Last week, in what could only be described as tragic, a man walked into Conception Abbey and opened fire, killing two monks and wounding two others before turning the gun on himself.

I was intrigued, though, by the way the story was covered in the news media. There was only slight coverage of the story in the news reports I saw, and no assumptions were made about his motives, except to say that they didn't know if he was angry at the sexual abuse scandals.

Suppose, instead of an abbey and monks, it had been a gay resort and gay men and women he had shot. Does anybody doubt that the immediate assumption would have been that it was about the nation's "hate and intolerance"?

The same is true whenever a white police officer shoots a black man. The rush to portray it as an issue of race relations is quick and predictable, regardless of the actual circumstances.

And yet, nobody in the media has suggested, as far as I can see, that this might have been a product of the Catholic Church bashing that has been rampant in the news over the last few months. Nobody is saying that we need to show more respect for faithful Catholics who are trying to live out their beliefs in a world that does not share or those beliefs, or often, does not even try to understand them.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we SHOULD assume that the man was motivated by anti-Catholic press coverage. The police need to be allowed to complete their investigation and let the evidence dictate the conclusions that are reached.

I do wonder, though, at the inconsistency in the media. Why the deliberate approach here instead of the standard "rush to judgment"? Could it be that the traditionally liberal journalistic community has more sympathies toward historically liberal groups such as minorities and homosexuals than it does for a more traditional group, such as Roman Catholics?

I don't know if bias is the answer to that question. I certainly hope it isn't. But I wonder. I do wonder. 

Brad Pardee 
Editor

Now we are in the midst of another national scandal. Allegations are sweeping the Catholic church about priests who have abused children and bishops who have protected them. In some ways, I think this scandal is worse for our nation because few, if any, have looked to the government and to politicians for direction and purpose in life. When a politician falls into scandal, it is rarely something that we take personally. The Church, on the other hand, has seen its ability to speak to the moral issues of our day and to offer guidance to people in the decisions that shape their lives seriously eroded in a crisis of credibility.

The national media descended on last week's meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to see what they were going to do to address the issue. As I watched a bit of the coverage on television, I couldn't help but be reminded of that earlier call to repent for having failed to pray for President Clinton. I wondered if maybe we only see a need to pray for people after they've fallen, much like closing the proverbial barn door after the horse has already escaped.

I have never been in any position of leadership even remotely akin to the bishops or the President, but I know that I have needed prayer on my behalf even in the leading that I have attempted to do. Perhaps we need, as a church and as a nation, to begin to take seriously our responsibility to pray for those in leadership in all facets of our lives.

Certainly the question could be asked how many people have earnestly prayed for their bishops. I don't mean simply having said the words that are a part of the Mass each week but actually said those words from the heart, pouring out our own hearts on their behalf. I admit that I have not. Even as a non-Catholic, I have a great deal of respect for the bishop of the Diocese of Lincoln, and I don't think I have considered him as being in need of my prayers. The same could be true for the leadership of the Assemblies of God, of which I am a member. In both of those cases, there has thankfully not been a reason to look back and wonder where the prayer was, but to my own embarrassment, their standing firm has not been the fruit of the prayers I have failed to offer.

But I think it goes farther than that.

How many of us pray for our bosses? Particularly those of us who, either now or in the past, have had bosses that were not exactly a model of what leadership ought to be. If we have complained or held anger against them, have we been as quick to pray for them? Do we ask God to bless them and strengthen them and equip them for the responsibilities they have, or do we ask God, if we pray about them at all, to come down on them like a ton of bricks so we can watch with satisfaction as they fall?

How many of us pray for the police officers on the streets? Do we only use God's name in reference to them as they drive off after giving us a ticket? Or do we pray God's protection for them as we see them? I don't mean only physical protection, although we should certainly be praying for them in the regard as well. However, the power they hold can be seductive, and we have to ask, are we as vigilant in prayer for them in advance as we are in following every salacious detail after allegations are made against them?

We aren't called to only pray for the good and noble that lead us. We are also, if not moreso, called to pray for those whose leadership we question and whose actions and motivations we suspect. If we really believe that prayer makes a difference, then we should expect that our prayers can strengthen the good and godly in times of temptation or when wisdom is needed, and we should expect that our prayers can change the hearts of those whose hearts are inclined somewhat lower than heavenward.

But our prayers, be they for bishops or pastors or bosses or police officers, can always be counted on to be useless if they are never prayed. 

"Religious engagement with the culture, including efforts to shape law and policy, is a good thing ... But religious activists must walk a tightrope, because a religion that becomes too steeled in the secular political sphere is likely to lose its best and most spiritual self ... The prophetic voice that calls the nation to account for its wrongs is religion at its best; the electoral voice that calls on the faithful to vote the right way is religion at its worst..."