actually suggested that President Bush would bring the Inquisition to America. But in their first reports on the White House plans, the major media outlets invariably turned their attention immediately to the question of Church-state relations. They did not ask, in the first instance, whether the FBOs would be more effective in handling welfare cases. They did not ask whether the President’s plans might save the taxpayers from higher costs, or save the needy from further suffering. Those questions came later—almost as afterthoughts. The first reaction from the media establishment was one of nervousness, even fear, because the President had acknowledged the role of religion in shaping American society.
How can we explain that Pavlovian reaction? Is religious faith an inherently dangerous force, to be treated by political leaders only with elaborate precautions—as a doctor might administer a powerful narcotic drug? Has it become an axiom of the American liberal ideology that religion is always and everywhere a threat to democracy?
The Pope’s divisions
Even as they tried to digest the first announcements from the Bush White House, American media outlets were also putting their “spin” on the news that Pope John Paul II would add 42 members to the College of Cardinals. Again a consensus of conventional opinion soon emerged. With this record-breaking class of new cardinals, the media told us, the Pope—who had already broken all previous records for the distribution of red hats—was hoping to ensure that his successor will be someone who shares his views.
That analysis is self-confirming insofar as the next Pontiff will be a man who, like John Paul II, professes the Catholic faith. We can be quite certain that our friends in the media will proclaim their astonishment when the new Pope does not abandon that faith—at least at those points where it clashes with modern secular ideology. Then they can look back at this consistory, and conclude that the Pope had indeed stacked the deck.
But a dispassionate look at the Pope’s appointments would actually point in the opposite direction. During this pontificate the College of Cardinals had become a much more international body; its members represent a much wider variety of personal, pastoral, and ecclesial backgrounds. Pope John Paul has given red hats to three patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic churches, and two others who, while not ranking as patriarchs, are leaders of Eastern churches. Through his appointments the Pope has shifted the balance of power in the College away from Europe and toward Latin America, responding not to his own personal interest but to the demographic trends within contemporary Catholicism.
Moreover, among the newest cardinals, the Pope’s most remarkable selection was a bishop (not even an archbishop!) who had come to public prominence through his disagreements with the Pontiff. We cannot explain why the Pope bestowed this honor on Cardinal Karl Lehmann, and we shall not speculate. But obviously the Pope was not motivated by a desire to surround himself with sycophants.
Causes for concern
In responding to public announcements—whether they come from the White House or St. Peter’s Square—most journalists struggle to fit the stories onto the procrustean bed of secular ideology. In the process they distort the facts. Still more important, as they focus obsessively on one set of questions, they ignore other more realistic concerns.
Consider, once again, the Bush plan to channel some federal welfare spending through FBOs. Have the major media outlets worried over the fact that the country’s largest single abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, receives millions of dollars in federal subsidies to run family-planning and sex-education programs? Have they voiced misgivings when government contracts are awarded to organizations that profess a militantly secularist or even anti-religious ideology?
Finally, if an alliance with FBOs could pose some theoretical dangers for the federal government, what about those religious groups themselves? Will they face pressure to tone down their evangelical efforts, so as not to rouse the fears of their secularist critics? Will they be tempted to look upon their own efforts as government programs rather than missionary endeavors?
The guardians of fashionable ideology worry about how religion affects politics. More prudent souls will worry about how politics affects religion.
—By Philip F. Lawler
