Every now and then, the box-office prophets in Hollywood are shocked, shocked to discover that large numbers of Americans like to buy tickets to movies that are funny, clean, well-crafted and capable of tugging at a heart-string or two. There’s another tricky little subject hiding in there that many media people just don’t get, but we’ll look at that a bit later.

Unless you have been hiding on another planet, you know that the hot movie out there in multiplex land is “The Twilight Saga: New Moon,” which, as expected, is drawing armies of tissue-clutching young females (and their moms, hiding in the back rows) with its mixture of chaste romance and vampire family values.

However, another movie shocked the experts by jumping into the Thanksgiving mix. Here’s the top of the New York Times box-office update:

As expected, “The Twilight Saga: New Moon” led at the movie box office for the second weekend in a row, with $42.5 million in domestic ticket sales for a 10-day total of $230.7 million. But the week’s surprise came from “The Blind Side,” a sports and family drama that was close behind with an estimated $40.1 million in sales, making it poised to become Sandra Bullock’s highest-grossing film to date. …

“It’s going to do over $200 million,” Dan Fellman, Warner’s theatrical distribution president, predicted of the film, which was directed by John Lee Hancock. Ms. Bullock’s best-selling film so far has been “The Proposal,” another surprise hit that has taken in $164 million since it was released by Walt Disney in June.

So what, precisely, is helping “The Blind Side” shock Hollywood?

So far, I haven’t seen a mainstream story that has taken on that topic. The label “family” does offer a hint, since that is often MSM code for “religious” or, at the very least, “clean.”

However, we are dealing with a very mainstream star and a director who has a mixed financial track record, yet he has mainstream skills that allow him to turn his own Christian convictions into solid films. Think back to that earlier shocking hit, “The Rookie.” That was another “family” film, rooted in a true-life sports story, that contained just a hint of faith.

Yes, faith. That seems to be the factor in this film that many don’t seem to be able to get. Thus, we get hints. Take this passage from a USA Today box-office report, quoting Gregg Kilday, film editor for The Hollywood Reporter:

Sandra Bullock’s The Blind Side kept the No. 2 spot and actually saw its gross rise 17% to $40.1 million. … Kilday said The Blind Side is “kind of outside expectations, which probably suggests it’s a movie that connected with the heartland when the two coasts weren’t paying too much attention to it.”

So the two coasts are, well, blue zones and the “heartland” is a, well, red zone that Hollywood struggles the understand? Something like that.

Last week, my Scripps Howard News Service column focused on “The Blind Side” and I’ve read the excellent book by Michael Lewis that inspired the film (by all means, check it out).

While I interviewed Leigh Anne Tuohy, I was not surprised that the woman at the heart of the real story understood the role that faith played in life of Michael Oher and the series of events that brought him into their family (photo: Sean Tuohy, Oher, Leigh Anne Tuohy). However, I did find it interesting that Bullock — who had to be talked into taking this role — clearly knew what was going on.

“We’re convinced that faith guided and controlled this whole thing,” said Leigh Anne Tuohy, the steel-magnolia matriarch of the rich, white, evangelical family that finally embraced Oher as a son, after providing food, shelter and clothing. “We absolutely believe that none of this was a fluke. … This was God-driven from the start.” …

The key is that expressions of faith were a natural part of this true story, said actress Sandra Bullock, who plays Leigh Anne. No one was faking anything.

“This family, they were themselves for no other benefit other than because they wanted to reach out, lend a hand, and had no idea that they would get a son in return,” she told reporters, after a press screening of “The Blind Side.” Bullock said that, while making the movie, she regained a little “faith in those who say they represent a faith. … I’ve finally met people that walk the walk.”

If this movie does hit $200 million and keeps going, do you think anyone in the mainstream press will put two and two together? I mean, people write about little tiny Christian niche movies with no budget that are easy to criticize. “The Blind Side” looks like an interesting entertainment news story, to me.

Just saying….

Every year we read about the War on Christmas. The mainstream media love to cover stories about those Scrooges who ban the use of any specific greetings related to Christmas and the old curmudgeons who complain about the same.

But I like to cover the war on all the other seasons of the liturgical calendar. For one thing, how can it be a war on Christmas when this isn’t even the Christmas Season? That begins on Christmas and lasts 12 days. You may have heard of these mysterious 12 days of Christmas. But half the time we get stories about the 12 days of Christmas, we get them as the final 12 days leading up to Dec. 25. A few years ago, there was a minor epidemic of Washington-area newspapers confusing the issue. This year we have an Associated Press story about how much it would cost to give the gifts mentioned in the famous “12 Days of Christmas” song ($87,403). But maybe the AP is just super early rather than wrong.

So Sunday was the start of the Advent season for Western Christians. Advent is the beginning of the church year and the time in which the church patiently and eagerly prepares for Christmas by confession and repentance, prayer, Scripture study, fasting and the singing of seasonal hymns. The liturgical color for the season is purple (or, I hear, blue).

This is a major season that isn’t ignored so much as competed against with “Christmas.” The first day of this alternative religious season begins with Black Friday. That’s the day when we all pin our annual economic hopes on mass purchasing of retail goods. So here’s how one recent Reuters story broke the news:

U.S. consumers spent significantly less per person at the start of the holiday season this weekend, dimming hopes for a retail comeback that would help propel the economy early in 2010.

My sister is a retail manager and she was forced to open her story at midnight after Thanksgiving. She worked two eight-hour shifts that day. I agree with Dell Dechant that there are religious components to the consumer culture. It might have something to do with why I avoided the malls.

And I might not be alone. Jeff Strickler of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune found others who rebel against the pressures of Black Friday:

William Doherty won’t be among the throngs in the shopping malls Friday morning. He will be in church.

Doherty, a professor in the Family Social Science Department at the University of Minnesota, is part of a growing backlash against the commercialization of Christmas. Last year, he helped his church, Unity Church Unitarian in St. Paul, hold a worship service on what has become known as Black Friday, the official kickoff of the holiday gift-buying bonanza and biggest retail shopping day of the year.

This year, he is helping launch a similar “Black Friday at Church” event at New Hope Baptist Church in St. Paul.

The protest against Christmas consumption, organized by the Advent Conspiracy, has become an international phenomenon. The program, created by three pastors in 2006, is being presented this year in as many as 1,500 churches, including several in the Twin Cities.

The story is a great local look at a religious trend in the area and he does a good job of explaining the theological approach of the folks behind the Advent Conspiracy, although the name isn’t explained at all. I was also wondering why those of us liturgical Christians who are engaged in, um, an Advent conspiracy every year weren’t mentioned. But it’s okay because Strickler has another article devoted to nothing other than explaining the symbols of Advent:

This weekend marks the first Sunday in Advent, the month leading up to Christmas that Christians have marked for centuries — but not always in the same spirit.

Originally, Advent and Lent were cut from the same theological cloth. They both were times of devotion, introspection and repentance. But while Lent has retained its initial tone, Advent has become more about parties than penance.

While the activities of Advent might have changed, its symbols live on. Many of the iconic images of Christmas actually started with Advent. The wreath, St. Nicholas and even the decorating of a Christmas tree trace their roots to the days leading up to the holiday.

Well, for some of us Advent is still a time of devotion and repentance rather than parties. The Orthodox even call this period Christmas Lent. But Strickler’s point is clear. And with an economy of words, he quickly runs through many Advent traditions and where they come from. Here, for example, is a treatment of the color for the season:

The color purple: In most Protestant denominations, ministers wear purple vestments during Advent. Contrary to what many football fans might think, this has nothing to do with supporting the Minnesota Vikings (although if your minister shows up this weekend wearing green and yellow, be very suspicious).

There are various explanations for the choice of purple. The most common is that in ancient times, purple dye was the most expensive and was reserved for use by royalty. Therefore, the theory goes, it was chosen to designate the Christian year’s most regal event, the birth of its new king.

Like I said, it’s a real quick treatment. There are huge differences of opinion in the Western church over whether the proper color is violet, purple, blue, etc. And I’m not even sure that “most” Protestant denominations mark Advent, much less that its ministers wear vestments of any color. But purple was traditionally chosen for its royal ties and it’s good to mention that.

And I’m just so happy that any major paper is treating Advent at all. This is a very important time for so very many liturgical Christians and it’s wonderful that a paper would simply acknowledge that and instruct readers about it. And on that note, here’s USA Today’s Advent calendar shopping guide!

It’s odd to see some of your former classmates quoted in The New York Times as if they are newsworthy. Don’t get me wrong—many of them are doing cool and interesting things. Samuel G. Freedman profiles one of these classmates in a nice, upbeat story to show how young evangelicals are taking up interests in climate change, AIDS and poverty in his On Religion column for the Times.

However, I initially groaned when I started reading the piece. There were so many stories about “the broadening of the evangelical agenda” during the 2008 election that someone suggested we start a drinking game for the phrase. Thankfully, though, Freedman did not fall into the trap of implying that all older evangelicals care about is abortion and same-sex marriage. Also, unlike other reporters, he doesn’t feel the need to suggest any political implications.

Freedman looks at this trend through the lens of Jenna Liao, a Wheaton graduate who now works at World Relief, an agency that helps refugees. He does do a nice job of helping us understand how Liao’s faith informs her social justice work, citing the Beatitudes. The examples eventually apply to a larger story on younger evangelicals.

For in coming to the work of refugee resettlement, and more broadly of seeking social justice in a fallen world, Ms. Liao embodied a dramatic change among her generation of evangelical Christians.

Without disowning longstanding causes for evangelical activists like opposition to abortion or support for school vouchers, these young evangelicals have taken up issues previously abdicated to secular and religious liberals: climate change, AIDS prevention and treatment, Third World poverty.

The problem here is that Freedman makes these assertions with no data. For example, is this social justice trend just among Liao’s generation of evangelicals? What about California megachurch pastor Rick Warren, who is perhaps one of the most recognizable faces for AIDS outreach and doesn’t exactly represent recent college graduates?

Also, while climate change seems somewhat new for evangelicals (within the last five years or so), haven’t they long been involved in AIDS prevention and fighting poverty (especially overseas) for a while now? Evangelicals have long been involved in social justice areas like starting soup kitchens, hospitals and charity groups. Globally focused and still popular organizations like World Vision and Heifer International have been around for more than 50 years. Even later in the article, Freedman writes that World Relief opened in 1984.

Evangelicals might be experiencing a trend of focusing on climate change, AIDS and poverty. When I was at Wheaton, there was a definite emphasis on these areas because Bono had just visited the campus and President Duane Litfin had just signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative. Those of us in the student newspaper office often joked about “chapeltisements,” chapels that turned into an advertisement for whatever social justice group gave their spiel of the day. I also remember some students lamenting that there was just one limp week dedicated to raising money for pregnancy centers. Freedman just doesn’t provide data or more examples of this surge we’re supposed to be seeing that wasn’t there before. Even speaking with a professor who has spent more than four years at Wheaton could strengthen his angle and provide examples of how students’ emphasis has changed over the years.

Also, the story seems to completely ignore Wheaton’s history. This is the same school that served as a stop on the Underground Railroad and sent out Jim Elliot and friends (the missionaries who were killed by the natives in Ecuador in 1956). Freedman and several other writers during the 2008 election seemed surprised see evangelicals are more globally and social justice oriented. That just doesn’t seem new to me, especially given Wheaton’s and evangelicals’ longstanding emphasis on missions.

I also have a few quibbles with Freedman’s word choice in places. Back to Liao, the Wheaton graduate whom Freedman focuses on, he writes that she has a hand in resettling 400 or so families each year.

… [T]here was little in the upbringing of these young evangelicals that made social justice the obvious career choice or theological focus. Ms. Liao is the daughter of a career Army officer who served in both Iraq wars. She was home-schooled for several years, and she cried the night Bill Clinton defeated Senator Bob Dole, a World War II veteran, to win his second term as president.

I think we could use a little more background here. How would Liao’s military child upbringing, homeschooling or reaction to Clinton’s election play into her theological focus? Instead, I’m interested in what kind of church she grew up in. For example, if she grew up in an Anabaptist or Reformed tradition, that could theologically impact how she would see Christians’ involvement in the world. In other words, Freedman’s description of her upbringing tells us more about her politically conservative family than her religious upbringing.

Coming to the United States from a military base in Germany to start college, Ms. Liao enrolled at Wheaton College, the alma mater of the Rev. Billy Graham and the center of a region of suburban Chicago known as the “evangelical Vatican.”

I don’t know anybody who calls Wheaton the “evangelical Vatican.” By its very fragmented nature, there is no evangelical Vatican comparison. No one solitary group is making statements on behalf of evangelicalism, which is why you see lots of different heads of groups signing statements like the Manhattan Declaration. You also probably won’t see statements like that coming directly from a place like Wheaton, which is more academically inclined than activist inclined because it’s a college. I have heard Wheaton described as the “evangelical Mecca”—where evangelicals might tend to flock, but I thought Colorado Springs stole that title.

Overall, Freedman does a nice job of humanizing a trend he sees, but hopefully the next story on evangelical activism will provide proof that there’s something there that wasn’t there before.

I suppose if there’s a dark underside to being a sports fan it’s that it allows us to indulge our capacity for irrational hatred. It’s a really disconcerting thing when you stop to think about it.

I’m a pretty easygoing guy and I dislike very few people. But I loathe Magic Johnson. Growing up rabid Blazers fan in Oregon, the anguish of this was so soul-crushing I’m not sure a part of me has ever recovered. As a basketball fan, I should be able to step back and appreciate what Johnson did to beat the Blazers in game six of the Western Conference Finals is one of the smartest plays in the history of the game. But all I care about is that Johnson ended a very promising season for my beloved team, who I owe my allegiance to by nothing more than geographic accident.

And yet, such feelings of hate are for the most part seen as normal. A while back, Esquire editor and died-in-the-wool UNC fan Will Blythe wrote a book on the UNC-Duke rivalry. Among the many reasons it was a good book was that the title was perfect — To Hate Like This is to Be Happy Forever. On the cover of the book, legendary Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski is photoshopped into looking like a rat-faced demon. The sentiment may not be pretty, but it’s definitely something we can all sports fans can relate to. We like seeing our rivals lose as much as when our teams win, and we let even the most impressionistic opinions become urgent and compelling reasons to hate a player or team.

Which brings us to Florida quarterback Tim Tebow.

For reasons I’ve never been able to fathom, a good many college football fans despise Tebow with the fire of a thousand suns. Sports Illustrated columnist Andy Staples devotes an entire column to Tebow hatred. Naturally, a significant component of that Tebow hatred is in reaction to the Heisman trophy winner’s very public Christianity and the supposed sincerity thereof. This leads to some deeply theological brow-furrowing for a sports columnist:

All the anti-Tebow sentiment is reminiscent of a 2004 profile of U2 singer Bono that Chuck Klosterman wrote for Spin. Klosterman couldn’t wrap his brain around whether Bono’s saintly aura was just a facade created for and by the media or the inner glow of a genuinely excellent human being. That led to Klosterman asking an interesting question, the gist of which was this: Whether it’s genuine or a performance, does it matter as long as the saintly act was committed?

I died a little bit inside realizing that this particular insight is being attributed to Chuck Klosterman, but that’s neither here nor there. Staples’ heart is mostly in the right place, regarding how he approaches Tebow’s crtics:

Sure, he raises money for his dad’s orphanage in the Philippines, but he does it only to make himself look better. Even if that were true, how many orphanages have you raised money for this year?

Whether you consider him genuine or fake, Tebow, at the end of the day, is a Heisman Trophy-, SEC- and BCS-title winning quarterback who goes to class, goes to church and circumcises people less fortunate than him. More people should be so intolerable.

No, that bit about circumcision is not a typo. Bizarrely, Staples doesn’t explain it, but it turns out that Tebow has been known to assist with surgical procedures doing mission work in the Phillippines. And Staples ventures far afield for a sportswriter, even quoting scripture to put the Tebow hatred in perspective:

Some Florida fans suggested this week that fans wear eye black Saturday to pay tribute to Tebow. Thousands complied, including Florida’s First Lady, Shelley Meyer. The wife of Gators’ coach Urban Meyer set her eye blacks squarely on the Tebow haters when she chose 1st Timothy 4:12 as her verse:

Let no man despise your youth, but be thou an example of the believers in word, in conversation, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

It’s worth noting Staples isn’t even a Tebow fan per se. He spends the latter half of his column making the stat-based case for why Tebow’s onfield performance wasn’t enough to deserve the Heisman. But it certainly says something profound that that you can’t discuss Tebow the quarterback without discussing Tebow the Christian.

Staples’ column is particularly interesting in light of “Generosity of spirit separates Tebow” from ESPN senior writer Pat Forde, who was there covering the emotional scene at Tebow’s last Florida home game. Unlike Staples’ column, Forde has written fairly straightforward report. Yet, it’s basically an attempt to cannonize Tebow. Forde describes his “traditional postgame lap to commune with the fans turned into an eight-minute lovefest of startling intensity.” Interesting choice of verb there.

And while Staples presented a nuanced perspective on why Tebow’s faith makes him an object of hatred, Forde just comes right out and says some people don’t like Tebow specifically because of his public professions of faith:

Tebow long ago entered another dimension of stardom, as his impact went viral. He is the most polarizing college athlete ever, by a wide margin, engendering the deepest of feelings across the culture.

The cynical and envious rip him — and rip the media for saying nice things about him, claiming that he is overhyped. (They’ll say that very thing about this column, I’m quite sure.) Some roll their eyes at his unapologetically public Christianity — worn on his sleeve and under his eyes — despite the authenticity that underlies it in word and deed.

It has become an unfortunate aspect of our Hater Nation mentality that many of us cannot stand too much of a good thing.

That last paragraph contains multitudes. Forde seems resigned to the fact that we’re a “hater nation.” But this isn’t just a story about whether Tebow can be said to be a good person, we’re good people for judging him. That’s a profound question, and I wish it wasn’t only touched on in passing.

And this may be a nitpick, but it needs to be said. As a professional journalist, I don’t know when sportswriters collectively decided that the rules don’t apply to them. How on earth does one write “He is the most polarizing college athlete ever, by a wide margin, engendering the deepest of feelings across the culture” with a straight face? It’s not as if Tebow has topped the Associated Press’ “Most Polarizing College Athlete” poll for four years straight. There’s just no way to quantify that, so don’t present it as a fact.

Anyway, I’m generally pleased to see sportswriters discussing the negative public reaction to Tebow’s faith in a generally intelligent and forthright fashion, I’m kind of blown away that neither of these articles saw fit to mention that perhaps the most public example of Tebow hostility to date came from… sportswriters. Here’s the relevant bit from last year’s Heisman voting:

Bradford got 300 first-place votes, McCoy 266 and Tebow 309. Not since 1956 had a player drawn the most first-place votes and finished third.

Some a 154 sportswriters left Tebow off their ballots altogether last year — at the time, many people noted that this smacked of some sort of coordinated campaign against him.

It seems like this should have been mentioned while sportswriters are busy trying to get in the final word on Tebow’s college career and it’s purported divisiveness. I suppose that the unwillingness to ask tough questions about the “Hater Nation” of sports fans raises some uncomfortable questions for sports journalists who have grown increasingly shrill and opinionated over the last few decades.

Yes, I’m the guy married to the Divine Mrs. Z. (Yes, that’s a picture from our wedding day.) I’ll be helping out around these parts for a few weeks while Brad is doing his best to ace a series of brutal law school exams. We’re pulling for you Brad!

All I can say is, thankfully I’ll only be doing this for a short while. For nothing else than the sake my own ego, it’s probably best I not be measured against the same yardstick as my wife. She’s even more of a force of nature in real life than on the page. But I’ve helped my wife behind the scenes and provided input occasionally in her capacity at GR pretty much since she started, so I hope I can hit the ground running.

Anyway, a little bit about me. I’m originally from Bend, Oregon. You’ve probably figured out that I am a Missouri-Synod Lutheran like my wife and am interested in all things relating to Lutheranism and small-o orthodox Christianity. However, I’m an adult convert. I was raised Mormon and much of my family are still practicing LDS. So while I no longer wear my CTR ring, in the last few years I’ve found myself increasingly invested in understanding my former church (and even frequently defending it against a great deal of misinformation).

I just started a new job working at the editorial page of The Washington Examiner. Prior to that, I was at National Review, so take that for what it’s worth. However, throughout my career, I’ve worked in a number of newsrooms and at a wire service in far less ideological contexts. In a professional context, I value quality journalism above litmus tests. And as a regular reader for years, I’m well aware of the impact this site has had in raising the level of journalism on the Godbeat, so I’m happy to be here.

The Washington Post has a feature headlined “A muscular, die-hard spirituality: Self-sufficient Christians prepare for Second Coming or for life after global disaster.” So you can imagine that I expected the story to be about that.

It begins promisingly enough, with an anecdote of a 74-year-old computer professional Ken Uptegrove. He has a garden, tries to live simply, studies the lives of early Christians, launched a ministry and an unnamed Web site, and hopes someday to move to a remote area with other self-sufficient Christians.

But then the story just goes in a completely different direction. No other survivalists are quoted, much less Christian survivalists, although we hear that business is booming at one online store that sells emergency supplies. In fact, it sounds like any trend toward survivalism, if there is one, could very well be secular:

Sustainability and self-sufficiency appear downright mainstream, exemplified by first lady Michelle Obama’s White House vegetable garden… .

In the popular imagination, survivalists are Rambo types, [Richard Mitchell Jr., a professor emeritus at Oregon State University,] said. But survivalists often are urbanites or suburbanites who distrust the government or think the government is flawed. For the less hard-core, survivalism might offer a measure of control that seemed lost to natural disasters or terrorism, [emergency supply store owner Joe] Branin said.

“This is one way people feel like they’re taking control of their own situations again,” he said. “We’ve had so much drama. It’s like getting your oil changed in your car. You’ve done something that feels good. It’s the same way with somebody going down and getting a survival kit and having extra food or water. It gives them that level of a little bit of security.”

And then this:

Yet being prepared isn’t all bad, Mitchell said. If survivalists are gardening because they think the United States should be less dependent on foreign countries for food or energy, maybe they’re on to something. And if survivalists distrust government and economic systems they don’t completely understand, perhaps the recession has proved that they have a point.

The story says that “some Christians see signs of the end times and Jesus’s Second Coming.” Well, sure. “Some Christians” have seen signs of the end times since shortly after Jesus walked the earth. There’s nothing wrong with writing a story about survivalists motivated by religious beliefs, but this was not that story. And a story about those Christians who believe the end times are nigh might also be insightful. And a story about gardeners being “on to something” would be interesting — although I would hope we’d learn what that something might be. (Ditto for those of who distrust government or economic systems “having a point.”)

But this is a story that desperately needs either more religion or less religion in it. Otherwise it just seems confusing.

We received a note the other day from a priest asking us to call attention to a South Bend Tribune editorial marking the retirement of Bishop John D’Arcy from the Catholic Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend. Even though GetReligion focuses on news reports, not editorial, this correspondent thought we would appreciate the respectful and balanced tone in this piece — especially considering the bishop’s role in the events surrounding President Barack Obama’s visit to the University of Notre Dame to received an honorary doctorate in law, in clear violation of a policy statement by the U.S. Catholic bishops.

Here’s a sample that demonstrates that tone, from the heart of the article:

D’Arcy believes in putting faith into action, and he has never shied away from hard choices and controversial stances, whether it be dollars-and-cents decisions to build, close or merge churches or letter-by-letter interpretation and enforcement of church orthodoxy. He broadened the church’s charitable efforts and reached out strongly to Hispanic Catholics.

He showed true courage in calling for action against predator priests in the Archdiocese of Boston at a time when many in the church were silent. His letters of protest seem to have been ignored and filed away. There’s even a suspicion that D’Arcy was “exiled” here for speaking out. Ultimately, though, his efforts to curb sex abuse by priests have been nationally recognized and honored.

At some point, the editorial obviously needed to show a hint of journalistic displeasure at the bishop for boycotting the president’s address at Notre Dame. However, it should be noted that the editorial board, while doing that, could not get its facts straight in its rush to praise D’Arcy for not being, well, as bad as some of the other people involved in that media storm.

D’Arcy’s vision of duty to his church also led to less universally popular actions. Most recently and famously, he declined to attend the University of Notre Dame’s commencement because President Obama was to speak. He later condemned the sometimes coarse and mercenary nature of the protests that ensued. But his dramatic clash with the university inadvertently fanned the flames and put Notre Dame in a difficult position.

Those who have disagreed with him should concede that Bishop John D’Arcy has been nothing if not consistent. The same faithful heart that led him to speak out against abuse led him to steer the church away from actions he perceived as endorsing abortion or immorality.

Actions “he perceived” as endorsing abortion? Right.

The actions by D’Arcy — taken in support of the policy statement by the U.S. bishops — were what “put Notre Dame in a difficult position”? Yeah, right.

While it’s easy to debate those statements, they are editorial comments and, thus, simply display the editorial board’s stances on the issues involved.

No, what caught my attention was the statement that D’Arcy “condemned the sometimes coarse and mercenary nature of the protests that ensued.”

Say what? The editorial board needed to add a crucial word to that statement. The bishop condemned some of the protests, which were, in fact, coarse and mercenary. But he praised the other protests, the ones planned by members of the Notre Dame community. As GetReligion noted at the time, most members of the mainstream press never noted (let alone covered as news) the larger and more dignified protests that took place. Most journalists focused on the smaller, louder protests led by outsiders, such as the omnipresent Randall Terry.

Some witnesses claimed that a pro-life Mass drew as many as 2,000 people. A prayer service at the famed Grotto on the Notre Dame campus — led by D’Arcy and others — drew 1,000 worshipers.

As D’Arcy said at the time: “The heroes are the young people on campus and the students in the great tradition of John Paul and Pope Benedict. … Their protest was carried out with love, prayer, dignity and respect.”

The bishop condemned the “coarse and mercenary” nature of some of the protests. That’s true. But he helped lead other protests against the honorary degree for Obama, praising the Notre Dame clergy, faculty, staff and students who organized them.

D’Arcy led by example, as did the Notre Dame administrators, in their own way.

The South Bend Tribune editorial board should be praised for offering a respectful tribute to a bishop that it, clearly, did not agree with on many issues of Catholic life and teachings. But the newspaper also needed to get some crucial facts straight.

Those of you who have missed the posts of our Elizabeth Evans should head on over to Reuters FaithWorld where she has written about clergy sexual misconduct. She digs a bit deeper and wider on the topic than most treatments of the issue.

While I was over there, I came across this other item about the ongoing drama between Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., and Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin. The piece gives a quick explanation of the row, what it means for the debate over President Obama’s health care overhaul and also what it means for Catholics in America. It ends with a series of questions:

This leads to a question about the consistency of views in the U.S. Catholic Church leadership. The Church opposes abortion and therefore liberal politicians who support abortion rights risk being refused communion. The Church supports a healthcare overhaul that would make the system more equitable. So does a conservative Catholic politician who opposes this reform risk being denied communion for ignoring the Catholic social teaching that justifies it?

How about support for capital punishment, which the Vatican says is unjustified in almost all possible cases, or for war? In the build-up to the Iraq war, Pope John Paul was so opposed to the plan that he sent a personal envoy to Washington to argue against it. Did bishops threaten any measures against Catholic politicians who energetically supported that war despite Vatican opposition?

Years ago in Britain, the Church of England used to be called “the Tory party at prayer.” Does this apparent difference in treatment of liberal and conservative Catholics risk making the U.S. Church into one section of “the Republican Party at prayer?”

These are not bad questions. They are brought up routinely by critics of the Catholic Church and critics of the church’s teaching on abortion. Sometimes I think we should have a GetReligion drinking game. If we did, there would have to be an entry for taking a shot when someone commented on a post by questioning the church’s consistency.

But — and I say this as an avowed non-Roman Catholic here — these questions also have answers. And since these questions are raised so regularly, the media need to do a better job of at least explaining what the Catholic Church teaches in this case.

Let’s go to no less an expert than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now better known as Pope Benedict XVI. Here’s what he wrote about the “consistency” question (H/T to First Things) in 2004:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

Some reporters have done a good job of explaining that there is a difference between the absolute manner in which the church condemns abortion compared to war and capital punishment — which are evaluated based on criteria and circumstance. Just the other day, I pointed out that which had its own problems — this Associated Press article — did just that.

Caught up in the holiday weekend’s spirit of thankfulness, I want to reach back to last weekend and Pope Benedict’s meeting with artists from around the world in the Sistine Chapel, which was covered by The New York Times’ Rachel Donadio:

Sitting before Michelangelo’s “Last Judgment” in the Sistine Chapel, after a choir sang music by Palestrina, Benedict urged them to embark on “a quest for beauty.” In what he called “a cordial, friendly and impassioned appeal,” he told his guests to be “fully conscious of your great responsibility to communicate beauty, to communicate in and through beauty.”

He said the aim of the event on Saturday was “to re-establish a dialogue” between the church and artists “that’s necessary and fertile for both.”

Donadio’s brief article told us who was there (composer Arvo Part) and who wasn’t (U2’s Bono), and it quoted artists who held two opposing perspectives on the gathering: those who seemed pleased (or even blessed) and those who remained suspicious of the pope’s motives (and considered the event a “facade.”

(You can see more about the event in a report by Catholic News Service.)

There are tons of articles and reports about religion that could be addressed here today, but I’m casting my lot with the one that addresses beauty. Happy Thanksgiving!

It’s Thanksgiving, of course. So I would like to give thanks that I was not in Laurie Goodstein’s shoes the other day when she heard about the upcoming “Manhattan Declaration” announcement — click here for details — and then got the news that she could only write 570 words about this very complex ecumenical statement.

Talk about mission impossible.

Here’s the top of that New York Times story, for those of you who missed the initial wave of coverage.

Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples.

“We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says.

I am still trying to wade through the various commentaries and documents linked to this 4,700-word statement. For those who are interested in the emerging world of conservative ecumenical work, there are some highly symbolic names on the first list of signatories. Of course, it is also significant who is not, at this point, in the list — including a very interesting evangelical absentee in the “W” section. There are crucial Orthodox and Catholic names missing, too.

I do not know what was cut from this report. My only complaint about this short, short story is linked to these two pivotal paragraphs when, once again, the assumption is that the primary purpose of the statement is political.

The manifesto … is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush. The signers include nine Roman Catholic archbishops and the primate of the Orthodox Church in America.

They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage. They hope to influence current debates over health care reform, the same-sex marriage bill in Washington, D.C., and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Now all of that may well be true. However, where are the attributions for these strong statements of opinion? Cut due to lack of length? Probably. However, I still think that this report is quite solid, in view of the short length. The emphasis on religious liberty issues is, of course, a sign of things to come.

Again, I am truly thankful that I didn’t have to deal with this topic in a story of this length in a forum as crucial as the Times. Heck, I may have trouble producing a 700-word column that addresses even one or two issues linked to this complex manifesto.

Cheers.

Photo: Why Cornish Hens? That’s what my family always cooks for Thanksgiving so that each of us can baste the mini-bird in the sauce of our choice. Plus, there are no leftovers to freeze as we return to the Nativity Lent fast observed by the Orthodox. So there.