I read the glossary differently: I think the UK Visit Team is trying their best to educate media about what the proper terminology is to describe these things. For instance, reporters will often (mistakenly) describe the Eucharist as “Bread and Wine”, while the UK Visit Team is telling the media that it should actually be described as “Blessed Sacrament [or] Holy Communion.”
In other words, the right column is listing words and phrases that reporters might be tempted to use, but the left column is telling them what words and phrases they should use if they want to be accurate. Certainly, reporters often make basic mistakes when trying to describe what they are seeing at a Catholic Mass or event, and its understandable that the UK papal visit team is trying to avoid these mistakes if possible.
Granted, they could have done a better job at it. But I still think the Daily Mail hasn’t proven by any means that the UK papal visit team is suggesting that reporters use imprecise/misleading/silly terminology in their reporting.
I am currently attempting to obtain a copy of the full document so I can read this glossary in its proper context.
I am concerned because bloggers in the UK (and now, the US) are busy criticizing the UK Visit Team about this “embarrassment”, when they should actually be going after the Daily Mail for taking the glossary out of context… I hope.
The ironic thing here is that the Daily Mail may have unwittingly proven the papal visit team’s point that when it comes to reporting Catholic topics, the press is in dire need of some remedial education in basic reading and comprehension.
When I saw this glossary I immediately remembered the night when some people working on the papal visit left a number of important documents in a pub. I couldn’t help but think that now we at least have a good idea what they were working on in the pub that night.
Like I said Thomas Peters is a lot nicer than me. As far as Peters’ comments, I agree that the folks working on the papal visit weren’t encouraging the press to use the definitions on the right like “gig” instead of “Mass” or “Performer” instead of “liturgists.”
But I believe even using those terms as a comparison point puts the Mass in a weird and silly light that I’m not comfortable with. I’m all for getting the press to say “Blessed Sacrament” instead of “Bread and Wine.”
But comparing the Pope to a “Headline Act?” Really?
And were any of the press really going to use the term “gig” for “Mass?” Come on.
And I think even the media understands what a “congregation” is.
While I believe their heart may have been in the right place, what the folks working for the papal visit produced is, I believe, silly. And on top of silly I see it as condescending to the press.
As a guy who was a newspaper reporter for many years, I can guarantee that this glossary almost guarantees worse coverage for the Pope. (And it’s pretty difficult for the Pope to get much worse coverage.)
Look, if I believed that the Pope didn’t get favorable press clippings simply because of a nomenclature problem then this glossary would be the perfect antidote. However, I don’t believe that the press just doesn’t understand the terms of Catholicism. Many in the media are opposed to the Pope, don’t like organized religion at all, and color their coverage accordingly.
It’s not a misunderstanding we’re fighting here. It’s willful ignorance.
Maybe Thomas Peters is right and this glossary will do great good across Europe and the press will have their nomenclature down pat and church/press relations will be better off for it. Call me pessimistic but I just don’t see it.