Since I love analyzing media coverage of the liturgical calendar, there is no way I could let this story from The Telegraph go without comment. Apparently, some Dutch Catholics are trying to encourage folks to embrace the penitential season of Lent. That’s the good news:
Dutch Catholics have re-branded the Lent fast as the “Christian Ramadan” in an attempt to appeal to young people who are more likely to know about Islam than Christianity.
The Catholic charity Vastenaktie, which collects for the Third World across the Netherlands during the Lent period, is concerned that the Christian festival has become less important for the Dutch over the last generation.
“The image of the Catholic Lent must be polished. The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent,” said Vastenaktie Director, Martin Van der Kuil.
Kudos to the reporters who found the story. Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant first covered the story at the beginning of Lent. And most reporters have put the story in context. Here’s how Bruno Waterfield at The Telegraph handled it:
Three decades ago the Catholic Church was as strict as many Muslims are about Ramadan with a total ban on meat and alcohol during the 40-day Lenten period between Ash Wednesday and Easter.
Most Dutch Catholics now focus on charitable work after the Vatican loosened fasting strictures for all but the first and last days of Lent back in 1967.
Four million Dutch describe themselves as Roman Catholics and 400,000 people attend Mass every week but only a few tens of thousands still mark Lent by fasting, said Mr Van der Kuil
Vastenaktie organisers hope that by linking the festival to Ramadan they can remind Christians who may be less observant than Muslims of the “spirituality and sobriety” of Lent.
I hope that follow-up stories consider the implications of this rebranding of Lent. What does it mean that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young Dutch than Lent? It’s easy to write the first story but rebranding Lent as Ramadan is a symptom of a larger condition and one that could use some sensible reporting.
 | Posted at 11:09 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (16) |
February 14, 2008, at 12:14 pm
Lent is not a “festival”; it is a penitential season.
There has never been a total ban on meat and alcohol in Lent. Where did they get this ?
February 14, 2008, at 12:32 pm
It is a strange use of the word festival, but I think it’s likely the reporter wasn’t writing in his or her first language.
The descriptions of Ramadan however make it clear that they’re not trying to make Lent more festive but more relevant. Nothing is festive about fasting.
This story shows that Muslim culture is more pervasive in parts of Europe than Christian culture.
People know what Muslims do but they don’t know what Christians do. Lent is a bit complex. I can imagine Jay Leno on the street with a camera asking people about the Christian festivals of Christmas and Easter and what they mean. Is there any reason to expect people to know?
February 14, 2008, at 12:49 pm
Mollie,
Thanks for the “larger condition” link at the end of your piece. That writer at Ignatius Press blog gave me a good belly laugh with his re-branding of Holy Water as Catholic Gatorade, among other silly redefinitions.
Hey, we need to speak to people in terms they understand. And if Ramadan is more readily associated with fasting than Lent, then maybe repackaging, or at least, re-translating, is in order.
~eric.
February 14, 2008, at 1:10 pm
Julia,
While the history of the Lenten fast has been marked by diversity, a ban on meat and alcohol was indeed part of the Western Church’s tradition for a many years:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm
Note the key passage: “But the ordinary rule on fasting days was to take but one meal a day and that only in the evening, while meat and, in the early centuries, wine were entirely forbidden.”
February 14, 2008, at 4:34 pm
Julia,
In the Eastern Christian tradition, it is still the practice to refrain from meat, fish and dairy (and from wine during the weekdays) during Lent.
I understand that until Vatican II, Roman Catholics also abstained from meat other than fish during Lent, and that even now they continue this practice on Lenten Fridays. Not so sure about the alcohol part. So the phrase “total ban” may be a exaggeration (and of course, it also depends on how one defines “meat”).
February 14, 2008, at 6:14 pm
“What does it mean that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young Dutch than Lent?”
Why should this be surprising? Many European countries have very, very low percentages of practicing Christians, and I suspect schools there treat multiculturalism similarly to here in America where you can go into all sorts of detail about Kwanzaa and Ramadan in the classroom but not Christianity. So, again, why should this be a surprise?
February 14, 2008, at 6:37 pm
“When someone asked him what the Bible was, he replied that it was a kind of Christian version of the Koran.” — YES,PRIME MINISTER
February 14, 2008, at 11:18 pm
I’m sure it was an excellent analogy for the reporter to use in that nation, but I’m also certain it’s going to be seen incredibly shocking to Christians elsewhere nontheless that the KNOWN quantity is Ramadan, while the unknown one is Lent.
Reporting on the REACTION to the analogy may be a good ‘second day story’ here.
February 15, 2008, at 10:12 am
The reporter is not talking about ancient practices. He is saying that 30 years ago meat and alcohol were totally banned. That’s not accurate.
I’m a 63 years old Catholic and remember the Catholic practices when I was in my 30s as well as high school in the 50s before Vatican II. There was no total ban on meat and alcohol. We ate a lot more fish sticks, grilled cheese and pancakes than we do today. But there was no total ban on meat and my dad still had his Manhattan after work. In any case, you always got Sundays off.
Within my memory, we were allowed more than one meal a day. But the other two meals together could not add up to one “full” meal. You were on your honor to figure that out. Some people were laborers and required more food to keep up their strength. I do believe that meat was allowed only at that evening meal and no meat at all on Fridays - as was the case, anyway.
Please note that the Catholic Encyclopedia on-line is from about 1913 and is not current. Still, the article ends with provisions not too different from what I was familiar with pre-Vatican II; some differences: we were not limited to meat once a day throught the entire year and there was no prohibition of fish and meat at the same meal.
February 15, 2008, at 1:59 pm
Julia,
Your original statement was “There has never been a total ban on meat and alcohol in Lent,” the operative word being “never.” My point was that this is mistaken. A book from 1913 shows that as clearly as a book published tomorrow.
February 15, 2008, at 2:06 pm
Incidentally, the reason I pointed it out is not to be a pedant, but (believe it or not), to make a point about journalism. A lot of the folks who post here like to jump on journalists at every given opportunity, parsing every sentence and Harvard comma for evidence of bad faith. In many instances, though, it’s not that simple, and often slip-ups are a product of writing quickly, sloppy editing, or just not being entirely familiar with a subject.
When Julia wrote “There has never been a total ban on meat and alcohol in Lent,” she likely meant - as she said - there was not such a ban in living memory. But in the heat of the moment, she typed “never,” which is inaccurate. That kind of thing happens all the time to people who are working under tight deadlines, often in subject areas that are new and unfamiliar to them.
I have no problem with pointing out those gaffes and mistakes. I also agree 100 percent that they would be reduced if media outlets made a greater effort to steer religion-savvy reporters into religion beats, which I know is one of the central contentions of this Web site. But I hope that people can refrain from assuming bad faith in every instance of error, where more innocent explanations are possible.
February 15, 2008, at 4:28 pm
I shouldn’t have been so quick to say “never” and I will never say “never” again.
February 15, 2008, at 6:21 pm
Julia,
“What, ‘Never’?
‘Well, hardly ever…’”
Ego te absolvo. You can still be the Captain of the Pinafore.
FCZ+
February 18, 2008, at 8:15 am
HAS Lent been “re-branded”?
February 18, 2008, at 9:35 am
[…] In an attempt to revive an ancient spiritual practice, Catholics in Holland have “re-branded” Lent. I’m not sure what this says about Europe, but it’s sure a sign of the times – Christian Ramadan? […]
February 18, 2008, at 1:32 pm
There is one major difference between Ramadan and Lent:
Ramadan is one of the five pillars of Islam, (and I think is mandated in the Koran).
Lent is observed by many Christians, and is an official practice of the Catholic church (and others?). However, keeping Lent is not commanded or even mentioned in the Bible, and is not a defining feature of being a Christian.
Being a Christian is not about observing practices to earn God’s favour (however helpful they may be for other reasons)- that comes solely through his grace & mercy.
So, while there are obvious superficial similarities, the underlying reasons are completely different.