Catholicism

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

Pope Francis exits U.S. stage: Time for thumbsuckers explaining what it all meant

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

The pope has come. The pope has gone. Now it is time for mainstream journalists to tell us what it all meant, to show readers the big picture and to reveal larger truths about what Pope Francis said and, maybe, even about what he should have said.

There's more to this process than news, of course.

About a decade ago, New York Times editor Bill Keller -- yes, the man who soon after his retirement offered the "Kellerism" doctrines -- told an audience of young journalists that his newspaper had changed its credo. He told them: "We long ago moved from 'All the News That's Fit to Print,' to 'All the News You Need to Know, and What It Means.' "

The theologians at the great Gray Lady got started even before the pope was gone, offering a "thumbsucker" analysis piece on Sunday A1 (even thought it was not labeled "analysis") that said the "pastoral" tone used by Pope Francis was a loss for conservatives, who wanted him to defend doctrine. The Times team did note that the pope offered no comments that supported the doctrinal left, either. Thus, the bottom line: Compassion is the opposite of doctrinal orthodoxy. Click here for my earlier post on that.

The thumb-sucking process continued in American papers yesterday. The Times weighed in, once again, with a piece stressing that the pope showed a "deft touch" when handling issues in American politics (since we all know that politics are what ultimately matter):

... Mostly Francis demonstrated a nuanced political dexterity, effectively sidestepping the familiar framework of American debate while charting his own broader path. He advocated “life” but emphasized opposition to the death penalty, not abortion. He made strong stands for religious freedom -- a major issue for American bishops -- but refocused the concept on interfaith tolerance and harmony.


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

Pope wades into culture war; Washington Post avoids calling it

, , , , , , , , ,

The freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, according to the old saying. The stickler, of course, has to do with how far you reach and whether I move my nose.

Such issues are woven into the Washington Post's indepth on questions of freedom raised by Pope Francis' six-day visit to the United States, which he finished yesterday. The article's three reporters, with GetReligion alumna Sarah Pulliam Bailey as the lead writer, do a great job of covering the waterfront.

But they also take some perhaps unnecessary side excursions. And I get the sense that just maybe, they really, really wanted to make some definite conclusions.

The WaPo team quotes six well-chosen sources, including a pollster, two religious liberty experts, a philosophy professor, a constitutional law expert and a religion consultant with the ACLU. Yet they cover this broad topic in less than 1,100 words.

This story is cast in two ways. It drops in at three sites Pope Francis visited where freedom is especially important: Philadelphia, near the Liberty Bell; the White House, where Francis visited President Obama; and at the United Nations, where the pope called for an end to persecution of Christians.

The article also tries to weigh how much the pope was drawing on his own lights, and how much he was listening to American bishops. For the latter, of course, the battles swirl around gays and Obamacare:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Huh!? Aboard papal plane, Francis backs Kim Davis, disputes notion of Catholic divorce?

, , , , , ,

Some of our favorite Godbeat reporters -- exhausted after days and even weeks of chronicling Pope Francis' first-ever trip to the United States -- celebrated the papal plane's takeoff Sunday night.

But even in the air -- on his way home from Philadelphia -- Pope Francis keeps making headlines. As in, on some of the very topics that American journalists stressed that he avoided while on the ground in the United States.

And as always seems to be the case with Francis, his statements aboard the papal plane defied the easy media narrative of a pope at odds with conservative Catholics.

From Reuters:

ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (Reuters) – Pope Francis said on Monday government officials have a “human right” to refuse to discharge a duty, such as issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, if they feel it violates their conscience. ...
On the flight back to Rome, he was asked if he supported individuals, including government officials, who refuse to abide by some laws, such as issuing marriage licences to gays.
“Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right,” Francis said.
Earlier this month a city official in the U.S. state of Kentucky, Kim Davis, went to jail because she refused to issue a marriage licence to a gay couple following a Supreme Court decision to make homosexual marriage legal.
Davis’s case has taken on national significance in the 2016 presidential campaign, with one Republican contender, Mike Huckabee, holding rallies in favour of Davis, a Apostolic Christian, who has since joined the Republican party.
“I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right,” he said, speaking in Italian.

Time religion writer Elizabeth Dias is a part of the press contingent that joined Francis on the papal plane:


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

Thus saith The New York Times: Compassion is the opposite of Catholic doctrine

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

In the end, the Jesuit pope added to the debates, but did not openly address the key doctrines linked to marriage and sexuality that are causing so much tension in his flock, as in so many others.

Don't take my word on this. We have The New York Times saying on the record that the pope kept speaking in a pastoral tone, asking his shepherds to be more loving and compassionate as they strive to welcome wayward Catholics back into the sacramental fold. But did he actual show his hand in terms of the cards he may or not play on the truly explosive doctrinal issues, such as changing the contents of the Catholic Catechism on divorce and gay sex?

In a remarkably blunt sermon from the Times -- which ran above the fold on Sunday's A1, with no hint of an "analysis" label -- this was the ultimate word:

Those who know Francis said they did not expect his other remarks this weekend to give fodder to conservatives or, for that matter, directly address the issues in the church that liberal Catholics have championed.

So no words of support for the doctrinal right, but also no words of explicit support for those who want to change church teachings.

But wait, what was the headline on that story? 

A Pastoral Pope, Slipping Conservatives’ Grasp

And the crucial Times proclamation -- note the word "seemed" -- to support that? 


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

Got news? So this powerful cardinal claims he helped oust Benedict and elect Francis

, , , , , , , , , , ,

As Pope Francis-mania rolls into its final hours in the Acela zone, The National Catholic Register -- part of the Eternal Word Television Network operation -- has tossed a genuinely unsettling story into the news mix, along with its stack of glowing papal news reports. This shocker contains one or two crucial facts that cannot be denied, yet ultimately stands on the word of one very controversial cardinal.

The problem is that this cardinal has very little incentive, at this moment in time, to making an outrageous claim -- that he was part of an organized coup that all but forced Pope Benedict XVI to resign. The goal of the coup was to elect the man who became Pope Francis.

So, we have one of those "Got news?" stories that jumps straight into, you got it, conservative social media and news -- alone. The question is whether a similar story linked to a less popular pope would have, because of the timing, received major play in the American mainstream press. 

Here's the top of the National Catholic Register report by Edward Pentin, which apparently echoes coverage in La Stampa in the Italy. Read carefully. You are looking for the one word, and one word alone, that should matter to mainstream reporters evaluating this material:

Further serious concerns are being raised about Cardinal Godfried Danneels, one of the papal delegates chosen to attend the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family, after the archbishop emeritus of Brussels confessed this week to being part of a radical "mafia" reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI.
It was also revealed this week that he once wrote a letter to the Belgium government favoring same-sex "marriage" legislation because it ended discrimination against LGBT groups.

A quick comment: Passive voice in two straight paragraphs is NOT how a reporter builds credibility with savvy readers. But read on:


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

Tears or fears? The pope, the speaker, prayers and some amazing quotes in a notebook

, , , , , , , ,

Just when you thought this was going to be a quiet week (and weekend) on the religion beat, there was an earthquake in Beltway land.

Anyone who has lived in Washington, D.C., knows that the job of Speaker of the House may be the single most overlooked piece in the puzzle that is the U.S. government, in terms of the public failing to understand how much power resides in that office.

So Speaker John A. Boehner, one of DC's most public Catholic voices, hit the exit door only hours after fulfilling his dream of seeing a pope address Congress. This also happened, of course, in the midst of fierce infighting over morality and money -- to be specific, the mountains of tax dollars going into the coffers of an institution at the heart of what St. John Paul II liked to call "The Culture of Death."

All of Washington muttered, at the same time, this question: So, what's the link between the pope's visit and Boehner's exit?

At the very least, the timing became linked -- on multiple levels -- with the emotions of the Francis visit. I don't know what surprised me more, in the elite media coverage: the word "prayer" showing up high in such a blockbuster political story or The Washington Post admitting, in print, that The New York Times broke the story. 

Oh, and the Post almost had the scoop -- on the spiritual level. We will come back to that.

The Times managed to keep the pope out of the lede, but -- after the political necessities -- wrote faith into the equation.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

GLAAD enlists mainstream press in campaign promoting gay-friendly pope stories

, , , , ,

We’re halfway through Pope Francis’ visit to three East Coast cities and there’s been a flood of news about the pontiff’s meeting with President Obama, his appearance on the White House’s South Lawn, his canonization Mass at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception and his Thursday morning speech to Congress on that brought up illegal immigration, redistribution of income, the death penalty and climate change.  There were less-publicized actions, such as his visit to the Little Sisters of the Poor. There were the gestures that were intended to make a point in favor of the disposessed; the visit to Catholic Charities, the blessing of the girl in the wheelchair at St. Patrick’s Cathedral and even a blessing for Sandra Lee, Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s longtime partner who has been fighting breast cancer.

Who knows what Francis may have up his sleeve for the World Meeting of Families this weekend in Philadelphia, but one thing he’s steered clear of so far is anything explicitly dealing with gay marriage, or just gay issues.

However, that’s not from the lack of trying by GLAAD, the homosexual advocacy group that that “rewrites the script for LGBT acceptance,” according to its site. Most informative is GLAAD's new resource guide: “The Papal Visit: A Journalist’s Guide to Reporting on Pope Francis and the LGBT Community.” Here are some of the “best practices” they advise journalists to take up:   

Give voice to the unheard: Perhaps the impact of the Pope’s words on LGBT issues is most directly felt by those who are Catholic and LGBT. Often, news coverage focuses on pundits or hierarchy, without including the voices of those who are most affected. Hearing from everyday LGBT-identified people is critically important. Offering these perspectives presents a more accurate representation of the attitudes that exist within Catholic congregations…


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

Popemania, the sequel: Have we reached overload on coverage of Francis' visit to U.S.?

, , ,

Yesterday, we contemplated how much coverage of Pope Francis' first-ever visit to the U.S. is too much.

Paul Glader is a veteran journalist who spent 10 years with The Wall Street Journal and now teaches writing, journalism and business-related courses at The King's College (not to mention serving as director of the McCandlish Phillips Journalism Institute at The King's College in New York City, which now includes GetReligion).

Count Glader among those who believe the coverage has reached the breaking point.

Others, including longtime Oklahoman business reporter (and my good friend) Steve Lackmeyer, say they'd much rather hear about the Pope than the Donald.

But former GetReligionista and current superstar Washington Post religion writer Sarah Pulliam Bailey worries that other breaking news could steal Francis' spotlight.

My friend Sarah now lives inside the Beltway, by the way. Here in the real world of Oklahoma, we had never heard of Boehner. I kid. I kid ...

Meanwhile, Jim Warren, chief media writer for the Poynter Institute, the respected journalism think tank, remains concerned over what he dubs "Fawning Over Francis":

 


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

Will Francis loosen academic reins? Education journal calls for it, but doesn't prove point

, , , , , , , , , , ,

You can just imagine the buzz at the Chronicle of Higher Education: "Hey, Pope Francis is coming! And he's going to speak at Catholic University of America! Let's use that as a story hook!"

So the journal ran a piece on academic freedom at American Catholic colleges. Even though, as the article admits, Francis' Wednesday visit at the school in Washington, D.C., was only to canonize Father Junipero Serra -- and he planned no visits to any other Catholic universities on this tour.

No matter -- off we go with 1,100 words on the tug-of-war between freethinking intellectuals and the church's push to keep "inculcating students in orthodoxy." But the story wanders around, making strong statements, then failing to support them -- and sometimes weakening them.

The main indictment here is that previous popes, especially John Paul II, tightened control over Catholic colleges and universities, thereby stifling the flow of ideas that is basic to good education. Francis, however, is a different kind of pope who warrants hope for change:

As the first Jesuit pontiff, Pope Francis emerged from a free-thinking religious society known to question Vatican directives and church teachings, giving him a much different perspective on the relationship between the Vatican and Catholic colleges than such institutions have operated under for 25 years. In response to a 1990 call by Pope John Paul II for closer ties between the church and Catholic colleges, the nation’s bishops had issued new rules that many such institutions chafed against.
The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a senior analyst at the National Catholic Reporter, says many academics at the nation’s more than 220 Roman Catholic colleges "felt their academic freedom was constrained" by the last two popes. Under Pope Francis, he says, they now "feel much freer" to openly discuss such matters as birth control or whether women should be allowed to become priests.
Noting that Pope Francis has encouraged bishops to express disagreement with him, Father Reese says that "even though he is not an academic, he is more open to the kind of academic discussions and freedom of debate which is very close to the heart of the academic community."

You’ve heard of a chilling effect? Well, Reese is suggesting a warming effect, in which debates among bishops may encourage freer discussions on college campuses. It's a hard hypothesis to prove, but at least the article gets it from a respected priest-journalist.

For evidence of church bullying, though, the journal reaches back to 1987, when Catholic University banned the Rev. Charles E. Curran from teaching theology there because he questioned church doctrine on matters like contraception: "Pope Francis has encouraged his bishops to express disagreement with him, but Catholic University remains under censure from the American Association of University Professors for its 1987 decision to bar there because he had questioned church doctrine on matters such as contraception."


Please respect our Commenting Policy