The Episcopal Church has less than half the membership of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. But the former gets much more media coverage than the ELCA. But both are experiencing division under similar circumstances. Both churches have lost significant numbers of members in recent years, with congregations occasionally deciding to leave as a unit. And the problems in both churches deal with how the denomination interprets Scripture. The big fissures have been sparked by dramatic changes in church doctrine on sexuality.

The Episcopal Church’s split has been covered extensively by the media. When the ELCA voted to ordain homosexuals in committed, monogamous, lifelong relationships this past August, it resulted in the departure of more congregations. Other congregations decided to simply withhold funds to the national church body while they decided whether to leave a church body that has changed its doctrine.

Here’s a sampling of headlines from the last couple of months: “Lutheran church in Roanoke County votes to split from association,” “Large ELCA Congregation Votes to Leave the Denomination,” and “Minneapolis Lutheran church will leave ELCA.” We see these stories being covered throughout the country, usually in the local press.

When Lutheran CORE — a group that opposes the doctrinal changes that have been made in recent years — met in Indianapolis to discuss how to respond to the August vote for gay clergy in relationships, that resulted in more national coverage. And now we’re seeing national coverage again as Lutheran CORE steps up its efforts. The Associated Press had a great report that clearly and concisely laid out the facts of the situation. It explained how many congregations had left, how many had initiated the process, and discussed the national church body’s financial woes caused, in part, by a drop in funds from less-than-pleased congregations:

The split over gay clergy within the country’s largest Lutheran denomination has prompted a conservative faction to begin forming a new Lutheran church body separate from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Leaders of Lutheran CORE said Wednesday that a working group would immediately begin drafting a constitution and taking other steps to form the denomination, with hopes to have it off the ground by next August.

”There are many people within the ELCA who are very unhappy with what has happened,” said the Rev. Paull Spring, chairman of Lutheran CORE and a retired ELCA bishop from State College, Pa.

The main question I had after reading the report dealt with the property. The truth of the matter is that property disputes tend to be more heated than doctrinal disputes. Denominational corporations are usually willing to spend quite a bit of money and energy to keep property when congregations or dioceses leave a church body. We’ve seen a lot of coverage of this aspect of the Episcopal Church’s woes (they’re winning some battles and losing others) as well as in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). But what about the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America?

Julia Duin is on the case at the Washington Times. After laying out the cause of the schism, she looks at the finances of the denomination, why Lutheran CORE is not joining with any other Lutheran group and whether there will be property disputes:

“This news from Lutheran CORE was expected,” [ELCA spokesman John Brooks] said. “We know it takes hard work to organize a new church body… . There has always been a place in the ELCA for all people despite our differences on various issues.”

The ELCA will not sue a departing congregation, he added, as long as it joins another Lutheran church body.

Despite the fact that the ELCA is significantly larger than the Episcopal Church, the media have shown less interest in the denomination’s doctrinal battles. Both the Associated Press and Washington Times picked up on the significance of the cause of both church body’s plights. Hopefully we will see continued good coverage of the matter.

If you were creating the Ten Commandments of daily Journalism, you would certainly find the statement, “All news is local,” somewhere near the top of the list (but after “Don’t bury the lede”).

Just because this commandment is true doesn’t mean that it’s the only truth that reporters need to take into account when they are reporting about complex news events, including those that center on debates about religious doctrines and traditions.

You could see this pretty clearly in the coverage of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this past week. This was an event that had something for everyone, from nuanced debates about liturgy to, yes, discussions of several topics linked to sex. It helps, of course, when the sex being discussed is also linked to politics.

There’s that formula that your GetReligionistas love so much — sex plus politics, minus doctrine, equals headlines.

You can understand, of course, how the Washington Post ended up with this “All news is local” lede early this week, in light of recent events. In a way, this was inevitable. I am sure the editors carved this news angle in stone, because of you know what:

The nation’s Catholic bishops approved a position paper that emphasizes the church’s traditional positions on marriage Tuesday, the same day that the D.C. Council agreed to schedule a vote on legalizing same-sex unions for Dec. 1.

The “pastoral letter” is part of a campaign launched in 2004 to counter the breakup of traditional families, said Richard McCord, executive director of the bishops’ committee on marriage and family life. The campaign initially was meant to highlight the divine in everyday
aspects of marriage. It has turned recently to more political concerns, such as the creation of a committee to lobby against same-sex marriage bills such as the one pending in the District.

The bottom line: This is a news story about a church-state conflict and, as such, it adds new wrinkles in a small amount of space. This political side of the story needs to be covered. However, what about the actual subject of this document from the U.S. Catholic bishops? The Post is one of America’s top newspapers. Where are its readers supposed to learn about the actual subject of the pastoral letter, its attempt to defend Catholic traditions and the debates about its contents, especially in light of the 45 votes against it?

Sorry, but that isn’t the local story this time around.

However, the bishops were meeting in Baltimore, which is certainly a city with deep Catholic roots and symbolism. Thus, the local Baltimore Sun coverage of the same document offered a different take, one that was, ironically, more national in scope.

Then again, I guess the national angle was the local angle, if the meeting was in Baltimore?

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops approved a broad new document on marriage Tuesday, laying what its writers described as the foundation for the American church’s efforts to promote the institution as the joining of one man and one woman.

“Thank goodness this is out there, clearly stated, with ample documentation and very reasonably put forward,” said Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien of Baltimore, which is hosting the all general assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this week. “I think it’s going to be a very positive document.”

While “Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan” does not represent new Catholic teaching, bishops said the pastoral letter would address a need for an authoritative source to which church leaders may refer as they campaign against divorce, unmarried couples living together and same-sex unions.

Quite frankly, I was glad that a newspaper focused on the fact that the bishops were focusing much of their attention on issues other than homosexuality. If you read newspapers these days, you’d think that gays and lesbians are the only people in Catholic pews (and other pews, of course) who have any reason to go to confession.

If you look at the statistics, the bishops have other subjects that they need to spend more time discussing. That is, there are topics that need major discussion if the goal is to defend centuries of Christian tradition on marriage and family.

But you see the problem, I hope. How do I know what the bishops are debating, other than what is covered in the mainstream press? I could read dozens of Catholic blogs, of course, if I want the discussions of doctrine, rather than simply the political headlines.

The Sun, however, did provide glimpses of the actual heart of the document:

Before the session, the bishops circulated statistics showing that American couples have grown less likely to marry and more likely to live together. Those who do marry tend to do so later in life, and the probability that they will divorce or separate is between 40 and 50 percent, according to a University of Virginia report.

“People are entering into marriage probably without an adequate appreciation of the beauty of marriage and the gift that it is,” O’Brien said. “The document is meant to strengthen Christian marriage, to prepare people who are going to be married before they enter that bond to appreciate what the commitment is, and also to open a discussion in our culture as to what the differences are today and to try to reach some common ground.”

The letter defines marriage as “a natural institution established by God the Creator” and called it “a permanent, faithful, fruitful partnership between one man and one woman” that has two purposes: “the good of the spouses” and “the procreation and education of children.” It says “Male-female complementarity is essential to marriage” and “attempts to make same-sex unions the equivalent of marriage disregard the nature of marriage. …”

And then we are off, once again, into the world of contemporary issues and their applications to current political debates.

I know this is hard for reporters. What we have here is a clash between centuries of Christian doctrine and new doctrines rooted in the Sexual Revolution, one of the greatest earthquakes of modern times. It’s hard to cover the past in media that are rooted in the present. But, when those doctrines and traditions frame the content of the news story, readers need to know that.

The facts are the facts. I am sure that the bishops cited scripture and the teachings of the early church in their discussions and debates. A hint of what they talked about would have helped, on the way to the business-as-usual political headlines.

Every now and then, the avid news reader clicks on a link or opens up a newspaper and is faced with something so strange that it simply cannot be comprehended. As we have seen recently, this seems to happen quite often in MSM coverage of religion.

So here we go again.

This bizarre Associated Press story, as sent to us by a faithful reader in Pittsburgh, is quite short. Thus, let me share — brace yourself — the whole thing:

PHILADELPHIA — An animal welfare official says a beheaded dog and cat found in Philadelphia appear to be the result of a ritual sacrifice.

George Bengal, Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals director of investigations, said the dog and cat were found … near a bike path in Philadelphia’s Olney neighborhood along with three beheaded chickens. He said he believes the animals were killed elsewhere and the remains dumped where a passer-by found them.

Mr. Bengal said there is usually an increase in ritual animal sacrifices at this time of year because of “a lot of high holidays that different groups celebrate.”

But he said most of those sacrifices involve goats and chickens.

Say what? Let’s read that quote again, the one in which it is claimed that the number of ritual animal sacrifices spike at this time of year because of “a lot of high holidays that different groups celebrate.”

Now, it is true that this strangeness takes inside quotation marks so, on one level, AP is off the hook. But what in the world are these words supposed to mean? Are we to believe that there is a wave of beheaded animal corpses because of (a) the arrival of Advent/Nativity Lent, (b) approaching observances of Hanukkah, (c) Kwanzaa festivities, (d) some alleged connection to Solstice? Is the goal to link this to voodoo or something?

But before you go there, please note that the story says absolutely nothing that would point toward Santeria and, even if it did, there is no discussion of whether these sacrifices in any way fit patterns of worship in that tradition. You see, it’s wrong for journalists to say, “Behold, beheaded animals. Those Santeria people are at it again.” That’s too simplistic.

So let me ask the obvious question and ask readers to weigh in: Precisely what “high holidays” are we supposed to assume are being discussed here? I honestly do not have a clue.

What does this strange sentence mean? Just asking.

Why, oh why, must all religion stories be told through the prism of politics?

It really gets tiring. For instance, there was this Washington Post piece last Sunday about how Pat Robertson had said something intemperate (I know! Stop the presses!) about Islam that reflected poorly on Virginia Governor-elect Bob McDonnell. Robertson hadn’t made the comments with McDonnell or at a McDonnell event or in McDonnell campaign literature or anything like that. But he was a big donor to McDonnell’s campaign and McDonnell attended a graduate school affiliated with Robertson and so the Post argued that he might have to respond to the remarks.

The story was published in another context, which is that the Post worked hard during the campaign to tarnish McDonnell, a Republican, as a particularly bad social conservative. Unfortunately for them, he won in an 18-point landslide over his Democratic opponent. But if the Post is going to start paying attention to the controversial affiliations of politicians, it’s a good thing for everyone.

Okay, so CNN now picks up the story and we get this update, headlined “McDonnell won’t disavow Robertson’s Islam remarks”:

Virginia Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell on Wednesday would not disavow Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson’s recent claim that Islam is not a religion, but “a violent political system.”

So McDonnell agrees with Robertson? Or, at the very least, doesn’t disagree with him that Islam is not a religion but a violent political system? Well, not exactly. Here are the final two paragraphs of the story:

When asked if he believes Islam is “a violent political system,” McDonnell said no, but he did not condemn Robertson.

“I think that there are people in various religions that do some violent things and they should be judged according to their acts,” he explained. “But I have believed that there are people of all the great religions, that can be enormously helpful in our multicultural Virginia to help them to benefit us in the state.”

To disavow means to claim no knowledge of, no connection to or no responsibility for something. Or it can mean to disown something or someone. Precisely no one attributed the remark to McDonnell or said he had responsibility for it or that he owned Robertson. To disavow can also mean to repudiate. When asked about his view of Robertson’s remarks, McDonnell did repudiate them as untrue.

So I think that what the author of the story is going for is in that next to last paragraph: McDonnell didn’t condemn Robertson. Which is true. But the headline and lede to this story are sensational rather than informative.

It might also be worthwhile, I suppose, to look into Robertson’s comments in context. He really does say some unbelievably stupid and offensive things (to my ears, at least), but he’s also frequently taken out of context. I liken it to the 1999 Falwell Teletubby issue. Remember how Jerry Falwell was roundly condemned for supposedly saying that Tinky Winky was gay? He never said it, although a journal published by his ministry did contain an article alleging that the character had become a gay role model. But for the previous two years, the same claim had been made everywhere from CNN to the Washington Post to the Village Voice. But rather than have a discussion about how some members of the gay community had embraced Tinky Winky as a role model, or, I suppose, to point out that Falwell’s group had gotten the idea from the media, instead everyone mocked Falwell.

Likewise, rather than have a real discussion about Robertson’s views of Islam or its violence, instead the media use his remarks as a cudgel to attack McDonnell.

Now, Robertson’s comments about Islam not being a religion are offensive and untrue. And I think it’s somewhat ironic that Robertson, of all people, might accuse a religion of being a political system without considering how much his own doctrinal approach emphasizes politics. But there is a real discussion to be had about the violence associated with some groups and movements within Islam and the political systems that arise in Muslim-dominated countries and how these things compare with Christianity and Christian-dominated countries.

That conversation is not being had in the mainstream media. In fact, it almost seems to be suppressed. Of course, it does take some courage to have these discussions and you can’t do it as well when you’re playing gotcha with politicians.

My family and friends are a little obsessed with a Monopoly/Risk/Axis & Allies-like game called Settlers of Catan—too obsessed that my husband won’t play with me because I become too competitive that we stop speaking to each other. After several rounds of winning one Christmas, it inspired me to get my sheep, wood, wheat and ore in order in real life.

I began checking out personal finance books from the library, mostly popular materials from Suze Orman and Wall Street Journal guides. Then out of curiosity, I searched for some Christian personal finance books, and after very few books came up in the system, one of my friends told me about Dave Ramsey. I didn’t spend much time with his material when I didn’t see something radically different from the books that I had read. So when I read The Atlantic’s profile on Ramsey, I wondered whether it would help me see how Christian personal finance is different from a Christian who gives personal finance advice. (Another colleague will look at Hanna Rosin’s cover story “Did Christianity Cause the Crash?”)

Overall, the story is more about debt than it is about religion, but Megan McArdle does a nice job at looking at it from a religion angle. If I can be a little nitpicky, though, she starts off pretty poorly: “Dave Ramsey looks nothing like a televangelist.” Well, duh. He’s a Christian financial adviser that appears on television. He may talk about Jesus, but it’s like comparing Mike Huckabee to a televangelist. Yes, he’s a Christian and yes, he’s on TV. But would you compare him to a televangelist? I don’t think so. Anyway, McArdle proceeds to caricature televangelists.

He’s a little on the short side, neither fat nor thin, and he wears jeans and a sports jacket, not a shiny suit and an oily smile. With his goatee and what’s left of his graying hair trimmed close to his head, he looks mostly like what he is-a well-groomed, middle- to upper-middle-class American professional. But when he runs out onstage and starts dispensing financial advice, you realize that he could have been a great preacher.

Do you think shiny suit or oily smile when you think of Robert H. Schuller, James Robison, or Pat Robertson? A similar stereotype in a piece about Wall Street bankers probably wouldn’t pass through the first copy edit.

McArdle uses lots of cutesy religious hints to get her message across.

Here are some examples:

“the format was more tent revival than accounting seminar”

“his disciples routinely shun lucrative financing deals”

“Ramsey is not the first evangelical to sell financial advice to his co-religionists”

“Ramsey devotees”

Why can’t she show us through descriptions and quotes instead of telling us using these little canned phrases?

Also, McArdle uses the term “evangelical financial adviser” a bit loosely here.

“But although other evangelical financial advisers flourish mostly within their religious communities, Ramsey has made himself the breakout act, bringing his basic message to the wider world.”

Using evangelical as an adjective can get a bit tricky. Ramsey isn’t just an evangelical financial adviser — there are probably hundreds of financial advisers who happen to be evangelical. What sets Ramsey apart, though, is that he markets himself to evangelical Christians.

Overall, however, McArdle gives a colorful picture of Ramsey, weaving her personal life into her experience attending one of his seminars. She does a nice job of explaining Ramsey’s obsession with debt and why it matters to the economy.

Ramsey offers some investment advice (much of which would have struck horror in my business-school professors), but for most of his followers, the main attraction is a simple program: give 10 percent of your income to charity, save 15 percent for retirement, build up a sizable emergency stash and a college fund for your kids, and above all, stop borrowing money. Ramsey devotees pay cash for everything they can. They are allowed only one exception to the no-more-debt rule: a 15-year fixed-rate mortgage.

Ramsey tells the audience about Jesus, but McArdle isn’t moved.

Ramsey closed his talk in Detroit with a sober lecture on taking care of yourself mentally, physically, emotionally, and of course, spiritually. “Bluntly,” he said, “I’m talking about this man named Jesus, and if you don’t know him, you need to be introduced.” The arena erupted in a joyous roar.
Though I did take the audio CD of Ramsey’s personal witness being handed out free at the exit, I’m afraid that Jesus and I aren’t really any better acquainted than we were before.

This comes across as fairly obligatory (don’t worry, fellow journalists. I didn’t convert.)

She ends with: “You don’t need to be a Christian to look for a better way. Even an unbeliever knew enough to listen up when he saw the bright light on the road to Damascus.” There goes that cutesy language again.

Despite some of these nitpicks, the article really is worth the read—McArdle is right to recognize how big Ramsey is in Christian circles. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like McArdle tried to interview Ramsey, which is where she could have probed him on what makes him different from another financial planner. Maybe the next story about Ramsey can tell us what is Christian about his financial planning more than how he quotes Bible verses and appeals to Christians.

Photos via imelda and Matt McGee from Flickr creative commons.

We’ve debated before whether Westboro Baptist Church is worthy of newsprint. Probably not. But the group likely won’t go away if we simply ignore it, which seems to be what The Washington Post had in mind when leaving any mention of Westboro out of this story about their protest at the school the Obama girls attend.

Westboro is notorious for protesting outside soldier funerals and for its slogan “God Hates Fags.” Lately, Fred Phelps’ church has turned its attention to “filthy, Christ-reject Jews.” (Excuse their poor grammar and check out the e-mails I’ve been getting.)

Religion News Service picks up on this strategic change for the “anti-gay church.” From reporter Matthew E. Berger:

Taking a break from yelling at passersby and singing homophobic lyrics to the tune of the Jewish celebratory song “Hava Nagila,” Margie Phelps explained the change in tactic. “We’ve protested this nation’s love of f**s for 20 years,” she said. “And Jews have been carrying the water for the homosexual agenda.”

“This is more about generating ink and outrage than it is about attacking Jews per say,” said Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project. “But their language is absolutely Hitler-esque. They talk of filthy Jews and Jews murdering Christ.”

Since April, Westboro members have protested more than 200 Jewish institutions and sent thousands of anti-Semitic faxes to American Jewish officials. “I guess they felt it was a successful tactic,” said Deborah Lauter, the national civil rights director for the Anti-Defamation League.

The knee-jerk reaction from many Jewish groups has been to counter protest, and some Hillels and Jewish organizations have formed elaborate programs to drown out Westboro’s cries. But because the church’s protests are often small and short, Jewish leaders have suggested organizations ignore them instead.

“They’re doing this to try and provoke, so we don’t believe it is in the community’s best interest to engage with them,” Lauter said. “We believe it’s just giving them too much attention.”

But sometimes it is hard to fight the urge.

There is a lot packed into this story — a lot of great details which really paint the picture. But Berger doesn’t really answer the question of why it may be hard to fight the urge. Maybe he thought it was too painfully obvious, but not all readers would agree.

Just look at what Westboro did with Hava Nagila in the above video.

There is a much deeper historic context here. It’s hundreds if not thousands of years old. (Actually, it’s most certainly the latter.) It’s quite different to attack Jews for supporting gay rights than for, saying, killing Jews and using the blood of gentile children in their matzo, but how might protests directed at Jews as Jews look like the anti-Semitic attacks that every Jews grows up learning about — and many still experience, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on college campuses.

To be sure, Berger picked up on a trend here that I have seen mentioned nowhere else — a trend that hammers home the fact that Fred Phelps and his Westboro follows aren’t going away. The forest is there, and so are the trees. But the general landscape seems to be missing.

We survived the opening of the movie “2012,” which was last weekend’s top-grossing film. (See it now before the world actually ends, as is predicted on a faux- newsy movie related web site).

Meanwhile, apocalyptic themes will make another appearance at the Cineplex the day before Thanksgiving with “The Road,” a film based on Cormac McCarthy’s unrelentingly bleak novel about a father and son who struggle for survival in a barren world following a cataclysmic event that is never described (and never connected to any particular faith tradition).

Now Entertainment Weekly writer Adam B. Vary reports that the veteran Christian p.r. company A. Larry Ross Communications will try to help fill theater seats by marketing the film to believers. Vary is surprised at the partnership, as he writes in a solid, snark-free article (that is curiously unavailable on the ew.com web site):

When picturing the ideal film to market to Christian filmgoers, The Passion of the Christ is a no-brainer. Even a silly family comedy with clear biblical overtones like Evan Almighty makes sense. But the grim, R-rated postapocalyptic drama The Road?

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the movie will need all the help it can get:

Shot through with a bleak intensity and pessimism that offers little hope for a better tomorrow, the film is more suitable to critical appreciation than to attracting huge audiences though topliners Viggo Mortensen and Charlize Theron will attract initial business.

Ross has worked with the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association since the early 1980s, so he should know a lot about forgiveness. That’s good, because Ross earlier promoted the “Left Behind” movie, which is perhaps (and this is saying something!) one of the worst Christian films in history.

But will Christians forgive Ross for promoting “The Road,” which features hunger, cannibals, criminals, killings and (spoiler alert!) the death of one of its main characters? After all, Christian versions of the End Times typically include a hint of redemption—at least for the redeemed, if not for sinners. Such hope is nowhere to be found in “The Road.”

Ross is promoting the film via Twitter and his Facebook site but not his corporate web site (which does list the company’s work promoting other films, including “Prince of Egypt,” “Jonah: a VeggieTale Movie” and “The Passion of the Christ.”

The promotional partnership has been virtually ignored by both the mainstream and Christian press (one notable exception being is a story published by The Christian Post).

Ross, who will hold advance screenings for Christian leaders, told Entertainment Weekly that he hopes pastors will refer to the film in their sermons. If so, will pastors read a statement to their congregations saying: “This seemingly gratuitous reference was made in exchange for free tickets and other promotional considerations provided by the makers of ‘The Road?’”

What would you do if you were the pastor of an ordinary evangelical church and a member of your flock suddenly became the most controversial person on this planet?

That is what happened to the Rev. Larry Kroon of Wasilla Bible Church when Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska became the GOP nominee to be vice president. To say that all heckfire broke loose would be an understatement. Kroon’s church was, quite literally, invaded by reporters from sea to shining sea and from, literally, all corners of the world.

The professionals showed up, of course. That would be the journalists who are experts at covering politics. After the first stage of hurricane Palin, Kroon realized that many or most of the reporters who were camped out on his church lawn had little or no interest in religion, his church or even the role that faith had played in Palin’s life and career. Many didn’t get it and they didn’t want to.

But, later, he came to realize that many of the reporters he was dealing with were interested in the facts of the story, they did care about accuracy, they wanted to “get religion,” if religion was truly a central part of the story. And — duh — religion was a pretty important factor in what was happening at Wasilla Bible Church. It helped to understand the language. It helped if a reporter didn’t view Kroon and his flock through a strictly partisan, political lens.

After the madness ended, Kroon sat down with a friend of mine — James Stamoolis, who is an educator and writer — and tried to process what he had learned about the news media. The goal was to create a set of tips for clergy, tips on how to work with the press if you want to do so, or have to do so.

I wish I could link to that document, because I think religion-beat professionals would find it interesting. However, it’s not online anywhere (yet). The key to the document is that Kroon came away with a profound respect for many of the journalists he met, while being highly critical of others. The key is trying to separate the journalists from the advocacy journalists, the pros who want information and the pros (or hacks) who want a soundbite that fits the story that is already written inside their heads.

With Palin’s “Going Rogue” memoir hitting the streets, I contacted Stamoolis and then reached Kroon. I’ll post a link to the Scripps Howard News Service column that resulted from that, as soon as one is available. But here are a few tips for religious leaders, drawn from Kroon’s experience (and a bonus point that came out of our discussions):

* Never accept an interview without confirming a reporter’s identity and his or her current employer. Just because someone has written for the Associated Press doesn’t mean that he isn’t currently a blogger for PalinIsAWitch.org or something like that.

* Help reporters understand that private communications between clergy and the faithful are, in fact, privileged and guarded by the same kinds of laws that shield reporters and their sources.

* Keep contact information for community leaders — such as telephone numbers and email addresses for church elders — in a firewall-protected section of your congregation’s website. Post contact information for staffers who are prepared to handle media requests in a timely manner.

* Ask if reporters or producers have experience covering religion news. Some journalists sincerely want factual information that will help them cover a story fairly and accurately, while others “are in a hurry and they simply want what they want. You may think you’re helping them understand who you are and what you believe, but they just want a good quote and then they’re moving on,” said Kroon.

* It may help to post information about your denomination or tradition, including frequently asked questions about worship, media relations, how the congregation is governed and the meaning of unique terms (such as “born again” or “charismatic”) that newcomers will encounter.

* Understand that a two-hour interview may be reduced to 20 seconds and that the journalist decides what goes in that soundbite. So avoid lectures and focus on the key points that you need to make to explain your congregation’s point of view. It’s also important to remember that silence is the reporter’s problem, not your problem.

And, finally, here is one more tip that grew out of our discussions. Long-time GetReligion readers will recognize this, I think.

* In the Internet age, there is no reason that a pastor cannot — as a condition for talking to a reporter — insist on the right to record and transcribe an interview. That way, the professionals on sides of the transaction know that they are on the record and the results, if needed to clarify a point, can be posted online or emailed to a publisher.

Once again, let me stress that Kroon truly came to see the difference between tough, honest, but informed reporters and those who were simply bashing away, trying to work an agenda.

When you see the whole Scripps column, you’ll see some of his quotes about that. In other words, Kroon decided that he is pro-journalism. He is pro-journalist. However, he is also profoundly aware that there are good journalists and there are very bad journalists and people who get caught in these kinds of media storms have to be careful, while they figure out who is who.

Politico ran a jaw-droppingly bad story on the role of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops in battles over abortion. It reads like a histrionic op-ed but it’s actually a news story. And it’s written by David Rogers, no less — a reporter who should know better.

The story accuses the bishops, without even the slightest attempt at substantiation, of racism and sexism. All in the first two paragraphs. No. really. Here’s the lede:

Thirty-three years ago this fall, a bitter, race-tinged fight over abortion matched Roman Catholic bishops and the House against the nation’s first popularly elected black senator, Republican Ed Brooke of Massachusetts.

And … that’s it. I guess we’re supposed to take Pope David Rogers’ words as the truth because he never even explains what in tarnation he’s talking about. The words “Brooke” and “race” literally never re-appear in the story. We move right on to the charge of sexism:

Now, with health care reform on the line, the same male-dominated church hierarchy is dictating to the first woman speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic herself and past ally for the bishops on everything from human rights in China to tax credits for low-income families.

Um, okay. Dictating? Really, Politico? This is just such a bizarre opening to a story, that I don’t even know what to say. Is Rogers really saying that the Catholic bishops only cared about Ed Brooke’s support of abortion because he was black? Is Rogers really considered “simply … the best congressional reporter in the country”? Because that’s just ignorant. I mean, I’m no historian or theologian but I’m pretty darn sure traditional Christians have opposed abortion for a couple thousand years. And not just when black Republicans support it.

And while the work of the bishops to keep taxpayer funding of abortion out of the health care bill is a great topic, I’m pretty sure political advocacy — even by churches — is legal. It’s not a sign of a theocracy or dictatorship. And it’s not like Pelosi’s sex is the reason why the bishops are working to get her to allow votes on abortion funding. It’s because of her position as Speaker of the House. Again, call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure the Catholic bishops would be pressing for an up-or-down Stupak vote even if the Speaker had a Y chromosome.

The rest of the story reads, like the first two paragraphs above, as a pro-choice op-ed. Here’s a sample:

“We have 53 million people already under Medicaid, and now we’re going to add about 33 million uninsured?” asked Richard Doerflinger, an associate director with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “It applies to a new situation, but it is not qualitatively a new situation.”

Or is it?

The political reality is the anti-abortion movement has largely succeeded in Washington by applying Hyde restrictions to what are captive populations reliant on the government.

The rest of the piece includes an argument in favor of health reform in general — written by the reporter of the “news article” himself. Then he explains how insurance companies marketing plans to individuals in the new government-run exchanges would have to tailor their health plans to comply with the restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortions. And this could even have spillover effects on people who don’t have insurance plans subsidized by taxpayers. Explaining that is not a bad idea for a story, although it’s only a brief portion here.

He then gets back into the politics, where he uses scary language to describe Catholics engaged in the political process:

Speaking in Baltimore on Monday, Chicago Cardinal Francis George, president of the USCCB, defended its tactics, saying the church must ensure that “issues that are moral questions before they become political remain moral questions when they become political.”

Watching it all with a special perspective is Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), who once studied for the priesthood and counseled the bishops to hold firm with the speaker and fellow leaders.

“They were wearing down. I told them time is on our side,” Kildee told POLITICO. “The Catholic Church is great at politics. They’ve been around for 2,000 years. If you go to the Vatican library, you can find correspondence between the pope and Genghis Khan.”

“What about the separation of church and state?” a reporter asked.

“In law,” Kildee said, smiling broadly. “Not in politics between the church and politically minded people.”

Gee, I wonder who the reporter was who asked the question about church and state? Perhaps the reason why Rogers wrote such an embarrassingly bad piece is because he (or another reporter) doesn’t understand what the First Amendment says or means? I don’t know, but Rogers clearly should not be permitted to write about anything related to the Catholic Church again — or until he deals with some of his anger issues.

Perhaps it’s time for some enterprising reporter to look at this trend of folks thinking separation of church and state means that Catholics shouldn’t have input in the political process. (Of course, this Washington Post poll indicates that 61 percent of Americans support the Stupak amendment principle, so it’s not just Catholics who are weighing in on the matter.) Still, it seems like there is a bit of a double standard about coverage of religious groups’ political activism. If you’re advancing progressive causes, you’re “speaking truth to power” but if you’re advancing conservative causes, you’re “dictating” and leading the country into theocracy.

For better, less angry reports on Catholic bishops’ involvement, check out the Washington Times, Associated Press and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

I realize that it’s a bit strange to discuss a news story from the New York Post on this here weblog. That urban tabloid isn’t exactly the kind of institution that one associates with nuanced writing about a complex news topic like religion, let alone the fine points of liturgy.

As it that weren’t enough, this particular story is about a controversial public figure, the kind of man who has endured events that inspire those famous tabloid headlines that the Post pros love so much.

So hang on. It’s time to pay another visit to Jim McGreevey, as the former governor of New Jersey continues in his quest to become an Episcopal priest.

Here’s the top of the short Post report Angela Montefinise:

“Gay American” Jim McGreevey is spending his Sunday mornings with a new man — Jesus.

The former New Jersey love gov has gone from Turnpike rest stops to the church rostrum as part of his training to become an Episcopal priest, working each weekend at All Saints Church in Hoboken.

That’s a lede that readers are either going to love or hate. Just skip over that, please. Instead, note that McGreevey is still training to become a priest. There is no indication that he has been ordained, even as a deacon. But it is precisely at this point that the story goes off the rails.

This isn’t a matter of Associated Press style or anything. It’s a matter of journalists not knowing what’s going on in a scene that is part of a news story.

McGreevey — who resigned from office in disgrace in 2004 — isn’t far enough along in his seminary studies to actually give sermons, but he assists the Rev. Geoffrey Curtiss at three Masses on Sunday and participates in parish programs, donation drives and activities.

During services last week, McGreevey, wearing a white robe, carried the cross during the processional, helped Curtiss bless the Eucharist and helped baptize a group of babies and young children.

Did you catch the problematic word? That would be “bless,” as in, “McGreevey … helped Curtiss bless the Eucharist.”

It would be accurate to say that he helped “during” the Eucharist, describing what he did as an acolyte after his role as the crucifer in the procession. Based on the descriptive material, that appears to have been his role in the service — not that different from the role that a senior altar boy or girl would have played in an Episcopal Church liturgy.

But “blessing” the Eucharist, which would have meant serving as a concelebrant in the Mass? How could he have done that? If, in fact, someone who has not been ordained as a priest did that, then the New York Post missed a very interesting story.

Otherwise, the newspaper simply needs to run a correction. Somebody got the rite wrong.

Who says there are no second acts in American religion? Ted Haggard, the former mega-pastor and evangelical leader who fell from grace in a 2006 gay sex scandal, launched his new church last week with a gathering of 100+ people at his home, located a stone’s throw from his former New Life Church.

Hometown religion reporter Mark Barna was there—at least for a brief press conference Haggard held before the gathering. The resulting article, “Haggard holds home prayer service: a night of redemption,” contained classic quotes of the kind that make Haggard’s followers swoon and his skeptics cringe:

“People here tonight believe in resurrection and me.”

Resurrection is a great hook. But forgiveness was the key doctrine explored in the article and follow-up pieces. Barna went further in “People repent, change — so give Haggard a chance,” a post on his blog, “The Pulpit.”

The Bible is filled with stories of spiritual transformation, few of them more famous than the story of Paul, who went from someone who murdered Christians to arguably the greatest teacher of the faith.

While the tale of Paul is extraordinary, there is no shortage of stories about people who have changed their lifestyle, sometimes dramatically, through Christian teachings or because they’ve suffered such hardships as a serious illness or financial downfall.

Barna quoted Haggard supporters who say he has paid his dues and repented. But one question I’ve heard some local Christians ask is: “Isn’t there a higher standard for leaders? Is forgiveness enough for a fallen pastor who has broken people’s trust and damaged the image of Christ’s church?”

Barna briefly addresses these concerns in his blog:

Well, that’s all fine and dandy, but should Haggard lead a church?

Well, why not? Many nondenominational evangelical pastors like Haggard have no academic training as a minister. They become a pastor by proclaiming it. They start a church or join one and work their way up.

And for every Bible passage (First Timothy 3:2) saying a minister of God must be beyond reproach, there is a story like Paul’s in which a repentant sinner is used by God for good.

I think Barna confuses two issues here: the issue of whether God can use a repentant sinner (like Paul) and the issue of what should done with a leader who essentially forsakes his call by wandering away from the truth he himself has proclaimed.

Barna also reports that Haggard, who did not complete the program of recovery dictated to him by spiritual advisors, has now selected his own team of advisors to whom he says he will be accountable. Haggard’s certainly not the first leader in the evangelical/charismatic community to pull this (as Charisma magazine editor Lee Grady frequently points out in his editorials).

Once again, Haggard supporters sing “Hosannas” and others say, “Here we go again.” Should Barna have dealt more with questions of leadership rather than forgiveness? Perhaps. But many readers are saying they want to be done with the whole issue. To them we say: Good luck.

Last Sunday, the Rev. Susan Slaughter was ordained to the priesthood in The Episcopal Church. This is newsworthy because her ordination took place in Ft. Worth. This is where things get a bit tricky. There are two groups purporting to be the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth. That’s because most Episcopalians there left The Episcopal Church just about one year ago. Here’s how the Dallas Morning News put it at the time:

The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth officially broke from the Episcopal Church on Saturday, becoming the fourth U.S. diocese to withdraw since late last year.

Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker championed the move, arguing that the national church has strayed from orthodox Christian faith in various ways, including ordaining female priests, allowing the blessing of same-sex unions and having an openly gay bishop.

“The Episcopal Church we once knew no longer exists. It’s been hijacked,” Bishop Iker said.

By about an overwhelming margin, clergy and lay delegates to the diocese’s annual convention approved seceding from the Episcopal Church and realigning with a conservative, Argentina-based province of the Anglican Communion.

You can find that Episcopal Diocese of Forth Worth at fwepiscopal.org. The Episcopal Church maintains a presence there and you can find that Episcopal Diocese of Forth Worth episcopaldiocesefortworth.org. When three-quarters of the members of the diocese realigned, property was divvied up so that those that remained with The Episcopal Church kept their property and those that realigned with other Anglicans kept their property. But the national church body sued for all of the property and that case is going through the courts now.

So there’s this ordination and Jim Jones wrote it up for the Star-Telegram. It’s a nice write-up that explains how excited those in The Episcopal Church are about the ordination. Here’s a bit about why:

The Fort Worth Diocese, under the leadership of Iker and other bishops, was one of the few to refuse the ordination of women, though the national church has supported it since 1976.

At a high point of the ordination, Gulick, joined by other priests, laid their hands on Slaughter’s head, and the bishop said, “Give your holy spirit to Susan; fill her with grace and power, and make her a priest in your church.”

Much of the subtext of the article is about the fact that Ft. Worth chose not to change its practice on the ordination of women when the national church body changed its teaching on the matter 30 years ago, but there’s very little discussion of that debate or an explanation as to why church bodies do or don’t ordain women.

But check out that last paragraph. The “high point” of the ordination is the consecration. Here’s how it looks in the Book of Common Prayer:

Here the Bishop lays hands upon the head of the ordinand, the Priests who are present also laying on their hands. At the same time the Bishop prays

Therefore, Father, through Jesus Christ your Son, give your Holy Spirit to N.; fill him with grace and power, and make him a priest in your Church.

Now, unless the Ft. Worth Diocese has undergone a radical theological revolution, I’m pretty sure that the formula the bishop used was Trinitarian. It’s not that Star-Telegram completely misquoted the bishop, but you can no more write up this consecration formula this way than you can say that a new Christian was baptized in the name of “the Holy Spirit.”

These words mean a lot to Episcopalians and the precise wording of the formula is extremely important. It’s not coincidental that this Trinitarian blessing is a “high point” of the ordination. To make it into a blessing that doesn’t mention Jesus Christ and only mentions the Father via implication doesn’t do the rite justice. Oh, and the Holy Spirit has, in terms of Associated Press style, been downgraded to the “holy spirit,” as well. Tmatt will love that.

Now, the reporter Jim Jones is an old Godbeat professional, so I wonder if the quote wasn’t mangled by a copy editor or someone else in the process. I also note that this story says that Jones wrote it as a “special” to the Star-Telegram. I don’t keep up with these things as well as I should but I wonder where, exactly, Jones is now. He’s one of the religion reporters who goes way back to the era when religion coverage meant a lot of stories about mainline Protestants. He covered the beat well at the Star-Telegram — and for many years. He also wrote a column for a while.

For those interested in the story, there’s a real friendly profile of Slaughter — also by Jones — that preceded her ordination here.

Science and faith can come at odds for some couples who consider the implications of in vitro fertilization. The Chicago Tribune recently tackled this struggle with a focus on the Potters, a suburban Chicago couple who must decide the fate of two embryos that were not implanted in the womb.

Mollie has lamented how little the media discusses such a common practice, so kudos to the reporter for finding a couple that would be so open about their predicament. The reporter also explains the science behind in vitro fertilization, showing the couple’s options:

They could place the embryos in the womb for gestation when they are ready to have more children. Another couple could adopt the embryos. They could donate to science. Or they could thaw the embryos and discard them.

The faithful predicament is somewhat buried, but we find out that Adriana Potter is a lapsed Roman Catholic who believes that the most life-affirming choice would be to donate the embryos to research.

The freedom to make that decision without condemnation is one of the many factors Adriana finds appealing about the Methodist church, where the couple will baptize their children right before Christmas. Raised Roman Catholic in Brazil, Adriana began to drift after a heart-wrenching divorce.

The first part of this quote makes it seem like churches who do give specific direction on in vitro fertilization are condemning. Perhaps that is what Adriana thinks, but it would have been nice to hear it from her. Also, since she is a lapsed Catholic, does faith still inform her decision?

Anyway, her husband Robert Potter, a lifelong Methodist, would rather donate the embryos to an adopting couple.

Robert Potter imagines having more children to fulfill God’s mandate to be fruitful and multiply. But if they decide to have no more, he favors donating the embryos for another couple to do the same. Viable embryos should not be taken for granted, he said.
“It’s not just a moral (issue). It’s a waste,” he said. “Why would you waste an opportunity if it’s a good one?”
… Robert doesn’t trust that every embryo fulfills a greater purpose. He can’t imagine sentencing two potential children to short lives that would end in a laboratory.

Towards the end of the article, the couple’s pastor, The Rev. Norma Lee Barnhart, pastor of Elmhurst First Methodist Church shows how she guides her members through these decisions.

The Methodist church endorses stem cell research, though it doesn’t dictate that’s what a couple should choose. Citing First Corinthians 13:12, a letter the apostle Paul wrote 2,000 years ago describing the process of maturing in one’s faith, she prescribes time and patience.

“In our faith those decisions are made by the person with God’s help and with the help of the church community,” she said.

“If we just live with the ambiguity of the unknown and try to stay in the moment, eventually God gives us the answers we need in the time that we need them.”

Although this particular Methodist pastor endorses stem cell research (what about embryonic stem cell research?) and does not give guidance on what a couple should choose, the United Methodist denomination does offer more specifics.

For this reason we should not create embryos with the intention of destroying them, as in the creation of embryos for research purposes. Neither should we, even for reproductive purposes, produce more embryos than we can expect to introduce into the womb in the hope of implantation.

Does this pastor realize that she is contradicting her denomination’s position? Perhaps this is an area where the reporter could have probed a little bit.

The Tribune also offers a sidebar on a developing think tank that plans to create a kit to share with patients about the range of perspectives. The sidebar quotes a Rabbi and a Lutheran pastor, but it doesn’t tell us where they stand on the issue. The article says that “the [Catholic] church cautions against IVF,” and the final quote from a member of the Chicago Archdiocese’s bioethics commission might make you think that the Catholic Church could be on the fence about the issue.

“The real solution is not to create the problem at all,” he said. “In the end, Catholic moralists would say they have to sit down with a priest with some background in these questions who can work out what the various implications are … and try to guide them toward a responsible decision.”

Donum Vitae makes the Catholic church’s position quite clear: “The practice of keeping alive human embryos in vivo or in vitro for experimental or commercial purposes is totally opposed to human dignity.”

You only get so much space in a sidebar, but it would be helpful to see summaries of theological stances instead of a few vague quotes on how couples often consult religion in making these decisions. If the couple is willing to talk some more, it would be nice to see a follow up with the couple to find out what impacted their final decision.

Typically, we refer to a person studying to be a rabbi, like the newly crowned WBA junior middleweight champ Yuri Foreman, as a rabbinical student, not a rabbi-to-be. The Los Angeles Times got it right; USA Today got it wrong. But the LAT failed to deliver even a light body blow to the broader tale of Talmud and the tape. The first word of sports reporter Kevin Baxter’s article about Foreman is “rabbinical” — and not another mention of anything related to Judaism.

The best story I’ve read about Foreman was delivered by The New York Times last year. It likened the blow-by-blow assault of Talmudic examination to the battery of boxing.

But such a thoughtful story isn’t necessary. In reporting on the boxing success of Israel’s first champ, who happens to be a rabbinic student, Haaretz, the liberal Israeli daily, gives a good model. The article is clearly written toward a Jewish audience, which allows the reporter to assume some knowledge but doesn’t leave them with nothing but their own inferences:

Foreman is a rare combination of power and smarts. He comes from a poor family that immigrated to Israel after the collapse of the Soviet Union. His father works in Haifa as a mechanic, but Yuri moved to New York nearly a decade ago. A few years later, he began studying in a Brooklyn yeshiva to become an ordained Orthodox rabbi.

He has a very strict schedule, studying Torah in the morning and doing intense physical training both inside and out of the ring in the afternoon. He does a lot of weight lifting, running and fitness training. …

“It’s a fact we had 12 tough rounds, but thank God every time I got back into the ring for more I said prayers in my heart, and it worked,” he said after the fight. “If you ask me what my strength is, I’ll tell you it’s in my brain. I run around the ring and keep thinking. I think I need to prove to everyone, not just myself, to the whole world that Jews know how to fight, that Jews know how to give a good fight and not surrender. I said it right after the fight, when they pushed the microphones at me and the cameras clicked. I said I wanted to prove that Jews are not a weak people that can be made to bend down and surrender, that Jews know how to fight and win. Actually, there are a lot of Jewish champions in the history of sports.”

Yes, I would have appreciated a little more of a window into the reasoning behind Foreman’s comment — then again, I’m well-versed in the stereotype of weak Jews. (Don’t tell Scot Mendelson.)

But what I appreciated about this article was it mentioned Foreman’s status as a rabbinic student without getting hung up on that in what, at the end of the day, was a sporting event recap. More importantly, though, the Haaretz reporter didn’t feel it was necessarily to avoid the religious import that Foreman wanted to give to his victory and his mission as a Jewish boxer, too.

As a rule, GetReligion doesn’t deal with opinion columns. However, the headline on this fiercely opinionated effort by Petula Dvorak of the Washington Post really caught my eye the other day:

Catholic officials shouldn’t forsake D.C.’s poor in gay marriage fight

The issue, once again, is the announcement by the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., to stop accepting city government money for social-work programs rather than change its doctrines to fit in with the District’s plans to legalize gay marriages. Of course, the city already has some gay-rights laws on the books and, so far, it appears that the church has managed to find ways to hire gays and lesbians who still support the church’s teachings. But now a new line about to be drawn and everyone is dealing with it — including the press.

For Dvorak, this means that Catholic leaders are about the throw the poor out into the streets, proving that the archbishop and his troops are, in reality, bad Christians. Thus, we read:

By trying to play political hardball with the District, no matter how carefully they word their objection to the bill, officials at the Archdiocese of Washington and Catholic Charities are telling our city’s most vulnerable people — homeless families, sick children, low-income mothers — that they are willing to throw them on the table as a bargaining chip.

What the Church is doing is an uncharitable and cruel maneuver.

But here is my journalistic problem. Look at the headline again.

Has the church said anything about cutting the amount of money that it spends on the poor? If anything, I would imagine that church officials will — when the city money is cut off — move heaven and earth in an attempt to raise more money on their own in order to continue as many of these ministries as they can at current levels. Is it “forsaking the poor” for the church to decline to compromise on its doctrine in order to work with the city, if the church continues to invest as much of its own resources on the poor as before? Is that an accurate way — in terms of basic journalism — to frame the issue?

After all, the city can turn to the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, Reform Jews, Unitarians and others who are willing to accept its new mandates on moral theology. The city has other options. It can go ahead and spend its money. Right? Surely these other churches can step up and cooperate and do the work?

If you think this isn’t a religious issue for Dvorak, read on:

The problem is that taking a stand like this goes against the mission of the Church and the important lessons it has taught millions of followers.

I’m not going to make this an argument in favor of same-sex marriage. Anyone who opposes such basic civil rights will find themselves on the wrong side of history. It’s a civil rights issue, and I believe the argument should end right there. But in this case, the message the Church is sending with its actions is wrong, and it has left me and countless other Catholics heartbroken.

Now, I know that this is a column. I totally understand that Dvorak has every right to state the issue in this manner and the Post has every right to run her column. She is also candid, confessing that she now stands on the outer fringe of the church in which she was raised, clearly because she strongly disagrees with many of its doctrines.

Meanwhile, over in the newspaper’s hard-news pages, this is what we read, as the writers and reporters face this collision between gay rights and religious liberty:

“It’s a dangerous thing when the Catholic Church starts writing and determining the legislation and the laws of the District of Columbia,” said council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), chairman of the Human Services Committee.

Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, countered that the city is “the one giving the ultimatum.”

“We are not threatening to walk out of the city,” Gibbs said. “The city is the one saying, ‘If you want to continue partnering with the city, then you cannot follow your faith teachings.’ “

Under the bill, headed for a council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Church officials say Catholic Charities would have to suspend its social services work for the city, rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.

Other than the usual vague language about “religious organizations” — a term that could apply to all kinds of groups, with different rights under our nation’s history of church-state separation — that’s actually pretty straight forward. Note that church officials are allowed to accurately state that its charities would have to “suspend its social services work for the city,” not suspend its social services work — period. That’s a crucial fact.

And later, we read:

D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) said he plans to meet with his colleagues Friday to discuss the issue. But he added, “I don’t know where the compromise would be.

“It seems to me if they choose not to provide those services, we will have to find someone else,” Gray said.

Yes, they will. And this story is not likely to go away any time soon. As the Post team notes:

Linda C. McClain, a law professor at Boston University who is studying the same-sex marriage debate nationwide, said the outcome of the standoff between the District and the Church could have far-reaching implications for other states.

“This case really pits the commitment to religious freedom against the importance of anti-discrimination,” McClain said. “The courts have been pretty clear that you can’t force a religious organization to express a message it doesn’t agree with. … But it’s a tougher case to say you won’t be able to provide services to the poor because of this.”

But there is the point, again, that journalists must grasp. The city is rejecting the church on a crucial point of doctrine, as it is free to do (subject to the actions of voters and courts). The church is also free to reject the city, in defense of 2,000 years of teaching on this particular issue.

The city is poised to make a choice and, then, will try to do its work. The church will strive to do its work, as best it can. From the church’s perspective, governments come and go.

Meanwhile, the doctrines have clashed and that is that. Is the church rejecting the poor? The skilled professionals in the Post newsroom need to think twice before they draw that conclusion from the current facts.

A reminder: We will be discussing the journalistic decisions made in these two Post articles, not the subject of same-sex marriage and the Catholic Church’s teachings on that doctrinal issue. Think journalism.