Access Holywood

Published on August 31, 2006

Lilly Fowler: The New York Times

By Lilly Fowler

The New York Times report on the work done by the Monastery of the Angels in Hollywood is an attention grabber. Despite recent efforts to target Christian audiences with its films, Hollywood retains its image as a place incongruent with the quiet, religious life. Yet while readers might turn to “For 56 Years, Battling Evils of Hollywood with Prayer” because they are curious about the place of religion in a supposedly godless town, it is the glaringly insincere tone of the article they will remember.

Charlie LeDuff, writing for the paper, explains that the sisters who live in the convent rarely venture out from their cloister, but do pray for those living in their neighborhood, the people of Hollywood. LeDuff, however, goes on to describe the activities and the people of the monastery in a way that leads one to conclude that it isn’t the nuns’ ignorance of their surroundings that casts doubt on their work of prayer; rather, it’s the act of prayer itself. I’m not sure it would make a difference to LeDuff if the nuns were praying for the people of Hollywood, the people in their convent, or people in another country—for LeDuff, prayer is a fruitless activity, or so it seems. While describing the sisters as “frail,” “birdlike,” and “as pale and innocent as an uncooked loaf,” for example, LeDuff writes that “they do no missionary work here, canvass no alleys, cook in no soup kitchen. Prayer is the occupation.”

Not only do LeDuff’s descriptions of the nuns and their work raise concerns, but his line of questioning does as well. He doesn’t probe the sisters for their theology of prayer, but instead takes the opportunity to question a sister on whether or not she’s heard of Jon Stewart. LeDuff does not seem to be interested in their work in any meaningful way, and after only a few sentences, the reader has a difficult time taking the piece seriously.

Toward the end of his article, LeDuff writes that “the important thing, then, is that there are still old women in America with the charity to care about something more than themselves, about strangers, even if they do not know those strangers’ manias and motivations.” But after the portraits of the “old women” LeDuff provides and the questions he asks them, one can’t help but read his statement as glib.

The piece does have a few good moments. LeDuff briefly reports on what a sociologist, who also happens to be a sister, has to say about the Second Vatican Council and its impact on women in the church. It is interesting also that, as LeDuff points out, the sisters’ conception of Hollywood, the object of their prayers, may not be well-informed. Unfortunately, after reading his article, neither will the readers’ ideas about their religion.

–Lilly Fowler is a graduate student at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication.

Explore 21 years and 4,105 articles of

The Revealer