Global Media Journal

Passing under the archway to the University of Dayton, after the launch of the US invasion of Iraq, any driver entering would be visually bombarded with a variety of Catholic viewpoints from pro-war flag wavers, to anti-war sign-carriers, to a prayer vigil for everyone involved in the war. Yet these three clusters could only suggest some of the diversity of views. Some Catholics in the “anti-war” group believed all wars to be evil while others in that same group held that this particular war did not meet the centuries-old Catholic criteria for a Just War. So too the next “pro-war” group encompass assorted positions. Nationalism and patriotism were joined by those with individual concern for their relatives who were serving in the military. Others acknowledged the moral obligation the United States had to free the Iraqi citizens from an evil regime. The third group gathered and prayed, setting aside a clear political position but offering a religious message to care and pray for everyone.

How would the media report this wide spectrum of Catholic positions? That is the driving question behind this chapter. If this book is to consider the intimate connections between cultural norms, media practices and political policy, where does religion fit in? Anyone who walked the streets, read the newspapers, or watched television during the war with Iraq, would no doubt notice the spike in civil religion. From bumper stickers to T-shirts, “God Bless America” was everywhere. In churches hymns were suddenly joined by patriotic songs, while city chambers and political speeches became saturated with religious language and appeals to the protection of providence. In this chapter Roman Catholicism in the United States was chosen, due to our interest and expertise as authors, but with the acknowledgement that similar research from the perspective of other religious points of view would be equally valuable. It is our position that the media fails to take religion seriously. Typical news coverage carries brief mention of the teaching, history or practice of religion. During times of crisis, the media permits some cursory and emotional religious expressions to enhance popular support for national efforts but the media fails to provide in-depth reporting of the religious viewpoints. The three largest religions in America, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, each maintain a theological presumption for peace and against war. Contrary to the popular belief that religion is the primary source of most conflicts and wars, William Cavanaugh has persuasively argued that the “wars of religion” were rather the direct cause of the birth of the modern state and its attempt to wrest power from religious institutions (1995). Therefore one should be wary when the state begins to express itself in religious language. This book calls the media and the administration to be accountable for their actions in the war. This chapter evaluates how the media represented the views of American Catholics during the Iraq war, and in doing so, encourages the media to expand its understanding and coverage of the religious voices in national debates.

To study whether the content of media changed in regard to civil expressions of religion (Appendix A) during times of crisis, a study was conducted on key words through the Lexis/Nexis full text database since it archives a great number of national news sources. The pattern among key search terms of civil religion showed an increase during the war with Iraq. But instead of tracing the results of each term separately, the general sense may be seen dramatically through the appearance of the phrase “God Bless America.” While this chapter is focused on the Iraq War one of the assumptions of the entire book is that the media changes their gatekeeping strategies during times of crisis. It may be useful then to backup our accounting of the phrase “God Bless America” to January of 2001. Prior to the disaster of 9/11 the six month average for occurrences of the phrase “God Bless America” was 41 times per month. Yet in September of 2001 that number soared to over 1500 occurrences (Appendix B). Slowly the use of the phrase lessened, but even a year later on the anniversary of the terrorist attack the number jumps up to 395. During times of crisis usage of multiple expressions of civil religion escalated. During March and April when US forces entered into combat in Iraq the phrase could be seen to rise to the highest rate of the year 217x in March and 200x in April. After documenting an increase in expressions of civil religion during times of crisis we felt a rhetorical analysis of the media’s reporting on a particular religious viewpoint during the national debate on Iraq would be useful.

Two relevant studies have been done previously on the media’s portrayal of Catholicism in the United States. The first assessment examined three five year blocs beginning with the years 1964, 1974, and 1984 of national coverage (newspapers, television and magazines). It concluded that on most controversial issues involving Catholic teaching, the Church came out on the losing side of the debate reported in the media. . . issues were frequently presented as conflicts between the Church hierarchy, on one side, and lower-level clergy, lay and non-Catholics on the other. Journalists frequently approached this subject matter from a secular perspective, structuring their coverage of theological issues along familiar lines of political coverage. The result was a long-running media drama that pitted a hidebound institutional hierarchy against reformers from within and without. (Lichter, Amundson, & Lichter, 1993, pp. 13-14).

The second study was an updating of the first study, but one which additionally analyzed an expanded news coverage up to 1998. The study found the amount of coverage of the Catholic church declined by over 50% from the 1960s to 1990s. The role of women was the leading source of controversy but Church-State relations and issues of church teaching on morality continued to receive attention in the media. In television news over 90% of the sources were critical of the Catholic church (Lichter, Lichter, & Amundson, 2000, pp. 159-160).

Throughout both studies the authors argue that given the long history of anti-Catholic sentiment and activity in the United States it is especially important to monitor and analyze how the Roman Catholic church and its members are portrayed in different media venues. Public attitudes are in great measure influenced and shaped by persons in the media who have disproportionate influence on the views, not only of fellow media makers, and of second tier shapers of society such as government representatives, political leaders, academics, scholars and teachers, but in a very direct way reporters and journalists construct a public image of the Catholic church.

In the fifteen newspapers (Appendix C) that we surveyed from March to June 2003, coverage produced 200 articles that contained the terms “Iraq,” “War” and “Catholic” in the headline and lead paragraph. Having analyzed these articles there are some patterns worthy of note. We must of course qualify this discussion that the media is not monolithic; papers on the coasts tended to give more attention to religion numerically, but while offering numerically fewer stories, the papers of the heartland gave in general more positive coverage to religion than did their coastal counterparts. Much to our surprise article length did not correspond to depth of coverage. Some rather lengthy articles treated the religious perspective or topic summarily, while some relatively brief articles were more detailed and accurate in their description of Catholic belief and practice. The position of insider/outsider plays a significant role in how the reporter views and crafts the news. A survey of national media outlets found that only 1-2 % of journalists were practicing Roman Catholics (Lichter, Amundson, & Lichter, 1991, p. 12). So it is especially commendable that several newspapers run a “Religion Section” to focus on news about or from the religious perspective. In Ohio the Columbus Dispatch particularly brought forth a variety of authors to discuss religious happenings. Also worthy of special note was reporter Alan Cooperman of The Washington Post for his informed, detailed and precise treatment of Catholicism. Take for example his article of April 2 which ran a mere 484 words but incorporated an explanation of Just War theory, took note of Catholic theologians, made a reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, gave an explanation of the rites of Eastern Catholics, made a distinction in church hierarchy between the pope, cardinals, bishops and laity and offered specific reporting on the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Mr. Cooperman performs the tedious work of fact finding with the precision necessary to accurately describe the situation of Catholics in America and thereby inform all of his readers in a way which enhances their understanding.

Given the Catholic principle of sacramentality (that God often uses material objects as a channel for grace) it is quite appropriate that journalists frequently associate Catholic believers with particular inspirational objects. Reporter descriptions highlighted rosaries, Bibles, statues, holy water, votive candles, a creche and ashes. Ashes in particular were frequently mentioned (15x) as the liturgical season was Lent. During Ash Wednesday Mass a priest traces the sign of the cross upon the foreheads of Catholics. Lent is a time of personal examination and repentance which calls the believer to reflect on the gravity of their sinful condition which led Jesus to die on the cross as a means of redemption. Peter Fimrite and Don Lattin lucidly fuse an explanation of Lent with the issue of the war, “The holy day marked the start of Lent, the 40-day period of penance and spiritual renewal leading up to Easter, and came as the pontiff intensified his lobbying against a U.S. attack” (March 6, 2003, p. A12). The media identified people as Catholic not only by material objects, but by their practices. The most common practice was attending Mass (12x), while Confession/Reconciliation was noted twice, and fasting noted three times. Reporters frequently mentioned practices or possessions to establish their source’s Catholic credentials. For instance, The Seattle Times ran a piece on actor Martin Sheen and his “religious convictions [and] anti-war stance” (March 5, 2003, p. F2). Woven into this description of his Catholic faith the news report adds, “Sheen regularly attends Mass and always keeps a rosary in his pocket” (p. F2).

With the exception of Just War, reporters generally only mentioned Catholic teaching on issues of public debate in the United States. In particular, reference to the church’s opposition to abortion (6x) euthanasia (3x) and cloning (2x) helped to situate the Catholic church as politically conservative. It was appropriate that these official church teachings, however, were often distinguished from expressions of personal opinion of the pope and world bishops on the war with Iraq. The Denver Post summarized local Archbishop Charles Chaput’s explanation as, “War can be judged just or unjust . . .while euthanasia, genocide and abortion are ‘three crimes’ that are ‘always grievously wrong’” (Gorski, April 3, 2003, p. 6). What is being distinguished here, refers to the Catholic understanding that their exists an hierarchy of truth. This recognizes that some beliefs are more central to the core of Catholic belief than others. The official Catholic position is that the magisterium of the church has the spiritual power to define teachings, but individuals can have room to disagree. The level of authority offers guidelines to Catholics so they may know the level of assent or dissent is permissible. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel offers a helpful quotation from Fr. Andrew Nelson of St. Francis Seminary, “On this issue, Catholics have the freedom to differ with the pope. . . the pope’s statements on Iraq are part of his ordinary teaching authority. The pope has not spoken infallibly” (Heinen & Johnson, March 9, 2003, p. 01B). Unlike many of the reporters who fail to distinguish between the levels of teaching authority within the church, Heinen and Johnson, as well as eight other reporters surveyed, gave a fuller picture by detailing this distinction.

This study found that in general newspapers did not report the viewpoint of Catholics as a single viewpoint. When it did occur it was mostly in what might be identified as roll call pieces which were quickly summarizing views on the war from a variety of religions. For example, the New York Times reported that, “Among Christians, the opposition includes Roman Catholics and mainline Protestant and Orthodox churches . . . Jewish organizations are split, with some Orthodox groups coming out unequivocally in favor of a pre-emptive strike” (Goodstein, March 6, 2003, p. 14). Gross overgeneralization and lack of contextualization not only misrepresents the spectrum of views likely to be found in any group, but it presents to the audience a false sense of collective agreement.

The March 9^th headline from a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reads, “Catholics Torn Between Pope and President’s Views on War” (Heinen & Johnson, p. 01B). This illustrates a common practice for reporters situating Catholic views in the form of a two party split, whether that be pope vs president or the more familiar hierarchy vs laity. This may reflect the American Nativist concerns regarding Catholics as a foreign power, or more likely it is a habit of our American two party system where many issues can be seen as Republican / Democrat or liberal / conservative. But most common in the reporting was the recognition of different Catholic groups such as the US bishops, Catholic theologians, laity, the religious priests and nuns, and external representatives of the hierarchy such as other world bishops and the pope.

The way in which political labels were used to describe the positions of Catholics may reveal something of the journalist’s own political orientation. Seeking the opinion of a “coffee circle” one reporter writes, “They are members and daily communicants in a conservative parish in the conservative diocese of Arlington, one of only two Catholic diocese in the United States that still bans altar girls” (Goodstein, March 6, 2003, p. A14). Among the articles studied the term “conservative” (referring to Catholics or Catholicism) is used in nearly 20% of the stories, the term “liberal” however is used as an identifier only once. The dominant media narrative then does not see a spectrum of liberal to conservative within the Catholic church; it simply depicts the position of Catholics and the conservative Catholic position. Continuing with the earlier article, after mentioning that these individuals go to daily Mass and the “conservative” diocese maintains a traditional practice, she notes, “Polls have shown that while many American Catholics revere the pope, they disregard church teaching on issues like birth control and the death penalty” (Goodstein, March 6, 2003, p. A14). Again, this narrative constructs the majority of Catholics as sentimentally fond of the pope, but in matters of belief and practice “American Catholics” ignore official teaching. Using American political labels to mark universal theological doctrines is problematic. One could imagine a Catholic who because of her religious convictions would be against abortion, typically a conservative/Republican position, yet in her consistent pro-life ethic she would also be against the death penalty, typically a liberal/Democratic concern.

Having reviewed how the press describes Catholics in the US we turn to news sources. Written sources were referred to in approximately 25% of the coverage on the Catholic view. Oddly enough the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the universal and definitive guide to official Roman Catholic teaching, was only cited twice and the Bible was cited only once. But reporters did turn to written statements of the pope and bishops (10x). More often newspaper reporters borrowed quotations from religious media. Magazines such as Crisis and America were cited, as were local diocesan newspapers such as the Denver Catholic Register and Minneapolis Catholic Spirit.

Journalists relied upon political language to narrate their stories. As stated earlier, Catholic theological language appeared infrequently. Specific references to “grave matter,” being a “conscientious objector” and “original sin” occurred only once each. Grace, faith, mercy, repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation or redemption played far less of a role in the story than one would expect. When mentioning prayer, reporters nuanced their observation that Catholics did not offer simply nationalistic prayers for America’s victory and protection of US soldiers, with 15% of the occurrences mentioning prayer for Iraq’s leaders and people.

The American political system informed the journalists’ assumptions and methods in other interesting ways. In media accounts, Catholics are reduced to an interest group. Reports suggest President Bush “has courted Catholic voters” (Cooperman, March 6, 2003, p. A20). A watchful eye is kept on the number of Catholics in the United States and in the world. The papers remind their American readers that, “with about 65 million members in the US – nearly 25% of the population – the Catholic Church is the country’s largest denomination” (Heinen & Johnson, March 9, 2003, p. 01B). It was the habit of national secular journalists to be attentive to the numbers of Catholics (and thus voters); such enumeration appeared in 13% of these articles. Another typically democratic impulse awkwardly applied to Catholicism was the use of polls.

Surveys and polls were used as an information source in 15% of the news stories. Of those, a majority concluded that church attendance correlated to political affiliation. The San Francisco Chronicle recounts, “recent analysis of data from a Feb. 17-19 Gallup Poll showed that level of support for war with Iraq is greatest among those Americans who attend church services most frequently. More than 65 million Catholics live in the United States . . . polls also show that laypeople who are the most religious also tend to be politically conservative” (Fimrite & Lattin, March 6, 2003, p. A12). Surveys and polls attempt to take the political pulse of the nation. Their construction of religious opinion contributes to how political leaders time and shape US policy.

Reporters most often found their sources of information in contemporary voices. Taken as a whole the wartime articles on Catholicism reflected the church’s hierarchical structure of authority with the pope receiving considerable attention, followed by the cardinals and bishops, then the religious nuns, sisters, priests and brothers, and the laity, among whom reside many Catholic theologians and members of the Catholic press. Pope John Paul II was personally mentioned in 23% of the articles. A couple of articles highlighted his personal skill at diplomacy. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette recalls that Pope John Paul II “is credited with a major role in the bloodless victory against communism in his native Poland” (McGrory, March 1, 2003, p. A11). The number of references to Pope John Paul II jumps to 65% when one counts articles that simple discuss the “pope,” and 75% when variations such as the “papacy” or the “Vatican” are included. While our research has focused on the reporting of American Catholics in the news coverage, this pattern of referencing an outside-the-country leader, the pope, as an information source, reflects the unique connection Catholics have globally. Rome is definitely a reference point and justifiably received a majority of citations when reporting the Catholic viewpoint. Numerically the laity received the next greatest number of individual quotations, used to express personal views more often than official or theological positions. “A Nation at War,” offers the pope’s “antiwar views” and then surveys a number of lay Catholics (Pauline Johnson, Anne Reid, Edgar Fennie, Patricia Sullivan and Patricia Geis) to hear their sentiments (Davey, March 24, 2003, p. B15). It is important to note that as a rule the newspaper journalists we observed did not use lay opinion to counter or challenge the official church position. As was stated earlier, several newspapers remarked how there was room for a legitimate diversity in evaluations of the war with Iraq. By expressing popular responses, journalists avoided the often used stereotype of the oppressive hierarchy imposing its views on the submissive laity.

While world bishops were not utilized much as sources of information (2x), the media did regularly turn to the United States Bishops as a collective (15x). More often than not reporters turned to the local bishop/archbishop for quotations and information (20x). When these numbers are combined, reporters relied upon US bishops as sources of information in 17.5% of the news. Overall the bishops were given positive treatment, which is highly significant in light of the previous year’s sex abuse scandal. If the media had been consciously desiring an easy method to negatively portray the American Catholic bishops, the events of the scandal were fresh enough in the public memory to have been an unproblematic resource for anti-Catholic remarks and inferences. Yet association to the priestly scandal occurred only three times. Don Lattin writes, “As it turned out, the chairman of the bishop’s committee on war and peace was Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, the man at the center of the scandal over recalcitrant bishops who failed to crack down on known pedophile priests” (June 16, 2003, p. A1).

The clergy were utilized for information and opinion in a number of stories. Male religious received a far greater degree of representation than did their female counterparts. Diocesan priests and men from religious orders were used by the media in 8% of the interviews. Yet female religious, whether nuns, sisters or consecrated women were given passing mention in just three articles. Sandi Dolbee reported that the “Leadership Conference of Women Religious, an umbrella group for many of the nation’s Catholic nuns, said it was ‘deeply saddened’ by the war” (March 22, 2003, p. B1). Women, both lay and religious, are quite active and abundant within the daily life of the church and their absence in coverage may contribute to a continued ignorance of their valuable role within the ministry of the church. Another speculative observation should be mentioned here, dealing with the visual images used in the media. This study, with its reliance on the Lexis/Nexis database, has focused exclusively on text. Therefore these remarks are merely personal observations of perusing newspapers and journals, yet it seems as if protesting nuns and priests had a high occurrence in photographs. Their distinctive apparel makes them easily identifiable as religiously authoritative figures. This may be done by some journalists and photographers to counter what they believe to be a dismissive attitude of the current administration. This sentiment is captured in the March 1 Pittsburgh Post Gazette headline, “Praying for Papal Intervention; The Pope Cannot Be Dismissed By Bush As Just Another Anti-War Protester” (McGrory, p. A11).

Several specialized individuals and groups also contributed to the media’s portrayal of the Catholic perspective. Two groups from which journalists repeatedly drew information were the Catholic theologians and media. Names common to these articles were theologians like Richard McBrien, Michael Novak and George Weigel. Catholic media included a wide variety of names from “West Wing” actor Martin Sheen to Crisis magazine editor Deal Hudson, along with some religious newspaper editors and staff. Specialized groups such as Knights of Columbus, various diocese agencies for Catholic Charities or Social Concern and Justice, and the Cushwa Center for the Study of American Catholicism were consulted, although the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the largest civil rights group advocating for American Catholics, does not appear to have been sought out.

It was apparent that the media did not know how to categorize Catholics who were at odds with the United States’ policies regarding Iraq. Most often they were merely clumped into a larger group comprised of both religious and secular pacifists. A pacifist generally applies the nonviolence principle to both the individual and the society advocating the avoidance of force and violence, whereas an individual who identifies with an anti-war stance is making no claims on their own practices, but rather believes the society should not engage in war. But as Vincent Carroll’s editorial correctly summarizes, the Catholic church has not deemed the use of force to be evil in itself (March 22, 2003, p. 22B). The presumption is in favor of peace and against evil, but force may be used as a valid defense. As Michael Riley of the Denver Post succinctly notes, “The pope is not a pacifist” (March 7, 2003, p. A04). Similar confusion on the identity of protesters and theologically advisable methods for achieving peace were seen among the laity as well. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel interviews a Catholic salesman who nationalistically quips, “if the pope wants peace . . .we can achieve it through kicking Saddam’s ass” (Heinen & Johnson, March 9, 2003, p. 01B). Individual Catholics protesting “against the war” may in fact have been making no political comment on the legality or morality of the war. Instead many Catholics “protested” for peace, for prayer and with a concern for Iraqis and Americans. This is not to say that there are no anti-war Catholics; there are. Some deem all war evil, some believe modern war is no longer justifiable, and yet others evaluated this war with Iraq to be unjustified. Two individuals that garnered press attention were US ambassador to the Vatican, James Nicholson, and special papal envoy to the US, Cardinal Pio Laghi, for their active diplomatic roles.

The Catholic teaching that understandably received the most attention was that of Just War. Nearly 30% of the articles made some reference to the Just War principles which must be met for a war to be declared as “just.” On occasion Just War was ambiguously identified as a “Christian teaching” (Goodstein, March 6, 2003, p. 14), “historical principles” (Falsani, March 31, 2003, p. 6). or oversimplified to simply what the Bible said (Stuart, April 16, 2003, p. S1), but more frequently the Just War theory was recognized as a Catholic means for evaluating the use of force. As J. Michael Parker comments in his March 30 San Antonio Express piece, “even non-Catholics have been discussing Catholic just-war doctrine as never before” (p. 17A).

The principles of a ‘just war’ were first developed by St. Augustine in the fifth century and expanded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13^th. For a war to be considered just, it must meet the following criteria: have a just cause, meaning that it confronts a danger beyond question; be declared by a legitimate authority acting on behalf of the people; be driven by the right intention, not ulterior economic or other motives; be the last resort; be proportional, so that the harm inflicted does not outweigh the good achieved; and have a reasonable chance of success (March 6, 2003, p. 14).

Before the war the media witnessed that these principles were being used to evaluate the United States’ actions. For example, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette writes, “In November, the US Bishops issued a statement saying that the current case against Iraq fell short of traditional Christian standards for fighting a ‘just war’” (Rodgers-Melnick, March 7, 2003, p. B13).

President George W. Bush’s nationally televised speech on March 17^th 2003 gave Saddam Hussein an ultimatum and prepared the world for war. While President Bush never explicitly stated that he was appealing to the Just War tradition, his speech reveals an attempt to meet all of the generally accepted criteria. President Bush pledges to “enforce the just demands;” after detailing Iraq’s use of chemical and biological weapons he states, “the danger is clear.” As Commander-in-Chief Bush appeals to the “sovereign authority” of the United States to use force to protect its citizens and the world. Speaking to the people of Iraq, President Bush expresses the avowed intentions of the United States: “If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against lawless men who rule your country and not against you.” Concerning proportionality The President states, “we will deliver the food and medicine you need . . . we will help you build a new Iraq.” Later he returns to this principle stating, “the only way to reduce harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military.” President Bush summarizes the peaceful and diplomatic efforts taken to avoid war which Iraq had presumably ignored or rebuffed.

During the war, Just War theory provided both a model for fair fighting and acted as a restraint for excessive violence: “U.S. forces have conducted the war in a just manner thus far and Catholic just-war doctrine deserves some of the credit” (Parker, March 30, 2003, p. 17A). After the President of the United States gave to Saddam Hussein an ultimatum, Just War principles were invoked by Catholics and political leaders to limit the consequences of military force. The Columbus Dispatch quotes Columbus’ Bishop James A. Griffin as, “Now that fighting has begun, he said, the Catholic Church’s ‘just war’ criteria apply to how it is conducted. That includes minimizing civilian casualties; avoiding excess force; and seeking ‘peace with justice’” (Hoover & Mahoney, March 21, 2003, 01D). The Catholic principles of Just War provided a resource along the way to inform the US political policy. Whether US military policies and practices could actually survive a Just War critique is beyond the scope of this essay, but arguably assurances to the American public were often couched in selective rhetoric that could resonate with such teachings.

Catholics at all levels participated in the national debate and evaluation of the War in Iraq. Pope John Paul II worked towards finding diplomatic solutions. The clergy gave sermons, wrote articles, and counseled their parishioners. Individual citizens publicly expressed their opinions, served in the military, and prayed. Catholic Just War principles informed presidential policymaking and helped to guide military conduct. Now, Catholic charities are helping in the reconstruction of Iraq. The way in which the media reports and narrates these events continues to shape the public image and influence of American Catholics, and governmental leaders.

This chapter has attempted to illustrate ways in which the media serves as a gatekeeper to public information, regulating both civil religion and the expression of a particular religion. Today some people believe it is improper to express any religion in public. In the United States, especially in a time of war, all organizations, including the church, synagogue and mosque, are intrinsically political. As Aristotle observed, politics is the means for creating order out of disagreement. Catholics, Jews, Muslims and all other citizens have a civic duty to participate in the public discourse. The influence of principle, morality and ethics must be able to touch our leaders and fellow citizens. Vincent Carroll began his column by quoting Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, “War inflicts ‘human suffering,’ they remind us, and ‘people of faith have nothing to celebrate in this moment of violence’” (March 22, 2003, p. 22B). This religious pathos shared by many faiths is an essential part of the American spirit—a spirit frequently tapped by the administration and media in an attempt to legitimate the US war in Iraq and build public support.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the University of Dayton’s Office of Graduate Studies and Research for providing us with research grants which made the research and writing of this study possible.

Appendix A

Civil religion denotes a phenomena distinguished from the particular religions found in America. Civil religion borrows elements from the particular religions and adds an element of patriotism. In America civil religion has grown as a nonsectarian expression of faith. Originally the civil religion was strongly Protestant in orientation, but as the number of Catholic immigrants grew the permissible expressions of faith expanded to be acceptable to Catholics. Likewise as the number of Jews increased references to “Jesus” and the “Bible” dropped out of public use replaced by the more general terms “God” and “Scriptures.” For our study terms we focused on such general terms as representative of the American civil religion (bless, evil, God, good, heaven, holy, justice, prayer, scripture, sin), as well as patriotic phrases (One Nation Under God, God Bless America, In God We Trust and Land of the Free). The searches were conducted on the Lexis/Nexis database of general news in the category of major newspapers from January 2001 through December 2003.

Appendix B

Jan	64	128	142
Feb	29	116	61
March	49	111	217
April	56	109	200
May	37	112	90
June	34	140	57
July	43	163	73
Aug	26	63	45
Sept	1555	395	97
Oct	729	84	126
Nov	357	52	79
Dec	313	60	55

Appendix C

Boston Globe, Chicago Sun Times, Columbus Dispatch, Denver Post, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, New York Times, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Plain Dealer (Cleveland), Rocky Mountain News, San Antonio Express, San Diego Union Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Times, Star Tribune (Minneapolis), Washington Post.

Reference Works

Briggs, D. (2003, May 26). Just cause? Theologians are split on whether war in Iraq was morally warranted. Plain Dealer, p. D1.

Carroll, V. (2003, March 22). Concept of a just war too easily discounted. Rocky Mountain News, p. 22B.

Cavanaugh, W. T. (1995). “A fire strong enough to consume the house:” The wars of religion and the rise of the state. Modern Theology, 11(4), 397-419.

Cooperman, A. (2003, March 6). Vatican weighs in against war; Action would be “unjust” without U.N. approval, envoy says. The Washington Post, p. A20.

Cooperman, A. (2003, April 2). Prelate reassures Catholic soldiers; Service in Iraq war sanctioned. The Washington Post, p. A28.

Davey, M. (2003, March 24). A nation at war: American Catholics; for parishioners, right or wrong takes a back seat to prayer. The New York Tines, p. B15.

Dolbee, S. (2003, March 22). 2 bishops issue call for peace, restraint; Roman, Chaldean Catholics speak up. The San Diego Union-Tribune, p. B1

Falsani, C. (2003, March 31). Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic leaders find common ground. Chicago Sun Times, p. 6.

Fimrite, P. & Lattin, D. (2003, March 6). Pope urges faithful to pray for peace. The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A12.

Goodstein, L. (2003, March 6). Threats and responses: Catholics; Conservative Catholics’ wrenching debate over whether to back President or Pope. The New York Times, p. A14.

Gorski, E. (2003, April 3). Church view questioned dissent ok, anti-war Chaput says. The Denver Post, p. A17.

Heinen, T. & Johnson, M. (2003, March 9). Catholics torn between Pope and President’s views on war. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, p. 01B.

Hoover, F. & Mahoney, D. M. (2003, March 21). Region’s believers pray for all caught up in war. Columbus Dispatch, p. 01D.

Lattin, D. (2003, June 16). Scandal affecting church’s credibility; Sex abuse detracts from other issues. The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1.

Lichter, L. S., Lichter, S. R., & Amundson, D. (2000). Media coverage of the Catholic Church 1963-1998. In R. P. Lockwood. (Ed.). Anti-Catholicism in American culture (pp. 159-249). Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor.

Lichter, S. R., Amundson, D., & Lichter, L. S. (1993). Media coverage of the Catholic Church. In P. Riley and R. Shaw. (Eds.). Anti-Catholicism in the media: An examination of whether elite news organizations are biased against the Church (pp. 12-137). Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor.

Los Angeles Times & The Associated Press. (2003, March 5). Sheen faces backlash over war protests. The Seattle Times, p. F2.

McGrory, M. (2003, March 1). Praying for papal intervention: The Pope cannot be dismissed by Bush as just another anti-war protester. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, p. A11.

Parker, J. M. (2003, March 30). Bishops hope for a short fight; Prelates say they want it to come to a just conclusion. San Antonio Express-News, p. 17A.

Riley, M. (2003, March 7). U.S. papal envoy says Iraq stand, faith are in sync Denver Archdiocese honors Nicholson. The Denver Post, p. A04.

Rodgers-Melnick, A. (2003, March 7). Catholics urged to pray for peace. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, p. B13.

Scarponi, D. (2003, April 20). Conn. exhibit chronicles search for peace by Pope John Paul II display includes handwritten note from the Pontiff. The Boston Globe, p. B6.

Stuart, R. (2003, April 16). Religious leaders search for right words on war, God, country. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, p. S1.

About the Authors

Biff Rocha (M.A., Miami University, 2002). Rocha has taught courses in public address and advocacy and argumentation. He has done missionary work both stateside and overseas and is currently in Theological Studies at the University of Dayton.

Jeffrey L. Morrow (M.A., University of Dayton, 2003). Jeffrey Morrow is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Theology at the University of Dayton, in a program which focuses on Catholicism in the context of the United States. Morrow teaches religion at Dayton and speech communication at Princeton University, through Junior State of America. One of his research interests is in religious communication.