It’s been an interesting, if tiring, few weeks in media criticism and the culture wars. We saw how national media figures immediately jumped to help Planned Parenthood’s campaign against the Komen Foundation and how they have been working hard to frame objections to a federal mandate (that critics say seriously harms religious liberty) as a war on women. So when news broke this weekend about some supposedly alarming things that Rick Santorum said, I wasn’t sure I could handle another round.

I loathe politics and would really like a break from it, particularly on Ash Wednesday. But that’s not to be, I guess. So let’s look at how well the media have been reporting just one thing said by Rick Santorum. Let’s first look at this piece in the Washington Post by Felicia Sonmez, headlined “Five reasons why Santorum’s campaign-trail ‘misstatements’ may help him”:

1. Reporters aren’t voters.

When it comes to Santorum’s recent controversial remarks, Republican primary voters – at least, those showing up to the candidate’s recent events – seem to have had a completely different reaction than the news media has.

I just want to thank her for the honesty of showing that members of the news media have a reaction to Santorum and that it’s not favorable. In fact, it would probably best be described as “angered” or “appalled” something of that nature. Sonmez highlights some “theology” statements that Santorum made and remarks that “members of the press may still be scratching their heads over the remarks.” What were they? Well, what the media describe them as bears almost no resemblance to what they actually were, which might explain the head-scratching.

You can watch the first couple minutes of the video above to see for yourself what Santorum was talking about. He was quite clearly criticizing Obama on his drilling policies. Here’s the transcript of the relevant portion:

SANTORUM: The price of fuel right now, they’re talking maybe by the summer we’re looking at $5 a gallon. Why? Why? Because this president systematically is doing everything he can to raise the price of energy in this country. He’s shutting down all sorts of opportunities for us to drill for oil. He’s now trying to infuse not science when it comes to the environment, not environmental science when it comes to drilling wells for oil and gas in Pennsylvania and North Dakota and other places that use hydraulic fracking.

He’s trying to do again what he tried to do with global warming. Instead of using climate science or global science he uses political science. And political science in this case is suggesting that a technology that has been successfully used to drill hundreds of thousands of wells in this country, hundreds of thousands of oil and gas wells, all of a sudden now that’s a dangerous technology. Why? Because it could lead to lower energy prices. That’s the dangerousness of this technology. It doesn’t fit his pattern of trying to drive down consumption, driving to drive up your cost of transportation to accomplish his political science goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

This is what the president’s agenda is. It’s not about you. It’s not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology.

I couldn’t hear any head scratching at the end, but there was lots of cheering. The crowd seemed to get what Santorum was saying. Now, if you’ve ever heard anyone criticize some environmentalists, you’ve probably heard that criticism allege that extreme environmentalism seems like a religion or a false belief system. (If you really want your mind blown, check out this excellent book that takes on both environmentalists and economists, titled “The New Holy Wars: Economic Religion Versus Environmental Religion in Contemporary America.”)

Sometimes people talk about theology in a political sense and no one gets mad. You can see some examples of President Clinton talking about politicians’ theology here. Or you can go all the way back to a December 13 press briefing, when President Obama’s press secretary said: “Now, what we have seen from Republicans in Congress is the promulgation of this idea that passing a tax cut for middle-class Americans is somehow a favor they would be doing for the President of the United States. Most of my adult life, the Republican theology has been tax cuts for everyone are the highest priority. “

So while crowds who go to political rallies understood what Santorum was saying, and while the media don’t react in a crazy fashion when certain people use the term theology, in this case, that didn’t happen. They utterly flipped out. On Face the Nation, CBS’s Bob Schieffer said:

BOB SCHIEFFER: The Associated Press led its story of your appearance in Columbus, Ohio, by saying, quote, “Rick Santorum questioned Barack Obama’s Christian values.” That was after you lashed out at the President’s proposal on energy of all things when you said this.

RICK SANTORUM (Republican Presidential Candidate/Former Pennsylvania Senator): It’s not about you. It’s not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs.

MAN: Right.

RICK SANTORUM: It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology.

(Crowd applauding)

BOB SCHIEFFER: So, Senator, I’ve got to ask you. What— what in the world were you talking about, Sir?

Note the “of all things” and “what in the world were you talking about, Sir,” drama. Come on.

Others took similar approaches. Here’s the Detroit Free Press and here’s how the Los Angeles Times led its piece on the issue:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum denied Sunday that he had questioned President Obama’s Christian faith, but said the president held an environmental belief “that elevates the Earth above man.”

Santorum was quoted Saturday as telling an audience in Ohio that although he accepted the president’s Christianity, he believed Obama adhered to “some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology.”

There’s really no defense for taking these remarks out of context to make them look like he was going after President Obama’s religion. Well, I say there’s no defense, but you can watch Howie Kurtz defend it here. Or read Howie Kurtz defending it here.

It’s gotten to the point that when a reporter or pundit says that Santorum said something, I don’t even react until I find the actual thing he said and read it or watch it myself. It’s not like Santorum doesn’t give people plenty of religion and values stuff to discuss. There’s no need to make up additional instances of it. And there’s not really a need to dig back into the past to find religious comments he made as a private citizen and presenting them as if they were uttered yesterday on the campaign trail.

I get that many in the media loathe and despire Santorum with a passion they haven’t felt in a few years. Some have told me this themselves. But their job isn’t to get people to love or hate Santorum but, simply, to report on what he has actually said, in context, and to tell us how voters respond to it. They don’t need to manufacture a story and they would do well to spend more time listening to how his message goes over with voters than telling everyone what they should think about it.

A bad example of this might be Charles Babington’s piece for the Associated Press or this piece by Politico. Better examples come from Nate Silver of the New York Times and this campaign trail piece from the Wall Street Journal. On that note, you may also be interested in this conservative column arguing that the media ignore Democratic statements about religion because of a double standard.

I was in New York City last weekend when the infamous and seemingly racist headline ran about the Knicks point guard Jeremy Lin. The phrase that was used — a chink in the armor — is not racist on its own. If you’re unfamiliar with the idiom, you can read about it here. But one of the words in the idiom can be a racist slur. I was talking about it with friends and no one could believe that the headline was posted. We freaked out, actually. But one friend wondered if there was any way that the editor was younger and didn’t know about the racist connotation. It certainly worked under the non-racist definition — the article was discussing Lin’s turnovers as his Achilles’ heel, a fatal flaw in his performance.

So I was interested to read this story in the New York Daily News:

The ESPN editor fired Sunday for using “chink in the armor” in a headline about Knicks phenom Jeremy Lin said the racial slur never crossed his mind - and he was devastated when he realized his mistake.

“This had nothing to do with me being cute or punny,” Anthony Federico told the Daily News.

“I’m so sorry that I offended people. I’m so sorry if I offended Jeremy.”

The headline was up for all of a half hour at 2:30 AM on Saturday. But Federico was fired and an anchor who used the phrase separately was suspended for a month:

Federico, 28, said he understands why he was axed. “ESPN did what they had to do,” he said.

He said he has used the phrase “at least 100 times” in headlines over the years and thought nothing of it when he slapped it on the Lin story.

Federico called Lin one of his heroes - not just because he’s a big Knicks fan, but because he feels a kinship with a fellow “outspoken Christian.”

“My faith is my life,” he said. “I’d love to tell Jeremy what happened and explain that this was an honest mistake.”

I thought that was interesting, not just that he said it but that the Daily News included it in its report about the incident. One of the things I find interesting about the Lin story is the effect he’s having on people. For instance, I don’t like basketball but I really enjoy watching him (my husband thinks this is an awesome development since he’s a huge basketball fan). But it’s certainly true, as that great Michael Luo piece in the New York Times showed, that his faith and testimony resonate with people as well.

The other thing I think will be interesting to see in coverage is how Lin’s faith affects how he handles his work and the attention he receives:

A gracious Lin, who led the Knicks to another dazzling hardwood victory Sunday, gave Federico and Bretos the benefit of the doubt.

“They’ve apologized, and so from my end, I don’t care anymore,” Lin said. “You have to learn to forgive, and I don’t even think that was intentional.”

I just wanted to point out that the Daily News did a good job of naturally incorporating religion into this story, both from Federico’s perspective and Lin’s. For what it’s worth, the guy who was suspended also used the phrase with its non-slur meaning, and pointed out that he would have avoided it if he’d thought of the racial meaning. He added that his wife (and child) are Asian.

Which leaves me with one last religion-related question and it’s the kind we don’t typically touch here. But I’m curious what you all think. The Daily News writes that the offending headline was the last headline Federico wrote before heading home at 2:30 AM and that it may be the last headline he ever writes. Now, I know that not everyone practices forgiveness or related religious concepts, but why, exactly, was the guy fired? For not knowing that a completely legitimate phrase that has been used for hundreds of years also contains a word with a racist meaning of more recent vintage? Is that a standard we want to use in newsrooms? A requirement that editors have perfect knowledge of racism? I do think that editors should be aware of racism and racist words and strive to avoid causing offense, but when I look at this story, I’m wondering if newsrooms shouldn’t do some soul-searching of their own.

GetReligion readers who frequent the CNN Belief blog know that it features a wide range of material, from hard news stories to essays by academics. A recent offering falls into this latter category, but I still think GetReligion readers will want to know about it since it focuses on a topic that frequently comes up for discussions on this blog.

This commentary piece was written by Stephen S. Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at The Catholic University of America, and ran under the headline: “The myth and reality of the Catholic vote.” Obviously, this is a topic that is closely related to all of the poll numbers that have been tossed around in the wake of the church-state showdown between the Obama White House and traditional believers in a wide range of faith groups, including traditional Catholics, many Eastern Orthodox leaders, evangelicals, Orthodox Jews and others.

Schneck notes that Catholic voters, whoever they are, are supposed to be the great swing bloc in the American population. There is a problem, however:

… The idea of a Catholic bloc is patently ridiculous. As voters, American Catholics mirror the electorate as a whole, divided into Democrats, independents, and Republicans at about the same percentages as all Americans. And it’s hard to trace such political complexity to religious allegiance.

One explanation for why is the sheer number of Catholic voters and their now multigenerational assimilation into American society. About 35 million Catholics voted in 2008. That’s about 27% of all voters. …

By finally achieving that assimilation, Catholics in the last 50 years have lost much of their sense of special self-identity. For white Catholics, who are about 60% of the Catholic vote, their distinctiveness in class, education, income and even ethnicity has grown increasingly ambiguous in America’s famous melting pot.

The melting pot has even transformed Catholics’ relationship to their church. Polling numbers released Friday by CNN about the White House contraception dust-up illustrate this: Only 11% of Catholics polled said they should always obey official church teachings on moral issues like birth control and abortion. To put this differently, 88% of Catholics in the poll said that it’s OK for Catholics to make up their own minds about these moral issues. That represents a growing trend. In 1992 only 70% supported the “make up their own minds” argument. In 1999 it was 80%.

This is all pretty standard information. Schneck properly notes that one of the other major realities that must be taken into account — obviously — is the growth of the Latino population in Catholic pews here in the United States. Latino Catholics now make up about a third of all American Catholics.

The Latino vote, he concludes, is one of three discreet Catholic votes at play in modern American politics. It is a swing vote that often backs Democrats due to issues of economics and social justice.

Things get more complex when looking at the Anglos, however. For starters, Schneck notes 2011 research from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life indicating that one-third of Americans who were raised Catholic have left the church through exit doors both to the secular left and the cultural right. That’s a solid 10 percent of the American electorate.

The other two camps of “Catholic voters,” he said, can be labeled “intentional Catholics” and “cultural Catholics.” This section of the story must be read carefully.

Some who leave still feel lingering allegiance to things Catholic, but many do not, and former Catholics do not have a distinctive political identity. But as a result of disaffiliation, many Catholics who remain with the church are “distilled.” More and more of those who remain are those who actively choose to embrace the church and its teachings. These “intentional Catholics” are the second of the three important groups of Catholic voters.

Largely white, with impressive education levels, mostly suburban and with moderate to high income levels, such Catholics are in evidence in weekly Mass attendance and parish activities. Politically active, intentional Catholic voters lean toward the Republican Party (with some youthful swing voters) and are motivated by economic issues and increasingly by opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage and illegal immigration.

“Cultural Catholics” make up the third important group of Catholic voters. They are a complicated mix of mostly white Americans with lower levels of Mass attendance and higher levels of ambivalence toward Church authority.

To some degree, it is accurate to note that the “intentional” Catholics are simply more active in the life of the church. This is the old “pew gap” trend in which the more believers attend worship, the more likely they are — in voting booths — to be influenced by the so-called “culture war” issues. But does this mean that the “cultural” Catholics can simply be described as progressives?

Not really, according to Schneck:

Many culturally Catholic voters are at odds with both conservatives and liberals on many issues. They are more socially conservative than the majority of Americans, but many are put off by the more intense social conservatism of intentional Catholics and evangelicals. They are more economically populist than most Americans but are uncomfortable with the libertarian zeal of the tea party. They are alienated from the lifestyle liberalism of many progressives but remain supportive of unions and governmental programs for the middle class.

The bishops may have little role in these voters’ personal faith, but cultural Catholics look to the church for the sacraments that mark the turnings of their lives and for the traditions that connect generations. Their religious sensibility might almost be described as ethnic.

“Ethnic,” as opposed to “doctrinal”?

Now, once you have soaked up the professor’s take on this, feel free to contrast it with the viewpoint of that veteran K Street priest I interviewed a few years ago who posited four different Catholic votes. When I asked about the Latino vote, he said that he was convinced that there is no one Latino vote, either. In particular, he said that he thought Latinos who are highly active in the church, especially in terms of coming to Confession, tend to lean right on moral and cultural issues.

That grid, you may recall, looks like this:

* Ex-Catholics. Solid for the Democrats. GOP has no chance.

* Cultural Catholics who may go to church a few times a year. This may be an undecided voter — check out that classic Atlantic Monthly tribes of American religion piece — depending on what is happening with the economy, foreign policy, etc. Leans to Democrats.

* Sunday-morning American Catholics. This voter is a regular in the pew and may even play some leadership role in the parish. This is the Catholic voter that is really up for grabs, the true swing voter that the candidates are after.

* The “sweats the details” Roman Catholic who goes to confession. Is active in the full sacramental life of the parish and almost always backs the Vatican, when it comes to matters of faith and practice. This is where the GOP has made its big gains in recent decades, but it is a very small slice of the American Catholic pie.

So, read and discuss. The main difference I see is that he has the “active” Catholics in one basic “intentional” group, while my veteran DC priest has them divided two ways, with the “sweats the details” being the only tiny segment of American Catholics who are consistently pro-Vatican day after day, controversy after controversy. Also, note that Schneck has some “ex-Catholics” headed to the right, into evangelical Protestantism.

IMAGE: Official White House photo.

My pretty, blond-haired niece Peyton has perfected her sales pitch.

The 7-year-old flashes her sweet smile, looks me straight in the eyes and asks, “So how many boxes do you want?”

“How many do you have?” I am tempted to reply when confronted with that cheerful face.

But most recently, I settled for seven boxes of Peyton’s Girl Scout cookies — including three boxes of my favorites: Do-si-dos, which are oatmeal cookies with peanut butter filling.

Who knew I was entering the culture wars by buying cookies?

An Indiana lawmaker is making headlines this week by calling the Girl Scouts a “radicalized organization.” That prompted this note from a Facebook friend:

Yes, they are bad, bad people, spreading Samoas and Thin Mints across the country, corrupting people like me …

To my surprise, my own tiny amount of research revealed that the Girl Scouts are indeed becoming a flash point — at least in some circles — in the culture wars. Recent columns in the Washington Times and the Washington Post analyze the issue from opposite sides of the ideological spectrum.

The Journal Gazette in Fort Wayne, Ind., is the source of the story distributed this week by The Associated Press. The Indiana newspaper reports:

INDIANAPOLIS – A Fort Wayne lawmaker’s rant against the Girl Scouts went viral Monday after he called them a “radicalized organization” that supports abortion and promotes “homosexual lifestyles.”

Rep. Bob Morris, R-Fort Wayne, sent a letter to Indiana House Republicans on Saturday explaining why he was the only member in the chamber not to sign onto a resolution last week celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts.

The resolution applauded the group “for the strong positive influence it has had on the American woman.”

Morris said he did some Web-based research and found allegations that the Girl Scouts are a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood, that they allow transgender females to join, “just like any real girl,” and encourage sex.

This section of the story stood out to me:

Several Christian groups have been focused on growing concerns with the Girl Scouts in the past year, and a few websites exist solely to talk about the group’s alleged leftward leanings.

Few independent reports on the issue exist.

That background information seems severely lacking: What Christian groups are we talking about? What concerns have they expressed? What evidence, if any, have they provided? Hopefully, any follow-up coverage will dig a little deeper.

I, for one, hate to see the Girl Scouts — particularly my favorite little cookie saleswoman — caught up in the culture wars. But if it’s news, it demands to be told fairly and fully.

Image via Shutterstock

Psssssst.

Did you hear the latest news from Memphis, Tenn.?

A woman accused of church gossip made the front page of The Commercial Appeal, Memphis’ metro daily. The story has generated quite a discussion in Elvis Presley’s hometown.

The top of the report:

Dr. Nan Hawkes has been a member of Second Presbyterian Church for 35 years. That would end if she’s excommunicated over charges of “slander, bickering and gossip” against church leadership.

Hawkes, 59, said Wednesday she has been indicted by the church, accused of “offenses of immorality and contempt for the established order of the church.”

The proceedings will be held in March and will be presided over by Criminal Court Judge Chris Craft. An elder at the church, Craft confirmed Wednesday that he has been chosen as chairman of a five-member commission (three men, two women) of church members who will hear the case if it is not settled through negotiations.

Officials with Second Presbyterian, at 4055 Poplar, would not comment on the charges against Hawkes.

“We’re committed to resolving all cases like this in accordance with Scripture and in accordance with our book of order,” said Robb Roaten, church spokesman. “It’s a sad situation that this kind of thing would happen at all.”

(A quick digression before weighing in on the bigger picture: That third paragraph gives the impression that the case is headed to a criminal court judge. The story should have made clearer that a church elder who happens to be a judge will handle the proceedings.)

Readers who submitted the story link to your friendly neighborhood GetReligionistas offered differing perspectives on the report.

Said one tipster:

It makes no sense that it is even in the paper, much less front page with a photo.

Another correspondent said:

I suppose it is front-page news because it is so rare for a matter of gossip to be handled through formal charges in a church. Tons of questions leapt out to me that remain unanswered.

I think the second reader is probably right: It’s not often that a church initiates excommunication proceedings against a member for gossip. Moreover, this is not just any church; this is a 3,800-member congregation with a 150-plus-year history in Memphis. To me, this is a legitimate news story, and The Commercial Appeal’s straightforward report gave me no serious heartburn. At the same time, I understand why the church refused to comment.

More interesting to me than the initial story, however, was the column that Commercial Appeal Editor Chris Peck wrote Sunday defending the coverage. You get the impression reading the column that the story offended somebody (or lots of somebodies) at the “big, powerful church” and that Peck is walking a fine line between appeasing those somebodies and voicing his confidence in the journalistic approach taken. The (alleged) gossiping member certainly moves from potential heroine in the news story to all-around louse in Peck’s piece.

From the editor’s column:

In a tart e-mail, Cory Hale, a lifelong subscriber to the newspaper and a member of Second Presbyterian, noted that all kinds of organizations face conflict. Sometimes that conflict simply cannot be resolved and a forced separation must occur, he said. ”Shame on The Commercial Appeal for sensationalizing the ordinary with a front-page story and giving your readership the impression that this is somehow extraordinary, even scandalous, just because it happened in a church — my church.”

A fair comment. And not dissimilar from some discussions inside the newsroom about the newsworthiness of the story.

Some editors asked whether the story was too much of an inside-the-church issue to warrant coverage. Others asked whether the story really mattered much to the public. Still others wondered whether we knew enough about what is going on to report about it.

All good points.

But in the end, there was little disagreement among the journalists that this story was unusual and would have a broad public interest.

I wish the editors who wondered whether the paper knew enough about what was going on had received more of a hearing. Peck’s column provides much more insight and context (assuming his unnamed sources can be believed) on the situation than the initial 655-word news report, which was told primarily from the perspective of the woman accused of gossip. At the same time, the editor provides plausible rationale for why the story matters — the kind of explanation that might have helped the report itself.

All in all, a little more TLC before publication might have negated the need for so much navel gazing afterward. The paper’s highly talented Faith in Memphis columnist David Waters did not write this story, but I’d have loved to have seen it in his capable hands.

What say ye, GetReligion readers? Is a church member facing excommunication for gossip newsworthy? Was The Commercial Appeal’s initial report adequate? Should the paper have dug deeper before going to press?

Last month, we looked at how the online producers at the Washington CBS station posted a photo slideshow that appeared under the rather literal headline:

Activists Hold Annual March For Life On Roe v. Wade Anniversary

For several days, the number of pictures of anyone who participated in the massive March For Life on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade was … zero. There were literally no pictures of any pro-life activists. Instead, the gallery featured the handful of pro-choice activists who counter-protested. After quite a bit of outrage and several days, the gallery was updated to include pro-lifers in about half of the pictures. How generous.

Anyway, if you enjoyed following that little brouhaha, you will get a kick out of this. The same local CBS affiliate has a piece headlined:

‘We Are Stronger’: Atheists To Hold Massive Rally On National Mall Next Month

The article begins:

Thousands of atheists are expected to attend the Reason Rally next month in Washington, D.C., an event that organizers hope will unify a large part of the secular community.

On March 24, the National Mall will be populated by those who sympathize with atheist perspectives, generally defined by an absence in belief of deities or other religious icons.

But the best part of the whole thing is the picture and caption that accompanies the piece. I’ve embedded it above. The reader who sent it in noted:

CBS reports a massive rally by atheists will be held on the mall. And there’s a picture of a massive rally to prove that it will. CBS expects thousands to come, certainly a massive number.

Who knows how massive or non-massive this atheist rally will be. It’s just interesting to see how different rallies are covered by the same outlet.

One of the major religion events of this past weekend, obviously, was the Vatican rite at which Pope Benedict XVI created 22 new cardinals, including two from the United States.

In terms of standard-issue news on the big-city religion beat, having your city’s archbishop join the college of cardinals is a mucho big deal. At the very least, it’s the kind of thing that requires the writing of a full-career feature story about the man, with a heavy emphasis on the work that he did to earn this nod from the Vatican.

The other day, I noted that then Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York City held his own when The New York Times served up its pre-red-hat feature. That fine story offered a combination of attributed material from a number of different sources — including radio broadcasts, public sermons and interviews.

The other U.S. archbishop-turned-cardinal was Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien of Baltimore, who currently is in a transition between his work in the nation’s oldest Catholic archdiocese and a global-level slot in the Vatican hierarchy. This means, of course, a major story in The Baltimore Sun. The result was utterly and totally predictable, other than one or two glaring oddities. Here is the top of the feature:

Even as he prepared in Rome for the weekend ceremony that will elevate him to cardinal, Baltimore Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien vigorously lobbied for political issues important to the Roman Catholic Church — a hallmark of his five-year stint here.

The vocal 72-year-old O’Brien — who has been the spiritual leader of Catholics in Baltimore and nine surrounding counties — has sparred with the likes of President Barack Obama and top Maryland lawmakers. He didn’t always succeed, but he pressed on, as he has on a number of highly charged issues.

Last month, O’Brien decried a proposed federal regulation from the Obama administration that would have required Catholic hospitals and universities, among other institutions, to provide employee health insurance that covered contraception.

In recent days, the O’Brien went head-to-head with Gov. Martin O’Malley, a fellow Catholic, over the elected leader’s support for legalizing same-sex marriage. O’Brien called several state lawmakers from Rome, urging them to oppose the measure, in the hours before a crucial Friday night vote moved the measure closer to becoming law. And in one of his most criticized moves locally, O’Brien made the budget-minded decision to close 13 Catholic schools in the spring of 2010, frustrating students and parents.

Now, here is your assignment: Name a major American city in which each of these points — to one degree or another — would not apply to the work of a Pope Benedict XVI-era prelate.

As this standard-duty article rolls on, it becomes pretty clear that the Sun team faced a major problem. The bottom line: A key voice is missing from this feature. Whose?

Pope Benedict XVI could name his successor in Baltimore as early as March, O’Brien said last month. He has been traveling between Rome and Baltimore, working two jobs since August, and did not respond to interview requests for this article.

Ouch. Frankly, that is amazing. I may be wrong, but this gap has to say something about the archbishop’s attitude toward the Sun, a newspaper that never uses a fly swatter when a baseball bat will do when it comes time to cooperate with and-or to promote the views of local Catholic dissidents. O’Brien is no arch conservative, but to this newspaper he is, clearly, a fundamentalist.

Still, O’Brien preaches sermons all the time that could have been quoted in this story. He writes, too. While he declined to be interviewed, it would have been easy to find ways to feature his voice as a balancing element in this all politics, all the time report. It’s even possible that there are religious, faith-based themes in his work that could have been included. Then again, apparently not.

The Sun team did manage to reach out to a global-level expert — who promptly pointed them in the right direction (should the editors be interested in knowing more about why Rome honored this man). They turned to Rocco Palmo of Whispers Inside The Loggia. And what did he have to say?

Palmo, who has sources in the Holy See and broke the news of O’Brien’s new appointment, said the O’Brien’s strong leadership style likely contributed to his elevation and transfer to Rome, where he is expected to take on additional assignments for the pope.

“O’Brien’s always been given sensitive assignments by the Vatican,” Palmo said, pointing to O’Brien’s role as the head of an in-depth study into all U.S. seminaries, to root out the potential origins of child abuse by Catholic clergy.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if O’Brien were called in as a troubleshooter for the Vatican, in addition to his day job,” Palmo said.

Ah, the study of the seminaries. That would be a key starting point, since it is hard to have Catholic churches without priests.

It is at this point that the Sun, once again, looks away from a major story that has been sitting in its own backyard for several decades. You see, Baltimore happens to be the home of one of North America’s most famous, or infamous, seminaries and one of the first things that O’Brien — the former leader of America’s Catholic military archdiocese — did when he came to town was attempt to change the culture a bit at St. Mary’s Seminary. All you have to do to learn more about that situation is type “Baltimore,” “seminary” and “Pink Palace” into a search engine.

Palmo did his best to underline the obvious, but it was not enough.

Basically, this Sun news feature centered on the elements of O’Brien’s tenure in Baltimore that the newspaper had, in the past, deigned to cover. One can ask (I just did) whether the actual O’Brien was missing from that earlier coverage, just as he was — by his own choice — missing from this pre-red-hat feature.

PHOTO: Cardinal Edwin O’Brien (left) and Cardinal Timothy Dolan, rocking the red.

The Vatican Insider section of La Stampa reports that there are now more women priests than men priests in the Church of England. This report in Italy’s largest circulation newspaper has been picked up by Catholic newspapers and blogs round the world. It has morphed into reports like that in CathNews New Zealand which states: “A first: Anglican women priests outnumber men in UK.”

The trouble is — the underlying claim is false.

However this surface error aside, the La Stampa article offers a very fine summary of the theological and historical issues at play — and reports that in the view of one Italian church historian, there were women priests and bishops in the early Catholic Church.

The La Stampa story entitled “Women outnumber men in the Anglican Church for the first time” begins:

There is a female majority for the first time in the Church of England, with more women priests joining than men. This certainly bodes well for a final “yes” vote in next July’s Synod that would allow women into the Episcopate. “Official figures show that 290 women were ordained in 2010, the most recent year for which figures are available,” says British newspaper The Telegraph. “By contrast, just 273 men entered the priesthood.”

Yes, I would say that there is a female majority among those in the pews in the Church of England — but I expect that this has been the case for several hundred years.

And yes, La Stampa accurately quotes news from the Telegraph that in 2009, 290 women were ordained as against 273 men. But the ordination of 17 more women than men in 2009 does not mean that a majority of priests are now women. The headline of the Telegraph article from 4 February 2012 could be misconstrued by someone for whom English is not their first language: “More new women priests than men for first time.”

But in the body of the article there is the statement that should remove any ambiguity:

Overall there were still more than twice as many ordained men (8,087) as women (3,535) in 2010.

In 2009 I ran a story in The Church of England Newspaper that reported that as of 2007 the number of women clergy who were incumbents — e.g., who actually were in charge of a congregation — was 15 per cent of the total number of clergy. And, in 2007 the Associated Press ran a story that reported in 2006 the Church of England added 213 women  and 210 men to the priesthood. So, the claim of more women than men in total is untrue, as is the claim that 2010 was the first year that the number of female ordinands exceeded the number of male ordinands.

Putting to one side this confusion of language, the article does offer a look at this issue from a Catholic perspective. The official church position, as summarized by Giorgio Otranto, Professor of Ancient Christian History in the University of Bari is:

Thus the Magisterium returned to the traditional theories that lie behind their opposition to the ordination of women: Christ did not choose any women to join the group of 12 apostles and the entire Church tradition has remained faithful to this fact, interpreting it as the Saviour’s explicit wish for men only to receive the priestly powers of governance, teaching and sanctifying. Only man, through his natural resemblance to Christ, can embody, sacramentally, the role of Christ himself in the Eucharist.

However, Prof. Otranto noted that the historical record shows that women had been ordained in the Catholic Church.

In a letter sent in 494 to bishops of certain regions of Southern Italy … Pope Gelasius I (492-496) stated he was highly displeased to hear that the contempt towards religion was such that women were being allowed to “sacris altaribus ministrare” and that they were carrying out tasks reserved for males, which did not fall under their competence.”

In Southern Italy, women had received the Sacrament of the Order of bishops, a decision which Gelasius I had firmly condemned. … “Even outside heretical contexts, ancient Christianity seems to have sometimes elevated women to the rank of priest solely and exclusively due to certain prerogatives within the Holy Order, Otranto pointed out.

I find this fascinating. What I also find fascinating is how an unclear lede about the sexes of new Church of England priests morphed into reports about the entire Church of England priesthood. And then was used as a symbol of Church of England’s incipient collapse by some caustic commentators.

What is the moral of the story? Read past the headline? What say you?

Jeremy Lin’s winning streak may have ended Friday, but he picked right back up today with 28 points and 14 assists during the Knicks’ win against the Mavericks.

Headline writers are having a field day with potential puns, but that hasn’t worked out well for ESPN, which fired a staffer for writing “Chink in the armor” in a headline and suspended an anchor. Lin’s popularity certainly has something to do with ethnicity, which some outlets may struggle to cover.

On the other hand, some outlets are covering several different angles, including a profile from the Mercury News and an interesting interview with Lin’s pastor from the Washington Post’s On Faith, among other pieces on religion and sports.

I’ve been pretty impressed by several articles from The New York Times that have captured some of the nuances of both race and religion. We’ve already looked at Michael Luo’s first-person piece and talked to him for more background. I laughed out loud at the quote the Times captured from Lin’s grandmother. “I know nothing about basketball.

I only know when Jeremy puts the ball in the basket he has done a good thing.” I also appreciated a Times piece on what Lin’s rise to prominence has done for Christians in China. American Protestant missionaries converted Lin’s great-grandfather to Christianity, the article reports.

Lin’s combination of success in the N.B.A. and strong Christian faith — he has spoken in the past of becoming a pastor someday — has fired the imagination of many Asian-American Christians. There are some early signs that he may also be catching the attention of Christians in China, who continue to face varying levels of persecution.

Only 1,500 of the initial 1.4 million microblogging messages on mainland Chinese Web sites that mentioned Lin also mentioned Christianity.

The article mentions twice the fact that Christians in China are persecuted, but it doesn’t go into too many specifics. It does, however, show how the government tries to temper the spread of Christianity.

Chinese authorities allow one Protestant seminary per province, as a way to limit the number of pastors and slow the spread of Christianity, which by some estimates may have more than 100 million adherents among China’s 1.3 billion people.

Mao ordered the merger of Protestant denominations in China in 1958; while different strands of Protestantism have informally re-emerged since Mao’s death in 1976, they must share a small supply of seminary graduates and other pastors trained at Bible schools operating informally.

Kudos to the Times for looking deeper, showing how one athlete’s popularity spotlights something larger about Christianity in China. And we hope you enjoy this week’s podcast.

Image via Wikimedia Commons.

Before it’s too late, I have to take a look at this piece that appeared in the Los Angeles Times earlier this month. Reporter Mitchell Landsberg tells us about Orthodox Jewish rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s new book “Kosher Jesus.” We’re reminded that Boteach has written books on “Kosher Sex,” “Dating Secrets of the 10 Commandments” and his relationship with the late pop star Michael Jackson. But that his latest book has led to accusations of heresy:

The book focuses on the Christian savior’s Jewishness, portraying him as a hero who stood up to Roman rule of Palestine and paid with his life. In keeping with Jewish theology, it does not accept his resurrection or his divinity. And it emphasizes Boteach’s belief that the New Testament intentionally deflected blame for the crucifixion from the ruling Romans and redirected it — unfairly, Boteach believes — on the shoulders of the Jews.

Given all that, one might expect Christians to take exception. But Boteach’s Jewish critics were way ahead of the curve.

“Boteach’s latest book is apikorsus and must be treated as such,” Rabbi Yitzchok Wolf of Chicago said on an Orthodox news site Jan. 10, using a Hebrew word that roughly translates as heresy. Wolf said he had “utter contempt” for the book — or, at least, for the title.

Another rabbi, from Canada, has forbidden the book to be read or discussed. We’re told that they’re both affiliated with Chabad. Boteach says he expected criticism from Christians but not from Jews. Then we get all sorts of messaging about how Jesus can bridge the two faiths.

Christians, [Boteach] said, can benefit from a new understanding of Jesus’ humanity. “Embracing Jesus’ Jewishness begins to elucidate his story, his life, his passionate beliefs,” he writes in the book.

That’s fine, said Darrell Bock, a professor of New Testament studies at the Dallas Theological Seminary and a leading authority on the life of Jesus. But, he said, Boteach is wrong in some of his details and not likely to convince Christians, who will be turned off by the presumption that Jesus was fully human.

“The book is a mixed bag,” Bock said. “There are some points that he’s making about the Jewish roots of Jesus … that are certainly the case. But there are other points he is making about Jesus’ mission and the way the Jewish leadership handled him that are probably not an accurate reflection of what took place.”

I do not know Bock but something tells me this summary misstated what he said. Christians of course believe that Jesus is fully human. Believing that Jesus is both God and man, fully divine and fully human, is one of the most important points of doctrine shared by Christians. Did Bock really say that Christians don’t believe in Jesus’ humanity? If so, he wouldn’t be the right source for a story of this nature. Did Bock say, on the other hand, that Christians believe Jesus isn’t only human? That’s different and should be summarized more accurately.

You can read the ancient ecumenical creeds for a quick primer on what Christians believe about Jesus and the Trinity. This Catholic article on the incarnation of Christ might also be helpful (be sure to check out the portions on the hypostatic union). And if you want to dig deeper, be sure to check out monophysitism, renounced some 1500 years ago as heresy. But fresh and back again in the Los Angeles Times!