morality

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who is Archbishop Fernandez? What is his theology? That depends on who you read in the press

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Who is Archbishop Fernandez? What is his theology? That depends on who you read in the press

The doctrines that govern Catholicism have been very much in the news this summer.

This isn’t normal with the mainstream press. So, why is this the case?

This question has several answers. The Synod of Synodality, a multi-year process involving bishops and parishioners, could very well change church doctrine on a number of key issues. (See this recent tmatt post and podcast for more background.)

The second involves the pope’s recent appointment of Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernandez as Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Both are connected in that they have to do with the future direction of the church and Pope Francis’ legacy. This pontiff very much wants to leave a lasting impression on the global church, in part acting through the synod, and Cardinal-elect Fernandez could very well help shape it. Let’s face it, it has been a very busy news cycle since my last post on the media coverage (and non-coverage) of the synod.

The other major question reporters need to ask themselves is this one: Who is Archbishop Fernandez and why does any of this matter?

It depends on who you read in the Catholic press. Like a Supreme Court nominee, the man now tasked with overseeing church doctrine — and possibly making changes going forward — is seen as a controversial choice. This is especially true in contrast to the most famous recent theologian who held this post, as in Cardinal Ratzinger Joseph Ratzinger, who became the very orthodox Pope Benedict XVI.

Like Francis, Fernandez is an Argentine and soon-to-be cardinal after the pontiff announced a new consistory this past Sunday where 21 men will be given red hats on Sept. 30.

Again, why does this matter?

It matters because the cardinal who heads the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith — an office dating back to the 1500s — wields much power and is automatically considered what Italian press calls papabile (which translates into “popeable), meaning a candidate who can be pope someday.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

USA Today: Americans are more divided than ever, but religion plays no role in this split

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

While lawyers and pundits (and Donald Trump) keep fighting, it has been pretty easy for news consumers to see the big picture after the 2020 elections: America is as divided in 2020 as it was in 2016.

After four years of apocalyptic rhetoric on both sides, a few thousand votes in several key zip codes could have swung the White House race. Republicans — strong in down-ballot races — gained ground in the U.S. House and held the high ground in most state races. The fact that control of the U.S. Senate will come down to a two-seat election in Georgia was a new wrinkle, but the divisions there there are oh so familiar.

How many op-ed words have a read, in the past week, trying to describe the nature of this divide? I’m scared to make a guess.

Most people can spot the blue urban coasts vs. red heartland divide. Then again, there are blotches of red in most blue states and bright-blue cities in the reddest of red states (hello friends in the People’s Republic of Austin, Texas). Location, location, location.

However, it’s easy to see evidence of America’s battles over religious liberty and sexual liberation, along with the many specific political battles linked to that divide. Joe Biden rode a surge of votes from the growing ranks of the religiously unaffiliated and urban singles, while Republicans (including Trump) were the choice of Americans (keep your eye on Hispanics) who most frequently attend worship services. The “pew gap” remains a reality in American politics.

Everyone can see that, right?

Maybe not. Out of all of the news coverage and analysis that I read, one specific USA Today feature stood out as a perfect summary of the tone-deaf state of far too many members of the American chattering classes. The headline on this news piece, which was not labeled “analysis,” stated: “A close presidential election deepens the nation's divide. How do we live together now?”

The word “soul” made it into the lede — #HURRAH) — but that was that, in terms of attention to the role that religious faith plays in American life. The divide, you seem, has something to do with “morality,” but not religion. Here’s the overture:

During the presidential campaign, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden referred to the 2020 election as a fight for the “soul” of America. If this week has showed anything, it's that the country is still painfully divided on what America is and what it should become.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Sin and money: In the Deep South, why one state seems more willing to embrace gambling

, , , ,

In my time with The Associated Press in Nashville, Tenn., I spent months covering the 2002 battle over a proposed state lottery.

Before Tennessee voters went to the polls that November, I wrote a story explaining why religious opponents had avoided portraying the referendum as a "moral issue."

From that story, which ran on the national political wire:

“To win, we could not make it a preacher issue,” said the Rev. Paul Durham, a Southern Baptist pastor and treasurer for the Gambling Free Tennessee Alliance. “We had to make it a truth issue.”

The campaign’s lack of Bible thumping reflects political and theological realities in the battle over lifting a constitutional ban on a lottery. Polls have consistently shown most Tennesseans – those in the pews and otherwise – see no inherent evil in the concept of a lottery.

“Since 47 states have gambling, I would have to think God’s not really against it,” said state Sen. Steve Cohen, a Democrat and the state’s chief lottery proponent.

As it turned out, the lottery proposal passed easily — winning support from 58 percent of the nearly 1.6 million Tennesseans who voted.

I was reminded of the Volunteer State's experience when I read a New York Times piece Sunday making the case that "Alabama's Longtime Hostility to Gambling Shows Signs of Fading." Among those pushing for a lottery vote: both major-party gubernatorial candidates nominated last week.

The Times' lede:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
,

High Country News ruminates on god, spirituality, wolves, bison and wild morality

,

I first heard of High Country News this past year from the copies stacked in the conference room of the University of Alaska-Fairbanks journalism department, which is where I taught this past year. 

For starters I was delighted to find a publication that covered the Rocky Mountain West, in any way, shape or form. It’s based in western Colorado (Paonia, to be exact) and covers environmental, land use and public lands issues.

So I was interested in a recent piece on HCN’s site that is an author interview: “Can studying morality help Yellowstone’s wolves and bison?” There’s a photo of a wolf with the caption: "Majestic spiritual icon, or religious abomination? Depends whom you ask."

Here are some excerpts from a discussion with sociologist Justin Farrell:

HCN: It seems like wolves epitomize the “what is wildlife good for” debate. Some outsiders assume that the people who hate wolves hate them for economic reasons -- they’re ranchers and hunters who are worried about livestock and game. But you say people seem morally opposed to wolves. What’s the source of that opposition? 
JF: One of the primary feelings I heard is that individual rights are being infringed upon by the federal government. The reintroduced wolves came from Canada, so there’s also the fact that people see the wolf as an “immigrant” -- a word that brings up a lot of connotations right now. The wolf links to all sorts of other issues in American politics that go well beyond the Yellowstone area.
HCN: People often oppose wolves in religious terms, too -- it’s an animal that symbolizes man losing dominion over the earth.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Time magazine claims that Bible-ness is next to Godliness

, , , , ,

An old Salvation Army musical production — the kind of church entertainment often aimed at youngsters and teen-agers — had a catchy little chorus about that Christian group’s fabled “slum sisters” of years ago, whose work in tenements was legendary: Those words came to mind as I read a rather astonishing Time magazine online piece that seems to put a whole lot of, well, faith in a survey undertaken by the Barna Group for the American Bible Society:

The two least “Bible-minded” cities in the United States are the adjacent metros of Providence, R.I., and New Bedford, Mass., according to a study out Wednesday from the American Bible Society.

The study defines “Bible-mindedness” as a combination of how often respondents read the Bible and how accurate they think the Bible is. “Respondents who report reading the bible within the past seven days and who agree strongly in the accuracy of the Bible are classified as ‘Bible Minded,’” says the study’s methodology.


Please respect our Commenting Policy