Diocesan Newspapers: What Is Reported and What Is Ignored?

Early this year a group of Roman Catholic bishops and the editors of diocesan newspapers gathered in an unusual conference to discuss, among many other things, how best to cover scandal, embarrassment and dissent within the church.

Out of the conference emerged a 13-point consensus endorsing such high-minded goals as full and fair reporting, conveying the Christian meaning of human events, reflecting the unity and diversity of the church and explaining church teaching.

But on one subject--how to cover scandal, embarrassment and dissent--there was no consensus.

‘Age-Old Argument’

“It’s an age-old argument,” Tim McCarthy, a staff writer for the National Catholic Reporter and a former editor of a diocesan newspaper, remarked recently. “It’s essentially an argument between journalists and bureaucrats.”

Now the question of the appropriate role of a diocesan paper has surfaced in San Diego, where the weekly Southern Cross is under new leadership. In a diocese dogged by reports of scandal never aired in Southern Cross, “the bishop’s newspaper” is being re-examined. Circulation is about 20,000, just a fraction of the diocesan membership, and only part of the circulation is in paid subscriptions.

The new editor, a career journalist turned public relations man, held his first meeting last month with a new editorial board appointed by Bishop Leo T. Maher. By January, he said, he intends to redefine the goals of the paper, which some contend has failed in its mission.

“Certainly the dilemma here is whether we want to put out a newspaper or a newsletter,” said editor Bill Finley, whose own position reflects the dilemma--a former reporter, now spokesman for the diocese, with an advisory board full of monsignors.

“There is a certain number of people who think that the vitality of the church is the debate within the church, and that any kind of discussion of theological issues and issues of the day within the church are healthy,” Finley said. “And there is a certain number of conservative elements within the church who feel that all those sorts of controversial debates are somehow unhealthy for the church.”

Diocese Controversy

The San Diego diocese has not been starved for controversy.

First, there was a June, 1984, report in The Reader, a local weekly, alleging that a prominent priest was being treated for a cocaine habit acquired during a long homosexual love affair. Then came newspaper and television reports of homosexuality in St. Francis Seminary, murky financial accounting and the transfer of diocesan property by Maher to his private secretary.

Meanwhile, the diocese silenced a University of San Diego religious studies professor after she signed a public letter calling for a dialogue within the church on abortion. During most of that time, Maher declined to address the charges, except to condemn “these sordid attacks by the press.”

Never did any spokesman for the diocese or the Southern Cross, which purports to cover the church, publicly address the misconduct allegations.

But last month, the diocese hired Finley as a full-time communications director, superseding a priest who had held the job part time.

About the same time, there was muffled upheaval at Southern Cross. The priest who was editor, Father Louis Copestake, quietly stepped down. His name vanished, unexplained, from the newspaper’s masthead. His home telephone was disconnected.

The diocese will say only that Copestake has taken an “administrative leave of absence” for medical reasons. He has left San Diego, said Finley, who added that he did not know where Copestake had gone.

‘Bishop Is the Publisher’

Finley has moved into Copestake’s office in the little newspaper wing behind the diocese’s headquarters. Whether the paper’s content or coverage will change remains unclear. But Finley noted recently: “I think we need to remember at all times that the bishop is the publisher of the newspaper. In that respect, it’s no different from your publisher, in that he had better be pleased with the product.”

Nationwide, editors and observers of many of the 157 diocesan newspapers say their quality depends on each bishop’s willingness to tolerate editorial independence. The history of many Catholic diocesan papers is one of recurrent tension over coverage of troublesome topics such as scandal and dissent.

The National Catholic Reporter, a large, privately owned paper, emerged out of a diocesan newspaper that had angered its bishop. According to editor Tom Fox, the bishop withdrew funding for the paper after it published an editorial opposing the bishop’s stand on birth control.

The editor of the San Bernardino paper recalled a disagreement with his bishop over his publishing a wire service report of the drunk-driving arrest of the archbishop of Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Other editors recalled skirmishes with their bishops over coverage of sex scandals involving local priests and lawsuits against the diocese. Other sensitive areas include letters to the editor, columns and editorials.

“The general rule is that the closer the issue is to home, the less likely the editor is going to utilize or express an editorial independence,” Fox said.

Papers’ Aim Defined

Diocesan papers define their aim as “helping Catholics understand the world and fulfill their role in it,” according to the consensus of the Catholic Press Assn. conference held in February. That includes “reporting fully, fairly and accurately the events of the day as they relate to Christians” and “portraying the church as it is, with its strengths and weaknesses.”

But the papers’ goals also include “helping fulfill the bishop’s obligation to teach and instruct the people of God” and “helping to build up the local, national and universal community.” Several editors said they seek to inspire, as well as to inform.

“In a way, there is at least a theoretical conflict between the tradition of editorial independence, which is so much a part of American history, and the tradition of a newspaper which is attempting to portray the life of the diocese through the eyes of the bishop,” said Fox of the National Catholic Reporter.

That conflict is made sharper by the fact that most diocesan papers are under-funded and understaffed. Many have part-time editors who are priests with little or no journalism background. Like Finley, some editors double as the diocesan public relations man.

“One of the things to keep in mind is that diocesan papers don’t have big staffs, so they can’t do investigative stories,” said Ethel Gintoft, editor of the Catholic Herald in Milwaukee. “We don’t watchdog our officials in the same way a secular paper watchdogs elected officials.”

As a result, editors occasionally find themselves faced with the question of whether to address allegations of scandal first reported in the “secular press.” Some said they believe that by ignoring those stories, editors risk their papers’ credibility.

“I think that most Catholic newspapers don’t go around looking for dirty laundry,” said Dan Pitre, editor of the Inland Catholic in San Bernardino. “However, if a problem does develop, then I do think we need to air that issue, particularly relating the facts from the church’s perspective.”

‘Seeking After the Truth’

“My feeling is that truth can’t destroy our faith,” said Monica Clark, editor of the Catholic Voice in Oakland. “I think we have to keep seeking after the truth. Sometimes the search is painful and makes us look at things we don’t want to look at. But I don’t see that our faith can hinge on misinformation and myth.”

These days, Southern Cross is a bland little newspaper, a 12- or 16-page tabloid almost entirely in black and white. Its circulation is approximately 20,000 in a diocese believed to have many more Catholics than the official 382,000 count.

In a recent issue, most of the front page concerned the dedication of a church. The centerfold was a two-page spread on the 75th anniversary of a parish. News of the nation’s Catholic bishops’ latest pastoral letter on the economy was on Page 12. There were no letters from readers.

But Southern Cross was not always shy of controversy.

During the 1970s it was edited by Michael Newman, who took over at age 48 after a journalism career that included service on London’s Fleet Street. As Newman and members of his staff recall it, the paper in those times eagerly took up prickly issues of the day.

Newman said he was faulted for reporting the departure of a prominent priest who left his post in order to marry.

Week after week, the paper covered the debate surrounding Maher’s denial of communion to members of groups like the National Organization for Women that advocated the right to an abortion.

In the mid-1970s, Newman said, the paper won a San Diego Press Club award for an investigation into the finances of a Catholic high school fund-raising event. The paper revealed that comedian Bob Hope, invited to make a guest appearance, had ended up with $25,000 that he gave to charity while the four schools got only $2,500 each.

“We were getting away from the old church--what I refer to as pray, pay and obey--to the new church where people were told to think for themselves,” Newman said. “You don’t want to encourage people to lose their faith, obviously. But you must keep the faith energetic and alive.”

‘Vilification Campaign’

Eventually, Newman said, the paper became the target of a “vilification campaign” in which nuns or women dressed as nuns encouraged businesses to withdraw their advertising.

Newman, who has since become a deacon in charge of the diocese’s retreat center, left the paper in late 1979 to go into fund raising. Three editors followed in rapid succession--a public relations man and two priests.

The first, Jim Bastis, was communications director for the diocese and a former information officer for the Archdiocese of New York. According to Bastis, he changed the paper’s design to “give it a look,” and he turned the front page into a features page.

“I think there was a general idea in my head . . . that I didn’t need to wash the dirty laundry of the diocese in its own newspaper,” Bastis said. “It was a decision, if it was going to cause more trouble or pain to many people out there, why bother telling them?

”. . . . I’m glad I’m not there now, because of all the things that have been written in recent years. I wouldn’t want to have to decide what would go in the paper and what would not.”

In a recent interview, asked to say where the paper was headed, Finley said he was awaiting the results of a readership survey sent out in a previous edition and would be meeting with his editorial board as well as priests throughout the diocese.