ARTICLES

Is Nothing Sacred?

HOLLYWOOD'S TREATMENT OF CATHOLICISM

By Cynthia Seal

The success of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights campaign against Nothing Sacred --the ABC drama that has lost numerous advertisers because of its positive depiction of an irreverent priest--has provoked renewed debate among Catholic educators and officials who struggle with the secular media's influential role in shaping public perceptions of modern Catholicism.

While the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights accuses Nothing Sacred's producers of "raw use of Hollywood's political muscle to undermine respect for the Magisterium," San Francisco archdiocesan representatives, and other Catholics responsible for defending Church doctrine and institutions, acknowledge the problem raised by the media's representation of Catholicism. However, they have not reached a consensus regarding the correct way to confront a spectrum of problems that arise from inadvertent misrepresentations of Church doctrine to artistic renderings of controversial religious themes to blatant anti-Catholic prejudice.

"The Church is the last forum for moral dialogue and that attracts controversy," observes John Galten, director of the St. Ignatius Institute, a traditional Jesuit great books program that draws 150 students at the University of San Francisco. St. Ignatius Institute provides a strong focus on Catholic doctrine, seeking to counter ignorance of Church teaching among Catholic students, who often take media treatments of their faith at face value.

"The question is, When should the Church intervene?" Galton asks. "It seems to me, the Church should intervene when there has been a distortion of Church teaching and when the Church's life in general is misrepresented. The Church should respond to clarify the truth."

The San Francisco archdiocese has not yet issued any statement criticizing the show. Maurice Healy, a spokesperson for the archdiocese, said there were no plans to do so. So while archdiocesan officials were "uncomfortable" with parts of one episode that appeared to misrepresent Church practice on abortion, for example, they were loathe to condemn the prime-time drama, which takes a positive view of the priest's work among the poor. (In fact, one San Francisco priest, Father Joe Bradley, the parochial vicar at All Souls Church in South San Francisco, praised the show in The San Francisco Chronicle, "Thank God they are trying to show some realism.")

According to other archdiocesan sources, the local church's general silence may be a strategic decision. Some Catholic figures argue that vocal opposition to controversial media treatments enhances public interest in films and television programs that might otherwise disappear into oblivion.

For example, it is asserted that the Church's denunciation of The Last Temptation of Christ, a movie viewed by many Catholics as blasphemous, may have increased viewing of the art house film.

John Galten admits that it can be difficult to distinguish between malicious propaganda and artistic license. The Church has never adopted a predictable institutional response to this kind of problem--just a handful of dioceses around the country, including the Los Angeles Archdiocese, have publicly criticized Nothing Sacred.

Yet, Galten insists that the complexity of this issue should not dissuade Catholics from entering the public square. Increasingly, the national debate on the future of American culture takes its cue from media events. Galten is already worried that too many Catholic activists have lost interest in the mainstream media because it does not reflect their beliefs. Engagement, he insists, is preferable to indifference.

"If an intelligent film distorts Church teaching, it can be be pointed out that the show is a work of art, and respected as such. But it can also be pointed out that the show does not represent Church teaching. This kind of statement would not be a condemnation, but a clarification," Galten argues.

Like many Catholic educators and activists, Galten says that he "cannot think of one modern show that has portrayed a priest in a positive light. And these shows do have an impact," he admits ruefully. "So often, they don't rely on statistics, but impressions, and they emphasize the negative. It starts eating away at the credibility of the Church. Of course, some shows are outlandish and they just doesn't deserve a response, but some do deserve one."

The issue of Hollywood moguls producing television shows about "irreverent priests"--like Father Ray in Nothing Sacred--is partly a matter of control. Who interprets Church teaching for the person in the pew?

Television producers lack any canonical status as teachers of doctrine and morals, but they have serious clout in an era of under-nourished Catholics who get their spiritual and moral advice second-hand from the op-ed pages, Oprah, and Shirley MacLaine. Even President Clinton, a Protestant, recently tried to shake up Church teaching on abortion by inviting several Catholic women, who had partial-birth abortions, to speak to the nation at a press conference.

"Is a network the newest claimant to theological authority?" asks Peter Steinfels, writing in the New York Times on the stir provoked by Nothing Sacred.

"Once upon a time churches could count on deference, sustained by public protectiveness about religious sensibilities," Steinfels continues. "But as long as so many faithful...get their theology from the media rather than the pulpit, religious leadership will be hard-pressed to control how their own tradition is presented."

Yet the source of frustration for Catholic leaders is that the Church seems to be singled out for unusually negative treatment by the media. Many priests, for example, feel that the unrelenting news coverage of child sex abuse scandals has created the inaccurate perception that they are uniquely responsible for this tragic exploitation of vulnerable children. And more than a few priests wonder whether the media attention is partly provoked by hostility toward Church teaching on celibacy, routinely noted as a key reason for the scandal.

William A. Donohue, President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, believes that some media treatments of Catholic issues contain a hidden agenda that is antagonistic to traditional Church teaching.

When the non-Catholic producers of Nothing Sacred defend the controversial show as an attempt to "dialogue" with conservative segments of the Church, Donohue disputes the "propriety of someone who is outside the Church appropriating to himself the right to create dialogue about my religion."

"The term 'dialogue' when used in this context is dishonest. It's not about dialogue, it's about dissent," says Donohue.

Noting the plot of the first episode of Nothing Sacred--in which the priest, Father Ray, both counsels a women in the confessional to follow her conscience regarding abortion and tells his parishioners to stop confessing sexual sins--Donohue insists that the show is backing a clear agenda. The producers want to celebrate "a Nineties kind of priest--he's compassionate, not hung up on sex and bravely autonomous."

The Rev. Gregory Coiro of the Los Angeles archdiocese has been reviewing scripts of the show and reached a similar conclusion. The show, which depicts Father Ray running a soup kitchen in the inner city, celebrates a hero "who bucks the Church, and, by sheer coincidence, just happens to buck the Church on all the issues--sex and abortion--where Hollywood is bucking the Church."

While some Catholic figures have held back from criticizing the show, Donohue's denunciation of Nothing Sacred has already achieved considerable success. After only three episodes, ten advertisers had pulled their backing. Other advertisers may be waiting to see whether the controversy dies down--though that could be equally disastrous for the show, which may depend on headlines to keep afloat.

TOP