Archbishop Chaput & the American Media
Sep 29, 2010
Joseph Bottum
Last Friday, September 24, the archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, gave a talk to a conference of the Religion Newswriters Association. Called “Religion, Journalism, and the New American Orthodoxy,” it was an intelligent and sophisticated analysis—and really, quite uncontroversial in its conclusion, although you wouldn't know that from the response of the religion reporters who were present.
He pointed out, for instance, that a “new orthodoxy” appears to influence “the selection of religious news and how that news gets presented. It seems to frame which opinions are appropriate and which ones won’t be heard. And it seems to guide the historical narrative that media present to their audiences.” The trouble is that this new orthodoxy “seems to presume a society much more secular and much less religious than anything in America’s past or anything warranted by present facts.”
Drawing on such sociological work as Christian Smith’s The Secular Revolution, Chaput pointed out that, whether they start out intending it or not, all “knowledge professionals” are herded into this orthodoxy. Journalists of every stripe are counted among the knowledge professionals, and, obviously, this includes religion reporters—the journalists who cover religious events, figures, and trends. Which means that religion reporters must, in ordinary fairness and self-awareness, force themselves to “master and respect” their material. “Know yourself and your prejudices,” Chaput advised the assembled reporters.
It’s true, he concluded, that “one of the worst habits many Catholics had at the start of the clergy sex-abuse crisis, including many bishops, was to minimize a very grave problem.” But when we examine that fact, we might notice that “news media show many of the same patterns of denial, vanity, obstinacy, and institutional defensiveness in dealing with criticism of their own failures.”
All of which only promoted Beliefnet to sneer, “it’s pretty white of Chaput to include ‘many bishops’ on his side of the comparison.” Pretty white of Chaput. Pretty white of Chaput. This, for an archbishop who is a registered member of the Potawatomi tribe of Native Americans.
It’s a good bet, however, that the tone of this sneer by Mark Silk, the Beliefnet author, was set not by the talk itself but by what happened in the question-and-answer period that followed it.
As GetReligion described the scene:
During the question and answer period, Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times asked him why he didn’t return her phone call when Archbishop Jose Gomez was chosen as Los Angeles archbishop. Chaput said that Times reporter David Kirkpatrick misquoted him during John Kerry’s presidential campaign, and he said that he has recordings to prove it. “It’s the New York Times’ editorial policy that I’m interpreting,” Chaput said. “I made a judgment based on experience.”
Goodstein said she did not know Chaput was boycotting the Times. He challenged Goodstein’s more recent coverage of the Catholic Church. “You treated Pope Benedict badly in the latest series about him,” he said.
Cathy Grossman of USA Today challenged him, asking if a boycott over one reporter was fair. “We don’t boycott everyone, just the New York Times,” he said.
Well, among the religious reporters, that was enough to start a firestorm. Boycott the New York Times, will you? And not even bother to tell the New York Times you were doing it?
Archbishop Chaput’s talk had a number of interesting elements: the excursion into George Orwell’s career, the embrace of freedom of the press while asserting freedom of religion, the analysis of secularism as a system of thought.
But leave all that aside and think, for a moment, just about his description of knowledge professionals and the ways in which they are lured into a sense of perfect entitlement and superior correctness. One could hardly ask for a better example than the Beliefnet column mocking Chaput as lily-white. Or than a reporter from the New York Times thinking it entirely reasonable, in a public question-and-answer period, to demand an answer to why her phone calls weren’t returned.
Joseph Bottum is editor of First Things.
Comments:
9.29.2010 | 4:25am
sanpietrini says:
I suppose I ignore (ok, "boycott") the "New York Times" at my peril; but I'm willing to take that chance. I've discovered that there are much better sources of news, and much better commentary elsewhere.
9.29.2010 | 5:14am
Joel Clarke Gibbons says:
When the NYT is willing to wash its dirty linen in public, perhaps they can also deal with a recent matter of some importance. In a from page scream, on the event of Ahmedinejad's address to the U.N., they accused him of having blamed the felling of the World Trade Towers on our government, and asserting that most Americans agree. Well, most Americans don't agree; about 15% of Americans see it that way. However, on the weightier matter, that led President Obama to walk out of the session, the NYT had a small change of heart.
A couple of days later, when the dust had settled and the damage done, the NYT published Ahmedinejad's actual statement. In it, he listed without comment three alternate theories of 9/11, including two that point to our government. He did not accuse anyone of anything. Redfaced, the NYT apologized for this little slip-up. "Ever so sorry, chaps." Or something along those lines.
A propaganda outlet is always a propaganda outlet. Since its mission lies in entirely different directions, it is blind to the truth. They just don't care what they write as long as it advances their highly politicized objectives. It is really gratifying to see human nature ratified at its worst; it really takes the pressure off the rest of us sinners.
A couple of days later, when the dust had settled and the damage done, the NYT published Ahmedinejad's actual statement. In it, he listed without comment three alternate theories of 9/11, including two that point to our government. He did not accuse anyone of anything. Redfaced, the NYT apologized for this little slip-up. "Ever so sorry, chaps." Or something along those lines.
A propaganda outlet is always a propaganda outlet. Since its mission lies in entirely different directions, it is blind to the truth. They just don't care what they write as long as it advances their highly politicized objectives. It is really gratifying to see human nature ratified at its worst; it really takes the pressure off the rest of us sinners.
9.29.2010 | 6:50am
stmm says:
I've seen a number of surprised comments about Mark Silk's weird Beliefnet column, but the Bottum analysis here is especially useful. Do a Google search on Silk. You'll be struck by his credentials. But this makes his undercurrent of contempt toward Chaput in his column that much more revealing and inappropriate.
Here's a little thought experiment: Can you imagine the hoots of outrage from Mr. Silk's own knowledge class, had Chaput made some equivalently dumb and offensive remark in his RNA talk or interviews?
Here's a little thought experiment: Can you imagine the hoots of outrage from Mr. Silk's own knowledge class, had Chaput made some equivalently dumb and offensive remark in his RNA talk or interviews?
9.29.2010 | 9:10am
Maria V. says:
Media and communications - an appropriate topic, on the day when The Church
celebrates the Feast of the Archangels , who guess, are 'Lily white' in their splendor and light of truth ( even Caiphas can be a prophet ! ) .
If ArchBishop Chaput is esp. targeted for his staunch defense of ways to protec true communication , esp. between spouses , by exposing all that can be detrimental in this area , it is understabdable - just rather interesting how the Garden theme gets played put so much , such as through agents of miscommunication !
If our first parents too had not engaged the serpent ..and the good Bishop, like all good Father figures possibly only trying to protect not just the public but even the potential peprpetrators of calumny , from having to pay the price for same ( pslam 109 !)
May be ..may be these persons who are trying to 'persecute' the bishop /The Church wo
are in special need ..and thus brought into his life - a Father who would specially lift them up , in prayer , accepting them as needy , weak children ..not putting himself above them but making alive those words in scripture ' whoever is least among you , is the
greatest' . It takes a big heart , like that of a Perfect Mother, to accept all her
children esp. the very needy ones ..for She knows that The One who has been lifted up on The Cross has bore such weaknesses on behalf of all ..even those who are unable to accept that Spirit of true unity ..
In a world where lots more fathers need to learn the manhood of lifting up , on
behalf of wives, children , their own past generations and thus to bring forth the true
'communication ' of forgiveness and mercy , by the ministry of holy angels that mak
hearts merciful , may there be lots more courageous voices that speak out on fallen
angels that are out to bring only division , where it matters the most - at the heart
level !
celebrates the Feast of the Archangels , who guess, are 'Lily white' in their splendor and light of truth ( even Caiphas can be a prophet ! ) .
If ArchBishop Chaput is esp. targeted for his staunch defense of ways to protec true communication , esp. between spouses , by exposing all that can be detrimental in this area , it is understabdable - just rather interesting how the Garden theme gets played put so much , such as through agents of miscommunication !
If our first parents too had not engaged the serpent ..and the good Bishop, like all good Father figures possibly only trying to protect not just the public but even the potential peprpetrators of calumny , from having to pay the price for same ( pslam 109 !)
May be ..may be these persons who are trying to 'persecute' the bishop /The Church wo
are in special need ..and thus brought into his life - a Father who would specially lift them up , in prayer , accepting them as needy , weak children ..not putting himself above them but making alive those words in scripture ' whoever is least among you , is the
greatest' . It takes a big heart , like that of a Perfect Mother, to accept all her
children esp. the very needy ones ..for She knows that The One who has been lifted up on The Cross has bore such weaknesses on behalf of all ..even those who are unable to accept that Spirit of true unity ..
In a world where lots more fathers need to learn the manhood of lifting up , on
behalf of wives, children , their own past generations and thus to bring forth the true
'communication ' of forgiveness and mercy , by the ministry of holy angels that mak
hearts merciful , may there be lots more courageous voices that speak out on fallen
angels that are out to bring only division , where it matters the most - at the heart
level !
9.29.2010 | 9:10am
patricksarsfield says:
An American Church-wide (or nearly church-wide) boycott of the NY Times sounds like a great idea! Archbishop Dolan tried to get them to publish an op-ed but they boycotted him. The NY Times (and its minion, the Boston Globe) have long been overtly anti-Catholic.
I first decided to boycott the NY Times personally back in 1991 when an edict came down from higher up in the department of the company for which I was working saying we needed to cut back to one daily news subscription per group. My group was getting both an NY Times and a Wall St. Journal subscription. Having to choose, I decided that I would stop the subscription to the NY Times because I was disgusted with many aspects of its editorial/reportage style. At that point, it looked like a pretty quixotic decision because the NY Times was still solid as anything. But the Sulzberger family fortune has shrunk a good deal since then and it seems to be on its last legs. So, a boycott to express the dissatisfaction of so large a segment of the American public as the faithful Catholic Church represents would be a good thing to get the NY Times to grow up and start reporting more responsibly.
I suppose some Catholic prelate will continue to have to respond to the NYT (although hopefully not all that quickly) but it ought to be made to realize that it will have only limited access going forward until it starts to treat the largest and oldest Christian Church in America with a little more respect than it has shown.
I first decided to boycott the NY Times personally back in 1991 when an edict came down from higher up in the department of the company for which I was working saying we needed to cut back to one daily news subscription per group. My group was getting both an NY Times and a Wall St. Journal subscription. Having to choose, I decided that I would stop the subscription to the NY Times because I was disgusted with many aspects of its editorial/reportage style. At that point, it looked like a pretty quixotic decision because the NY Times was still solid as anything. But the Sulzberger family fortune has shrunk a good deal since then and it seems to be on its last legs. So, a boycott to express the dissatisfaction of so large a segment of the American public as the faithful Catholic Church represents would be a good thing to get the NY Times to grow up and start reporting more responsibly.
I suppose some Catholic prelate will continue to have to respond to the NYT (although hopefully not all that quickly) but it ought to be made to realize that it will have only limited access going forward until it starts to treat the largest and oldest Christian Church in America with a little more respect than it has shown.
9.29.2010 | 11:03am
J says:
"Pretty white of Chaput. Pretty white of Chaput. This, for an archbishop who is a registered member of the Potawatomi tribe of Native Americans."
I'm no fan of Silk, but Bottum is taking a cheap shot here, using the most uncharitable interpretation possible. If you click through, it's clear from the context that "pretty white" is a clumsy reference to an earlier paragraph about "whited sepulchres," although Silk has updated his post with an apology since Silk acknowledges people might read it as a racist slur. If it really was a slur, it would have been completely bizarre, and Bottum should have paused a couple seconds to think whether his accusation really made sense.
I'm no fan of Silk, but Bottum is taking a cheap shot here, using the most uncharitable interpretation possible. If you click through, it's clear from the context that "pretty white" is a clumsy reference to an earlier paragraph about "whited sepulchres," although Silk has updated his post with an apology since Silk acknowledges people might read it as a racist slur. If it really was a slur, it would have been completely bizarre, and Bottum should have paused a couple seconds to think whether his accusation really made sense.
9.29.2010 | 11:21am
Elizabeth Scalia says:
I was aware that Chaput recorded his interviews because he had been misquoted by the NYTimes, but I wasn't aware that he was boycotting them.
I think self-recording interviews is a smart idea; while I am not equating the Bishop to Adam Sandler, I'll note that Sandler no longer gives interviews to print media, because of misquotes and distortions. Were I a pol, a religious leader, etc, I would make it a habit self-record, and to make a point of informing the reporter that a record was being kept of the interview. Nothing wrong with keeping the press honest. I must say, as much as I admire and respect Archbishop Chaput, I do wish he would drop the boycott, and just let the press know he will hold them accountable to what they write.
His talk was really valuable. It is a shame that the focus has (predictably) shifted to the boycott, and the angry journos.
I think self-recording interviews is a smart idea; while I am not equating the Bishop to Adam Sandler, I'll note that Sandler no longer gives interviews to print media, because of misquotes and distortions. Were I a pol, a religious leader, etc, I would make it a habit self-record, and to make a point of informing the reporter that a record was being kept of the interview. Nothing wrong with keeping the press honest. I must say, as much as I admire and respect Archbishop Chaput, I do wish he would drop the boycott, and just let the press know he will hold them accountable to what they write.
His talk was really valuable. It is a shame that the focus has (predictably) shifted to the boycott, and the angry journos.
9.29.2010 | 12:10pm
Gil Costello says:
J - I interpreted it differently: it seems to me Bottom was critiquing what has become common among ideologues: a failure to employ reason at any level—including the editing of their own remarks—when on the attack. In other words, the critique is not of racism, but of unreasonable and sloppy ideological reactions that reveal racial sensitivity as irrelevant to the editorial mind of an ideologue in heat.
9.29.2010 | 12:21pm
stemm says:
Check out Mr. Silk's apology appended to his original Beliefnet column -- except that it only adds to the weirdness by being completely unconvincing and convoluted. But I guess it's the nearest the meritocracy will come to admitting its own class and professional prejudices.
It's like watching a slo-mo car wreck with these knowledge pros; everything Chaput suggested as a problem in his talk, they've obligingly demonstrated in the days since.
It's like watching a slo-mo car wreck with these knowledge pros; everything Chaput suggested as a problem in his talk, they've obligingly demonstrated in the days since.
9.29.2010 | 12:27pm
Michael D. says:
@J: There's nothing cheap-shot about Bottum's critique. The clear undercurrent of the original Silk piece is dismissive, lacking in charity and thoroughly arrogant. And he got caught at it.
"Whited sepulchres?" Gimmee a break.
"Whited sepulchres?" Gimmee a break.
9.29.2010 | 12:50pm
Don Roberto says:
Hah! I have been boycotting the NYT since roughly Lent (without until now having told anyone). Gratifying to know I'm in good company!
9.29.2010 | 12:53pm
Margaret Boerner says:
Well, as you say, all reporters do it--including you. When you say, "think, for a moment, just about his description of knowledge professionals and the ways in which they are lured into a sense of perfect entitlement and superior correctness. One could hardly ask for a better example than the Beliefnet column mocking Chaput as lily-white. Or than a reporter from the New York Times thinking it entirely reasonable, in a public question-and-answer period, to demand an answer to why her phone calls weren’t returned." Doesn't that describe columns in First Things as well as those in the New York Times?
9.29.2010 | 1:21pm
Martin Snigg says:
I assumed that self-recording was routine - posted on the internet in minutes if the journo verbals. Apart from that why isn't every Catholic avoiding this caste of self-appointed elites, they live in their own private worlds and will be the last to know when history is doing away with them.
If I want news I come here or related site - the last thing I do is read a paper or watch the TV news.
Some of these knowledge types may have a vague sense their hegemony is weakening but not know what to do. They won't see the metahistorical that Christians will:
"If they embrace the skull, if they will not be remade, then they can have their private world to the nth power, they can go rushing headlong with technology, in a matter of decades, to historical extinction - I am just I can't abide cruelty. You will have want you want my children."
They can be completely ignored as Archbishop Chaput, with a firm grip on reality, knows with a quiet confidence.
If I want news I come here or related site - the last thing I do is read a paper or watch the TV news.
Some of these knowledge types may have a vague sense their hegemony is weakening but not know what to do. They won't see the metahistorical that Christians will:
"If they embrace the skull, if they will not be remade, then they can have their private world to the nth power, they can go rushing headlong with technology, in a matter of decades, to historical extinction - I am just I can't abide cruelty. You will have want you want my children."
They can be completely ignored as Archbishop Chaput, with a firm grip on reality, knows with a quiet confidence.
9.29.2010 | 3:17pm
J says:
Gil - even in your interpretation, you still agree that Bottum is making an issue out of racial sensitivity, which doesn't contradict my point - the "pretty white" comment had nothing to do with race. Bottum brought up the issue of race because he misread Silk's blog-post.
It's clear that Bottum misread Silk even when you just read the entire sentence he quotes from: "Now, it's pretty white of Chaput to include 'many bishops' on his side of the comparison--would that other members of the hierarchy did the same." In this sentence, Silk is actually commending Chaput for acknowledging that "many bishops" minimized the clergy sex abuse crisis, and wishing that other members of the hierarchy would acknowledge this as well. Bottum gets it completely wrong when he uses that misleading sentence fragment and calls it a "sneer." It was perhaps the only kind word Silk had for Chaput in the entire piece!
Michael D. - Making groundless accusations of racism or racial insensitivity is definitely a cheap shot. If Silk's piece is dismissive, lacking in charity, and thoroughly arrogant, then Bottum should address Silk's piece exclusively on those grounds, instead of focusing on the groundless accusations about racism/racial insensitivity.
It's clear that Bottum misread Silk even when you just read the entire sentence he quotes from: "Now, it's pretty white of Chaput to include 'many bishops' on his side of the comparison--would that other members of the hierarchy did the same." In this sentence, Silk is actually commending Chaput for acknowledging that "many bishops" minimized the clergy sex abuse crisis, and wishing that other members of the hierarchy would acknowledge this as well. Bottum gets it completely wrong when he uses that misleading sentence fragment and calls it a "sneer." It was perhaps the only kind word Silk had for Chaput in the entire piece!
Michael D. - Making groundless accusations of racism or racial insensitivity is definitely a cheap shot. If Silk's piece is dismissive, lacking in charity, and thoroughly arrogant, then Bottum should address Silk's piece exclusively on those grounds, instead of focusing on the groundless accusations about racism/racial insensitivity.
9.29.2010 | 5:31pm
TXW says:
The reporters acted like a group of alcoholics in denial. Avoid of the issue of their own distortion of religion, and throw down the red herring of "boycott". Yeah, I don't have drinking problem, but you make me drink!
9.29.2010 | 8:26pm
patricksarsfield says:
J says:
"Gil - even in your interpretation, you still agree that Bottum is making an issue out of racial sensitivity, which doesn't contradict my point - the "pretty white" comment had nothing to do with race. Bottum brought up the issue of race because he misread Silk's blog-post. "
The statement "pretty white" was ipso facto a racist comment. J just doesn't like the fact that a believing Catholic called a Beliefnet scribe "racist." Sorry, but it is what it is.
Back to the boycott question. I heartily recommend everyone boycott that hate filled rag as a consumer (and if called on as a newsmaker, as Abp Chaput was). The NY Times is motivated by a fierce anti-Catholicism that comes through in almost all their coverage of the Church. The NY Times is tottering on the edge of irrelevance, as its stockprice 0f $7.81 (down from $49 in early 2004) reflects. Why shouldn't we help speed it along on its one way trip to the boneyard of History?
"Gil - even in your interpretation, you still agree that Bottum is making an issue out of racial sensitivity, which doesn't contradict my point - the "pretty white" comment had nothing to do with race. Bottum brought up the issue of race because he misread Silk's blog-post. "
The statement "pretty white" was ipso facto a racist comment. J just doesn't like the fact that a believing Catholic called a Beliefnet scribe "racist." Sorry, but it is what it is.
Back to the boycott question. I heartily recommend everyone boycott that hate filled rag as a consumer (and if called on as a newsmaker, as Abp Chaput was). The NY Times is motivated by a fierce anti-Catholicism that comes through in almost all their coverage of the Church. The NY Times is tottering on the edge of irrelevance, as its stockprice 0f $7.81 (down from $49 in early 2004) reflects. Why shouldn't we help speed it along on its one way trip to the boneyard of History?
9.29.2010 | 9:34pm
cheyan says:
J said, "It's clear that Bottum misread Silk even when you just read the entire sentence he quotes from: "Now, it's pretty white of Chaput to include 'many bishops' on his side of the comparison--would that other members of the hierarchy did the same." In this sentence, Silk is actually commending Chaput..."
Saying that a person who isn't white is doing something commendable is good.
Saying that a person who isn't white, because he's doing something commendable, is "pretty white" is... well, it's only good if you think whiteness is something that people of other races should aspire to attain!
Silk's explanation is completely unbelievable. "Whited sepulcher" is an insult, so if what Silk really meant was "he's really like a whited sepulcher", he didn't mean to commend Chaput at all - instead he was essentially saying that Chaput was doing a better job of hiding his corruption than other bishops! If he meant "not a whited sepulcher", he would have accidentally said "not very white of him", wouldn't he? What seems likely to me is that Silk accidentally used a racist phrase, but instead of saying "I insulted Abp. Chaput by thoughtlessly using a term that was used in the past to dismiss people of other races. I shouldn't have used that phrase. I apologize for doing so." he said "I apologize for what clearly can be taken as a racist slur." That's like saying "I didn't mean to hit you in the face. I was only opening a cabinet, not trying to elbow you in the jaw. I'm sorry your jaw hurts."
Saying that a person who isn't white is doing something commendable is good.
Saying that a person who isn't white, because he's doing something commendable, is "pretty white" is... well, it's only good if you think whiteness is something that people of other races should aspire to attain!
Silk's explanation is completely unbelievable. "Whited sepulcher" is an insult, so if what Silk really meant was "he's really like a whited sepulcher", he didn't mean to commend Chaput at all - instead he was essentially saying that Chaput was doing a better job of hiding his corruption than other bishops! If he meant "not a whited sepulcher", he would have accidentally said "not very white of him", wouldn't he? What seems likely to me is that Silk accidentally used a racist phrase, but instead of saying "I insulted Abp. Chaput by thoughtlessly using a term that was used in the past to dismiss people of other races. I shouldn't have used that phrase. I apologize for doing so." he said "I apologize for what clearly can be taken as a racist slur." That's like saying "I didn't mean to hit you in the face. I was only opening a cabinet, not trying to elbow you in the jaw. I'm sorry your jaw hurts."
9.29.2010 | 9:57pm
Botolph says:
Thanks to Mr Bottum I became aware of Archbishop Chaput's address. Thanks for the comments and the link to the address.
I am amazed that the religious writers took umbrage at this address-although, given some of their track records, I should not be surprised. What amazes me is their rejecting even the possibility that there is an 'orthodoxy' at work on many levels in our culture-which they seem to succumb to without much question. This is not all of them, however it is many of them!
I am amazed that the religious writers took umbrage at this address-although, given some of their track records, I should not be surprised. What amazes me is their rejecting even the possibility that there is an 'orthodoxy' at work on many levels in our culture-which they seem to succumb to without much question. This is not all of them, however it is many of them!
9.30.2010 | 8:54am
Bob G says:
To me the most important aspect of this blow-up is Chaput's readiness to enter the lions' den and stare down them down. He's perhaps the most articulate and intelligent churchmen on the scene and is doing us and the Church a huge service. Of course the reporters were upset. What else was new? They were hearing a different narrative from a credible source. We need far more people like the archbishop.
9.30.2010 | 11:24am
J says:
cheyan - first of all, thanks for responding with an argument that's actually based on the text at issue. Before I explain why I disagree with your interpretation, I just want to point out that it's different than Bottum's interpretation. Bottum stated that Silk was sneering at Chaput by saying it was "pretty white" of him to acknowledge that many bishops had minimized the clergy sex abuse problem. Describing people as "white" is often used these days to convey negative connotations, as in, "The founding fathers were a bunch of rich white guys" or "The Tea Party movement is made up of cranky white people." Describing people as "white" is a way to dismiss their concerns as less valid or authentic. Bottum thought "pretty white" was being used in that context. So did the author at GetReligion, who posted under the name Mollie, which is where Bottum most likely got the idea for making this point in the first place. Mollie called the "pretty white" line "an unsubtle reference to white people engaging in atrocities against or oppression of non-whites, while claiming to do so in their benefit." It seems likely Bottum just read Mollie's post, which removed the sentence fragment from its context and didn't explain that Silk had just been discussing whited sepulchres, and took her word for it that Silk was engaging in a little reverse racism. (Bottum's next sentence mentioning that Abp. Chaput is a "registered member" of the Potawamie Tribe also tracks Mollie's post pretty closely.)
Now for your interpretation - you concede that Silk was using "pretty white" in a positive way, but maintain that Silk was still being racist because that implies that white people are better than others. As I explained in my first comment, the use of "white" is in the context of whited sepulchres, and it is not referring to race.
You're right it doesn't make sense for Silk to use "white" positively, because the whited sepulchre is a metaphor for a hypocrite, and Silk is trying to complement Abp. Chaput for not being a hypocrite. From reading Silk's entire post, it's clear that he's an incompetent writer. What's going on here is that Silk is fumbling with his metaphor. Silk is trying to say that Abp. Chaput is white all the way through, instead of being only white on the outside but filled on the inside with dead men's bones.
I urge you to click through and read Silk's post all the way through. It will be a painful read because he's a talentless hack who can't even sustain a metaphor about secularist glasses through one sentence. There's plenty of bad writing and stupidity in Silk's post, but I don't think there's any racism. It only seems racist if you're reading too hastily to catch the context. Racism is a serious accusation because it can ruin a person's reputation, and it should only be made when it is warranted.
Now for your interpretation - you concede that Silk was using "pretty white" in a positive way, but maintain that Silk was still being racist because that implies that white people are better than others. As I explained in my first comment, the use of "white" is in the context of whited sepulchres, and it is not referring to race.
You're right it doesn't make sense for Silk to use "white" positively, because the whited sepulchre is a metaphor for a hypocrite, and Silk is trying to complement Abp. Chaput for not being a hypocrite. From reading Silk's entire post, it's clear that he's an incompetent writer. What's going on here is that Silk is fumbling with his metaphor. Silk is trying to say that Abp. Chaput is white all the way through, instead of being only white on the outside but filled on the inside with dead men's bones.
I urge you to click through and read Silk's post all the way through. It will be a painful read because he's a talentless hack who can't even sustain a metaphor about secularist glasses through one sentence. There's plenty of bad writing and stupidity in Silk's post, but I don't think there's any racism. It only seems racist if you're reading too hastily to catch the context. Racism is a serious accusation because it can ruin a person's reputation, and it should only be made when it is warranted.
9.30.2010 | 6:31pm
Michael from NE says:
This is not directly related to Archbishop Chaput's address but rather to a role he seems now to have undertaken in the context of American Catholicism. Many of us were disheartened when Archbishop Burke was whisked off to the Vatican a few years ago, wondering who could now speak the hard stuff that needed to be spoken. It appears more and more that Archbishop Chaput seems to be moving in to fill that void. My reaction - Archbishop, keep on doing what you're doing, but please don't let them cart you off to the Vatican.
10.4.2010 | 7:32am
John Laws says:
Goldstein didn't know about the boycott?
Here's a little help: Boycott of New York Times http://www.boycottowl.com/New+York+Times/146
Here's a little help: Boycott of New York Times http://www.boycottowl.com/New+York+Times/146
10.8.2010 | 8:52pm
Peter says:
This whole thing, the story and responses, seems an awful lot like straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Much ado about not so much.
11.23.2010 | 9:37am
Majera Jammie says:
Michael D. - Making groundless accusations of racism or racial insensitivity is definitely a cheap shot. If Silk's piece is dismissive, lacking in charity, and thoroughly arrogant, then Bottum should address Silk's piece exclusively on those grounds, instead of focusing on the groundless accusations about racism/racial insensitivity. Well, as you say, all reporters do it--including you. When you say, "think, for a moment, just about his description of knowledge professionals and the ways in which they are lured into a sense of perfect entitlement and superior correctness. One could hardly ask for a better example than the Beliefnet column mocking Chaput as lily-white. Or than a reporter from the New York Times thinking it entirely reasonable, in a public question-and-answer period, to demand an answer to why her phone calls werent returned." Doesn't that describe columns in First Things as well as those in the New York Times?
7.30.2011 | 9:36pm
Doretha Biancardi says:
An American Church-wide (or nearly church-wide) boycott of the NY Times sounds like a great idea! Archbishop Dolan tried to get them to publish an op-ed but they boycotted him. The NY Times (and its minion, the Boston Globe) have long been overtly anti-Catholic. A propaganda outlet is always a propaganda outlet. Since its mission lies in entirely different directions, it is blind to the truth. They just don't care what they write as long as it advances their highly politicized objectives. It is really gratifying to see human nature ratified at its worst; it really takes the pressure off the rest of us sinners.
