There have been a lot of interesting NBA storylines this summer.

LeBron taking his talents to South Beach and it’s super squad. Lakers fans pretending everything is going to be OK. No one wanting T Mac while Darko signed for $20 million. And Lorenzen Wright being gunned down in the city where he became a star.

But the most intriguing story, especially when you consider the scant coverage it’s received, is that the New York Knicks $100-million free agent pick up has suddenly discovered his “Hebrew roots.”

From Haaretz, the liberal Israeli daily:

U.S. basketball star Amar’e Stoudemire is apparently on his way to Israel for a voyage of discovery after learning he has Jewish roots.

“On the flight to Israel. This is going to be a great trip,” announced the power forward, who plays in the NBA for the New York Knicks, via the micro-blogging site Twitter.

According to an Army Radio report, Stoudemire plans to spend time in Israel learning Hebrew, having recently learned he has a Jewish mother.

“The holy land. Learn about it,” he wrote, adding “ze ha’halom sheli” — Hebrew for “this is my dream.”

Most stories that have mentioned Stoudemire, whose Twitter name “amareisreal” had previously suggested to me that Stoudemire had a connection to the Holy Land but just wasn’t a great speller, have been a painful reminder that few reporters take religion seriously. Or, even if they do, they can’t be troubled enough to actually explore religion in a story that is 100 percent about religion.

A big problem with these stories is that they rely heavily, if not entirely, on what Stoudemire has been posting on Twitter. I understand there is an issue of access, but this phenomenon is far too common even with reporters who have plenty of access to athletes or entertainers. Interviews have been replaced with trading txt messages and quoting tweets.

Obviously, these comments can be revealing, but they hardly leave reporters room to do what they should do best: keep asking questions in the pursuit of truth and clarity.

In this vain, an Associated Press reporter in Jerusalem caught up with Stoudemire yesterday and filed a much-improved dispatch over the AP’s early wire brief. The reporter asked a few good questions and put into context what it would mean for New York to have a Jew dominating the painted area.

The AP explains why Stoudemire thinks he has “Hebrew roots” through his mother:

“She studied the Scriptures and history and she believes she is a Hebrew,” he told The Associated Press Friday in Jerusalem. “I grew up in a very spiritual home. It’s not about religion, it’s about spirituality for me.”

Stoudemire said he was “soaking up the culture” with his girlfriend and a few other friends from home.

This story does better than others, but still leaves more questions than it answers. Like:

Stoudemire mentions “Hebrew roots” — is he talking about the Black Hebrew Israelites, who aren’t exactly accepted by the Orthodox or non-Orthodox Jews?

How much room in Judaism is there for spirituality as opposed to religion?

And why did Stoudemire, or at least his mother, only learn now that she may be Jewish?

What this story doesn’t mention is what this God Blog commenter did:

Little known halakhic exception to needing a bunch of Israeli rabbis checking your mom’s ketubah: be famous! You can be counted Jewish just by hanging out near a synagogue! But everyone else: beware the most minute failure of observance or your conversion is revoked!

Been down that road.

If Stoudemire turns out to be that rare Jew who is 7-feet-tall, African American and, this is a common one, wears glasses, it would be a big moment for the NBA — increasing the Tribe by 50 percent. (The league currently has only two MOTS: Omri Casspi of the Kings and Jordan Farmar, who moved this summer from LA to NY. Stoudemire would be the first Jewish big man to be a super star in New York since Dolph Schayes had a Hall of Fame career for the Syracuse Nationals.

I’d still think that STAT is overrated.

Standing in a gift shop line at the Memphis International Airport on Friday, I spotted a familiar face, one I hadn’t seen in a while. There he was right in front of me — the Rev. Al Sharpton. Not in person, mind you, but staring at me from the cover of Newsweek magazine.

The title of the cover piece:

The Reinvention of the Reverend

The subhead:

Why the indefatigable Al Sharpton still has work to do. And what his evolution tells us about race and politics in Obama’s America.

Intrigued by the piece, I wish I could say I did my part to support journalism in America by picking up a copy and sticking it on the checkout counter. Instead, I made a mental note to myself to look it up on the Internet when I got home (and to plug “indefatigable” into my online dictionary).

I got around to reading the 2,800-word cover story this morning and found it quite interesting — in a this-is-Newsweek-so-you-have-to-expect-a-left-wing-bent kind of way.

The piece opens like this:

Given the article’s title (“The Reinvention of the Reverend”), I hoped the story might provide insight into Sharpton’s religious background and beliefs. Like many Americans, I am familiar with Sharpton’s political advocacy, but not his theological underpinnings. Alas, Newsweek approaches this profile as a purely political undertaking. Thus, religion is viewed solely through a political lens.

We get this background on Sharpton’s childhood:

His other sustenance was preaching; he was a mesmerizing speaker from the age of 4, when he gave his first sermon. (He rehearsed before his sister’s dolls, gowned in one of his mother’s housedresses.) By 7, he was touring with gospel singer Mahalia Jackson; by 10, he’d been ordained in the Pentecostal Church. (He now identifies as a Baptist.) This gave him a unique perspective on outsiderness: preaching the Gospel wasn’t exactly a route to peer acceptance for a black teenager in the 1960s.

Wow — a 4-year-old preacher. I don’t know about you, but I’d love to know about the theological content of that sermon. What was he preaching then? (Or now, for that matter.)

Wow — an ordained 10-year-old. How, exactly, did a child that age get ordained? What sort of process and theological education did he undertake? What was the name of the denomination or theological institution that ordained him?

And, forgive me, Newsweek, for detouring so far away from the far more important topic (politics), but what is the Pentecostal Church? I am familiar with Pentecostalism and Assemblies of God and various Pentecostal denominations, but I don’t think there’s a single entity known as the Pentecostal Church? Someone please correct me if I’m wrong (it wouldn’t be the first time). Similarly, in a nation with several dozen different kinds of Baptists, identifying Sharpton simply as a “Baptist” might fall a bit short. Tell us what he believes, please.

But rather than explore Sharpton’s faith in any real way, we get descriptions of his “political instincts” and “personal charisma.” We find out that he and his wife “amicably separated” in 2004. And we learn this:

Sharpton has weathered some minor embarrassments over finances and taxes in his career, but he is one preacher who has managed to negotiate the temptations of fame untouched by sexual scandal.

Again, if this were a religion story and not a political story, I’d love to see Sharpton’s failed marriage — not to mention the sexual issue — explored through a faith lens.

About Sharpton’s personal wealth, we learn this:

Today he supports himself on income from his radio talk show, Keeping It Real With Al Sharpton, and from “love offerings” at the sermons he preaches almost every Sunday in churches all around the country. His enemies sometimes charge, bizarrely, that he has chosen a career as a peripatetic community activist for the money. “It’s amazing when people call me an opportunist,” he says. “Do you know how much money I could have made with a megachurch like T. D. Jakes or Eddie Long? Don’t you think I could have done that?”

Maybe it’s just me, but I’d love to know what churches Sharpton is preaching in and how much the “love offerings” are filling his pockets. It’s easy enough to brush off the criticism as “bizarre,” but how about providing some real reporting and allowing readers to judge for themselves?

The Telegraph had a religion beat story that caught my eye. Here’s the lede:

In a modern spin on Christianity’s most sacred rite, worshippers are being invited to break bread and drink wine or juice in front of their computers as they follow the service online.

Churches usually require a priest to take the Eucharist, but the Rev Tim Ross, a Methodist minister, will send out a prayer in a series of Tweets - messages of up to 140 characters - to users of Twitter.

Those following the service are asked to read each tweet out loud before typing Amen as a reply at the end.

The move is likely to upset traditionalists, but the Rev Mr Ross argues that it is an important step in uniting Christians around the world and reaching those who might not normally go to church.

If you’re waiting to read anything from the larger Christian community about why this treatment of the sacrament might not be a good idea … you’ll be waiting a long time. Nowhere do we learn why a priest might be required for the sacrament or why the church hasn’t supported self-administered communion from its earliest days. The phrase “Words of Institution” or anything similar are never used in this story.

No, instead we get a completely one-sided take on this with such insightful quotes as:

“It’s a community that’s as real and tangible as any local neighbourhood and we should be looking to minister to it.

Any response from a religious adherent to the idea that Twitter is a “real” and “tangible” place? Heck, any response from an etymologist? (Hint: tangible comes from the Latin for “to touch”) No.

I actually find such fads — remember the “online confession” fad from a couple years ago? — fascinating. They lead to some really interesting discussions and debate about why the church practices as it does and whether such innovations compromise the meaning of these rites. This is not such an example of interesting discussion or debate:

Last year, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, warned that social networking websites such as Facebook and MySpace could encourage teenagers to view friendship as a “commodity” and claimed the internet was “dehumanising” community life.

However, the Church of England has tried to appeal to the internet generation by setting up an online church which offers prayers and worship.

All very interesting. But only one of these “counterbalancing” points even tangentially relates to why the church has traditionally administered the sacrament as it has. And while there is certainly a relationship between the Methodists and EpiscopaliansAnglicans, on this topic they have different teachings that also should have been explained.

This Time cover has led to much consternation on the internet. Most of the outrage isn’t over the image but, rather, the headline. Still, the image itself is shocking. It depicts Aisha, an 18-year-old Afghan woman who was sentenced by the Taliban to have her nose and ears cut off after she fled her abusive in-laws. Time managing editor Richard Stengel explained his decision to run the image:

I’m acutely aware that this image will be seen by children, who will undoubtedly find it distressing. We have consulted with a number of child psychologists about its potential impact. Some think children are so used to seeing violence in the media that the image will have little effect, but others believe that children will find it very scary and distressing — that they will see it, as Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children’s Hospital Boston, said, as “a symbol of bad things that can happen to people.” I showed it to my two young sons, 9 and 12, who both immediately felt sorry for Aisha and asked why anyone would have done such harm to her. I apologize to readers who find the image too strong, and I invite you to comment on the image’s impact. (Comment on this cover.)

But bad things do happen to people, and it is part of our job to confront and explain them. In the end, I felt that the image is a window into the reality of what is happening — and what can happen — in a war that affects and involves all of us. I would rather confront readers with the Taliban’s treatment of women than ignore it. I would rather people know that reality as they make up their minds about what the U.S. and its allies should do in Afghanistan.

Religion, of course, plays a major role in this story. While the article isn’t available online (except for this heavily abridged edition), I hope that it does diagnose that role and offer views about how to improve the plight of women in Afghanistan. The last paragraph of the abridged version seems to indicate at least some discussion of the topic.

In the meantime, many left-of-center folks are outraged at the idea that continued military action could improve the situation for women like Aisha. That’s a debate better left to another blog but since we’re on the topic of the Taliban, what role do you think the religion-beat media can play in helping improve the situation for women in Afghanistan? What questions need to be asked? What stories can help? I think back to that incredible Frontline documentary on the Dancing Boys of Afghanistan. I think raising awareness of the rape of these boys, as difficult as the topic was, was important.

As I have mentioned many times in GetReligion posts, the Baltimore Sun is the newspaper that lands in my front yard every morning (I get the Washington Post at work) and, as you would expect, the former copy desk man in me has learned a few things about my local newspaper.

The Sun is a liberal paper on many issues and, certainly, on all issues that have anything to do with religion. Suffice it to say that the churches of liberal Protestantism can do no wrong and the Catholic Church is praised whenever it acts like, well, the Episcopal Church.

Trust me when I say this: The last thing that Sun folks would want to do is mishandle a style issue in a manner that would, in any way, slight a female Episcopal priest. Heck the Sun editors wouldn’t want to do anything to slight female Roman Catholic priests and they don’t exist.

So what are we to make of the top of this recent police-and-crime story?

She’s known simply as Pastor Alice, and the last time she saw Keith Ray Jr. alive was in early September 2007. He was lying in a gutter on a Remington Street, struggling with a Baltimore officer who was trying to put handcuffs on his wrists.

Ray kept screaming at the officer, calling him a “punk.” His friend, 22-year-old John Mooney, pleaded with Ray to shut his mouth: “Just be quiet, be calm, be calm.”

The pastor was walking home with groceries, and she paused at the scene unfolding before her eyes. Another day on another street in Baltimore, where the struggles of a neighborhood, its people and its police officers collide in a gutter in front of an Episcopal priest.

A few days later, Ray’s decomposing body was found off Wyman Park Drive, hidden under a pile of logs and brush, a bullet wound to the back of his head. And soon, the victim’s best friend, who had talked him through his arrest days earlier, was charged with killing him.

They had argued over $1,000 that Mooney said Ray had stolen. …

Alice M. Jellema, the vicar of the Church of the Guardian Angel on Huntingdon Avenue in Remington, knew both Ray and Mooney. She saw them regularly on the streets, and she knew Ray’s four children, one of whom she had gotten into a summer camp and a homework club.

Now, I have no doubt that Jellema is, in fact, known as “Pastor Alice” to members of her flock. However, in journalism terms, the word “pastor” is not a formal title in the Episcopal Church — as opposed to the way that Lutherans use “pastor” as a formal title.

But ordained women in the Episcopal Church face a problem. Obviously, they cannot be called “father.” So what should they be called?

I have noticed, in recent years, that fewer newspapers are referring to Catholic and Orthodox priests as “father,” using the term as a title. Two decades ago, when I was on the beat in Denver, I know that the problem of what to call ordained women became entangled with this issue. In other words, if there is no similar title for women, then the “father” title should vanish for men. So there.

So what saith the gods of Associated Press style?

This is what struck me about this Sun story. Note the formal reference to this priest, as opposed to the “Pastor Alice” nod in the lede. Here is that reference again:

Alice M. Jellema, the vicar of the Church of the Guardian Angel on Huntingdon Avenue in Remington, knew both Ray and Mooney.

Simply stated, this is a mistake. That should say, “The Rev. Alice M. Jellema.” She is a priest. She should have the same formal title as a male who has been ordained into this oldline Protestant body. Right?

So, hey, Sun editors. If she is a priest, you need to run a correction.

There have been a lot of stories in the past week about the conversion bill that was steamrolling through the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, before being tabled for the next few months. Few prospective laws in the Middle East draw much attention, but this one did, largely because of it’s potential consequences for American Jews and future American Jews.

What is at stake, as David Horovitz, editor in chief of the Jerusalem Post, wrote, is the very connection between Israel and the Jewish Diaspora — a very, very, very important relationship for American Jews, and an even more important one for Israelis.

What we are facing is an explosive global crisis over Jewish identity — a huge, snow-balling disaster that is ripping Israeli-Diaspora relations.

I’m not to keen on doing a general survey of all this coverage. Instead, I’d like to compare two stories from two publications that really should get this story right. One is from the paper of record for Los Angeles’ Jewish community; the other is just from the paper of record.

First the story from The New York Times:

The bill that so angered American Jewish leaders was actually aimed at making conversion easier for the 300,000 Israelis among the 1 million who moved to Israel from the former Soviet Union in the 1990s. Those Israelis are not, by Orthodox rabbinic law, considered Jewish because they come from mixed parentage. The law would have tried to make conversion easier by granting conversion powers to local rabbis across the country, a group considered closer to their communities.

But after objections from the ultra-Orthodox, the bill formally placed authority for conversion in the hands of the chief rabbinate and declared Orthodox Jewish law to be the basis of conversion, making Americans fear that their more lenient conversion processes would be invalidated. …

Rabbi David Schuck of the Pelham Jewish Center in Westchester County, N.Y., said of the religious conversion bill, “It spits in the face of Diaspora Jews in particular, and if passed, it would be an acquiescence of the majority of Israeli Jews to a fundamentalist interpretation of Judaism.”

That’s easy enough to understand, and the NYT’s Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner does well to close this context-filled story with the aforementioned comment from the JPost’s Horovitz. Bronner also mentions something that I’ve noted before when discussing issues of Jewish identity and that unresolvable question:

The question of “who is a Jew?” is as old as the state of Israel. The more liberal forms of Jewish practice advocated by the Reform and Conservative movements, with which most American Jews are affiliated, have never taken root here. Israel has left liturgy in the hands of the Orthodox, with most Israeli Jews leading almost completely secular lives, seeking out rabbis only at birth, marriage and death.

I’ve spent eight days in Israel, and it doesn’t even take that long to recognize how secular most of Israel is. (Remember that story about long beards and black hats?) But Bronner, who had a son in the IDF, has been there much longer, and it shows in this story.

Now let’s see how handicapped Jonah Lowenfeld, my replacement at The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, for which I write The God Blog, was by being stuck stateside. After leding with the “who is a Jew?” question, Lowenfeld wrote in this past week’s cover story, “The Israeli Conversion Bill: What it means and why everyone’s so mad”:

There is much confusion about what the Chief Rabbinate of Israel (Amendment — Jurisdiction Regarding Conversions) Bill, 5770-2010 does and does not say. Some observers wonder what — if any — practical impact it would have if passed. …

Few people can say exactly what the Rotem bill will do. “If you were to read a translation, it would be baffling,” said Rabbi Uri Regev, CEO and president of the Israeli educational and advocacy organization Hiddush, which is dedicated to “Freedom of Religion and Equality.” According to Regev, Rotem’s three-page bill claims to accomplish two things: “One, to provide greater availability of conversion venues for the new immigrants — namely authorizing more rabbis, and among them hopefully some lenient rabbis to do conversions.” The bill’s other stated aim, Regev said, is to address “the phenomenon of rabbinic courts that hold that Orthodox conversions are null and void.” …

Nobody knows what will happen if the bill passes. The former Soviet Union olim are “clearly not particularly religious,” Regev said, “and clearly not going to be particularly adherent to mitzvot,” which would make it unlikely that they would convert within the rabbinate’s Orthodox framework. “Fewer and fewer immigrants are interested in conversion,” Regev said, “on two counts: One, they realize what kind of hoops they will have to go through.” Also, “They realize that it’s really a conditional status,” Regev said of the status of even Orthodox converts in Israel today — one that can be revoked at any time. Secondly, “They realize that life really isn’t impossible for them without conversion,” Regev said. “They have become accustomed to living their lives without going through conversions.”

Lowenfeld’s story is much longer than Bronner’s, but captures less of the dynamic in Israel. It was also hamstrung by an earlier deadline that predated the tabling of the bill. Lowenfeld did, however, offer more perspectives from the American Jewish community, nationally and in Los Angeles, and captured the most important aspect of this bill:

Uncertainty.

No one really knows what this bill would mean, particularly for American Jews who have gone through the more lax conversion processes of Conservative, Reform and other non-traditional strains of Judaism.

I guess we may find out if the conversion bill is resurrected in 2011.

When I was still living in the Chicago suburbs, every time Rod Blagojevich’s name was mentioned, eyes were rolled. Who could believe that the great people of Illinois voted him into the highest position in the state not once but twice?

As you might recall, Blagojevich was arrested on federal corruption charges in 2008. Now he stands trial, and the jury began deliberations yesterday.

Politico released a quickie from Andy Barr that leaves much to be desired. He quotes Blagojevich as saying his fate is now “in God’s hands,” before quoting more from the press conference.

Blagojevich said he has put his faith in 12 members the jury currently deliberating his fate.

“[The jurors] are the ones who will decide and make the decision,” he said. “Patti and I have great confidence and faith in their judgment, common sense and decency. And ultimately in the final analysis Patti and I always have a deep and abiding faith in God.”

The end.

But what exactly is that faith in God is Blagojevich talking about?

I would’ve expected a little bit more from the Chicago Tribune, with the headline “‘Ultimately, it’s in God’s hands,’ Blagojevich says.” But the paper added nothing but a brief mention of the remarks, even though it’s the focus of the headline.

The Chicago Sun-Times took almost the exact same angle: “Case is ‘in God’s hands,” Blagojevich says.” The paper uses the buzz words for the headline without explaining it further.

Flash back to 2008 and you’ll find a few reports about his Serbian Orthodox faith. Here’s one of the first ones by Kate Shellnut for the Windy Citizen where she gives some historical background.

As a child, Blagojevich attended Old Holy Resurrection Serbian Orthodox Church on the Northwest Side, where he sang and played in the orchestra along with his brother Robert, the Chicago Sun-Times reported in 2006. Old Holy Resurrection, in Logan Square, is one of about ten Eastern Orthodox Churches in that area, catering to the city’s Serbian, Romanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian and Greek Orthodox populations.

Blagojevich now lives in Ravenswood Manor, but he said during an interview for his run for governor that he currently doesn’t attend a single church regularly. Still, as the son of Serbian immigrants to Chicago, he remains an icon for the Serbian-American population and remains active in their religious community. Back in April, he visited a Serbian Orthodox monastery and parish in the Third Lake, a northern suburb.

Mary Houlihan also did some reporting for the Chicago Sun-Times on the reaction from the Serbian Orthodox community.

Remember this quote from Ari Goldman last year?

As Rabbi Allen Schwartz of Manhattan recently told his congregation, the Madoff scandal broke just as the scandal Blagojevich scandal was breaking in Illinois. “Did you ever see a reference to Blagojevich’s religion?” the rabbi asked. “Yet we kept seeing Madoff described as Jewish.”

Now there’s no need to reference Blagojevich as Serbian Orthodox in every story, but when referencing his quotes about his faith, it seems necessary.

A reader sent in this video from an award ceremony for the Heartland regional Emmy’s. In the longer clip (a portion of which is excerpted here for your viewing pleasure), there are all sorts of nominees from my native state of Colorado. I guess we’re Heartland.

Anyway, among the various awards distributed, there’s one given for Performer/Narrator of a broadcast segment. The first two nominees are for performers with KAKE-TV in Wichita and Plum TV in Telluride. But the winner is one Vida Urbonis with KRDO-TV. Congratulations Ms. Urbonis!

The awards ceremony features a clip from the winning entry in which we hear narrator Urbonis say:

“Mike Jones, a gay escort, came out with allegations of gay sex and drugs …

Haggard initially denied the charges but later admitted to the sexual immortality.

He received a payment of $300,000 from New Life. He and his family then moved away and agreed to lay low.”

Now, I don’t think that Haggard admitted to what Jones claimed, per se, so the use of “the” is misleading.

But what was that? Did someone just get a narration Emmy for claiming that Ted Haggard admitted to sexual immortality?

Oy vey!

Religion is such an interesting and emotional topic. In fact, religion used to play a major role in the lives of many, many people as reported in their newspaper obituaries.

This still happens, when people are religious leaders. But what happens when you are dealing with normal, everyday people?

Here is your assignment. Read the following story from the Chicago Sun-Times. Here is a glimpse of how it starts:

The rest of the world receded a little when pretty Patricia Assise watched cute Lou DeMuro play 16-inch softball at Kells Park on the West Side. It was the summer of ‘47.

They were engaged by the following Valentine’s Day and married later that year. Their life together had few frills but many laughs. They would sing the 1950s hit “How Much is That Doggie in the Window?” They listened to the soundtracks from “South Pacific” and “Mary Poppins” hundreds of times. The louder their kids sang along, the more the DeMuros smiled.

“It was a simple life, but it was rich,” said their daughter, Jan Griffin. “I remember Dad barbecuing and getting the biggest kick out of watching us play.” …

The DeMuros were a tag team when it came to raising their three kids: Jan, Lou and David. When Mr. DeMuro got home from work, he was a hands-on parent, so Patricia DeMuro could head to her night job. They roller-skated, bowled and played pinochle together and even used his-and-hers lawnmowers to mow their grass side-by-side, said their son Lou.

They did everything together.

So it was fitting that, at the end, they died together, succumbing within hours of each other from a multitude of ailments.

Read it all. Then pick out what you think is the most inspiring quotation or symbolic detail. Go head, please.

For this to work you need to stop reading this post for a second and read the story. Otherwise, go read something else. Deal?

OK, let’s proceed.

Here is the passage that grabbed me. I predict that I am not alone. I’ll include the material that frames the symbolic moment.

They had moved just last month to the San Diego area, to be near their daughter. But Mr. DeMuro — who had leukemia, Parkinson’s disease and diabetes — soon was in hospice care at their senior apartment. And Mrs. DeMuro — with diabetes, high blood pressure and heart failure — was soon on a ventilator at Sharp Grossmont Hospital.

Their children knew it was only a matter of time. So, on June 28, they had an ambulance bring Mr. DeMuro to the hospital on a gurney to be with his wife. He greeted his bride of 62 years as he always had: “Hi, Babe.”

“They had them facing one another in their individual beds, and we put their hands on top of one another so they could hold hands,” their daughter said. “Mom was awake. She said, ‘Lou, I love you. I had a wonderful life. I’ll see you in another place.’ ”

The DeMuros spent a contented couple of hours near each other. Then, it was time for Lou DeMuro to go back to hospice.

“I had to tell Dad, ‘You aren’t going to see Mom again,” their daughter said.

At 1:20 p.m. that day, Mrs. DeMuro slipped away.

Mr. DeMuro grew restless and distraught. He was gone at 6:45 p.m.

It’s that simple, yet very romantic, exchange that starts with, “Hi, Babe.” That did it for me.

This is, of course, a reference to heaven. The story, to this point has told us all kinds of practical family details, right down to the lawnmowers and the couple’s love of Italian cooking. But something is missing, something that sets up that inspiring quotation that is the emotional heart of the story.

So what details are we given about the role of faith in this tight-knit family?

A celebration of their lives is being planned for later this year at Our Lady of Sorrows Cemetery in Hillside.

Oh, there is more.

The DeMuros’ kids had an old-fashioned Chicago upbringing. They lived in a two-flat with relatives upstairs. The children went to school across the street at Our Lady Help of Christians. They’d come home for lunch.

That’s it. We are told that Sunday was the day for pot roast. Was that true during Great Lent, as well?

I think something is missing here. I think a crucial piece of the romance is missing, a piece that is linked to that lovely farewell quotation.

Art: Our Lady Help of Christians

Last week New York Times Vatican reporter Rachel Donadio had a fun but flawed piece about the renaming of a Florence museum. Here’s a colorful graph:

Now a particularly enduring Catholic practice is on prominent display in, of all places, Florence’s history of science museum, recently renovated and renamed to honor Galileo: Modern-day supporters of the famous heretic are exhibiting newly recovered bits of his body — three fingers and a gnarly molar sliced from his corpse nearly a century after he died — as if they were the relics of an actual saint.

There were many errors in the piece but here’s a real doozy:

Even today, centuries after Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the pope’s theological watchdog, had Galileo arrested for preaching Copernicanism, the church has never quite managed to acknowledge that his heliocentric theory is correct. (For his part, Cardinal Bellarmine was made a saint in 1930.)

Hunh? There are a couple of problems with that line. This November 1, 1992, article from, well, the New York Times says exactly the opposite:

Vatican Science Panel Told By Pope: Galileo Was Right

Moving formally to rectify a wrong, Pope John Paul II acknowledged in a speech today that the Roman Catholic Church had erred in condemning Galileo 359 years ago for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

But at First Things, R.R. Reno notes that, in another sense, you can’t “acknowledge” that Galileo’s heliocentric theory is “correct” because he believed in circular orbits. Johannes Kepler, a contemporary, rightly theorized that planets followed elliptical orbits rather than circular.

There are other problems, too. The church’s position was that the Copernican theory was not based on evidence. Technically, that is not in dispute. The idea is mocked in Donadio’s piece, however. Galileo’s ordeal is often referred to as a trial for heresy. But, strictly speaking, the Copernican system was never officially declared heretical and Galileo was not condemned for heresy. Bellarmine died in 1621 and didn’t arrest Galileo. And so on and so forth.

I know that we’re supposed to believe that Galileo was an unblemished martyr for science over religion but the story is much more complex than an Indigo Girls song. Getting basic facts right is an important part of learning that story. On that note, I recommend this article, for those with interest in the topic, that ran in Scientific American years ago.