What the NY Times missed in the latest encyclical: the whole point

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Oct 28, 2024

In his book The Naked Public Square, the late Richard John Neuhaus observed that American newspapers in the past could and would regularly summarize the sermons preached at major urban churches. It was taken for granted that a competent reporter would be capable of discerning the important theological themes.

How far we’ve come! In a report on the latest encyclical of Pope Francis, Dilexit Nos, the New York Times fails to recognize anything even approaching a religious theme. The analysis by Emma Bubola (“reporting from the Vatican”) acknowledges that the Pope “draws on spiritual themes,” but gives no clue as to what those themes may be.

In a section on “What does this encyclical say,” our expert analyst tells us:

In “He Loved Us,” Francis draws on sources that include the Gospels, saints and the 20th-century German philosopher Martin Heidegger.

If you’ve read the Gospels, then, you might have a general sense that Jesus Christ is somehow involved. But that name is never mentioned. The Vatican had announced the encyclical in advance as a meditation on the Sacred Heart, and the subtitle of the document is “On the Human and Divine Love of the Heart of Jesus Christ.” But the Times never mentions that theme, which dominates the entire text.

So while the Times does provide the title of the encyclical in its English translation—“He Loved Us”—one friend was prompted to ask: “I wonder who ‘He’ might be?”

Is it now considered bad taste, by the standards of mainstream journalism, to mention the name of Jesus? Even to mention that the Roman Pontiff has mentioned that name? Because Popes often do that, you know; it shouldn’t come as a shock even to the sensitive readers of the New York Times.

The opening sentence of the Times accounts tells us that Pope Francis “urged Roman Catholics around the world to let go of consumerism and individualism, and rediscover the importance of opening up to others.” Again, any “others” in particular?

That lede is not exactly wrong; Dilexit Nos does indeed carry warnings about individualism and consumerism—and about war and unfettered technology and all the other social ills that the Times enjoys discussing. And for that matter it’s possible to read Romeo and Juliet, as Shakespeare’s warning about the deleterious consequences of family feuds. But most readers at least notice the love story.