Religious Journalism in Ireland...

The only National Daily paper I read with any regularity is the Irish Times. However, even the most-respected of the Irish dailies is very weak in terms of its religion coverage. Unfortunately the religion related content of today's paper seems to be dominated largely uncritical reporting of the speeches of the Church's critics - internal and external - during the various 'Summer Schools' which have been held in various Irish venues over the past few days.

However, what really caught my eye was this report:

PRESIDENT MARY McAleese and the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, are among the speakers due to address the annual “Meeting For Friendship Between Peoples” next week, held by the influential Italian Catholic lay movement Comunione e Liberazione in Rimini.
President McAleese, who delivers one of the opening speeches of the six-day meeting tomorrow evening, is expected to deal with the history of the conflict in Northern Ireland in an address entitled, “The Forces Which Change History Are Those Which Change The Hearts Of Men”.
Archbishop Martin will take part in a public debate on Tuesday, focused on the figure of John Henry Newman and entitled, “In Defence Of Reason”.

Very interesting...

However, a few paragraphs later, the paper's Roman correspondent goes on to say:

Generally perceived as right-wing, conservative and integrationalist, CL has often been politically active in Italy. In the 1970s, the movement played a prominent part in failed campaigns to prevent the legalisation of both abortion and divorce. CL has always counted important shakers and makers among its public supporters, including most notably the seven-times prime minister Giulio Andreotti.

One can debate the accuracy of that description of CL and the question of how one can accurately and fairly report on a 'general perception', but what strikes me is the use of the term integrationalist. What's that supposed to mean? I'm pretty sure that Paddy Agnew meant to use the word integralist which makes at least some sense in context. (He may have intended to say integrist, but I doubt it...)
The point I'm making, however, is that someone - either Paddy Agnew or an Irish Times sub-editor - seems to have thrown that technical term out there, without taking the care to ensure that it was being used correctly and explained to the readership. I would wager that fewer than one reader of the Irish Times in fifty would be able to explain what was meant by the adjectives integrist and integralist, or would understand that the word integrationalist seems to be meaningless in context.