Catholicism

, , , , , , ,

Making the impossible possible: Can Catholics now eat plant-based 'meat' during Lent?

, , , , , , ,

Ash Wednesday ushers the start of Lent, a six-week period where Christians prepare for Easter through prayer and reflection. For Catholics, the season also involves fasting on certain days and abstaining from meat on Fridays. The tradition, which started in the early church, is something that Catholics, and many Christians in general, have prescribed to for centuries.

Catholics avoid meat during Lent to show respect for the death of Jesus. There have been exceptions in the past, like dispensations when St. Patrick’s Day falls on a Friday during the Lenten season.

Fish, on the other hand, is permitted. It’s the reason why fast food chains like McDonald’s have for decades aggressively advertised the Filet-O-Fish, a sandwich invented in 1962 to cater to Catholics looking to avoid meat on Fridays and to make up for sagging burger sales. (Now Arby’s has jumped into this market.)

Thanks to products like the Impossible Burger or Beyond Meat, the dietary restrictions that come with Lent have been turned on their head. Plant-based imitation meat alternatives look and taste like meat — but isn’t. That has unleashed a meaty debate in pews and on message boards over whether plant-based patties can or cannot be eaten during Lent and whether doing so is a sin.

“As someone who eats and craves meat, I see not eating meat as a sacrifice,” wrote one Reddit user. “Though it may be OK to eat, it is a small sacrifice compared to Jesus dying for our sins. I will try the burger, but not on a Friday or Ash Wednesday in Lent.”

Others disagree, saying if it isn’t meat then it’s fair game.

“I would think that it is against the spirit of the requirement, but it wouldn’t be a sin because it is not a violation of the church law,” wrote another user.

The debate isn’t limited to Roman Catholics. Orthodox Christians who belong to Eastern Rite churches also fast and abstain from meat (and dairy) throughout Great Lent and at other times of the year. Jews who keep kosher have also had to face the religious predicaments that these foods now present.


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

Catholic news budget: (1) Again, Pius and the Jews (2) Despite Francis' dodge,  celibacy debate persists

, , , , , , , ,

The good news: After years of agitation among prelates, historians and Jewish leaders, on March 2 the Vatican will fully open its covert archives that cover Pope Pius XII’s performance during the Nazi era.

The bad news for journalists: It will take months, even years, for expert researchers to draw coherent conclusions from the estimated 16 million pages of documents. Neverthelessl, retrospectives on the Pius debate since the 1960s will be timely just now, drawing upon the massive material in newsroom morgues and online.

The issues surrounding this pontiff — a long-pending and controversial candidate for sainthood — are huge for Jewish relations. Beginning in 1920, Pius was the Vatican’s envoy to Germany, and during his years as secretary of state its top strategist on Nazism. Then his 1939 election as pope coincided with war and the Holocaust.

The big historic question: Did he say and do enough as Hitler’s regime oppressed Jews and eventually slaughtered them by the millions?

The Vatican completed a partial release of historical texts on Pius in 1981 but the new, complete batch is expected to be more enlightening. The Holy See is offering assurances that scholars are welcome to apply for access to the collection regardless of religious views or ideologies. What historians are in line, and what journalists will be on the list?

Sources to note from Nicole Winfield’s Associated Press scene-setter include Brown University historian David Kertzer and Rabbi David Rosen, the American Jewish Committee’s international interreligious director (based in Jerusalem but reachable via AJC publicist Kenneth Bandler, bandlerk@ajc.org or 212-891-6771).

Now, here is a second subject for this week’s Memo package.

The news media are pondering Pope Francis’ February decision to dodge proposals from South America that the church experiment with ordaining married men as priests in places with severe need.


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

More Ryan Burge charts: Is there a 'cradle gap' that leads to a 'pew gap' in politics?

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

Here is one of those #DUH statements about religion in America: Journalists and political activists have been talking about the “God gap” (also known as the “pew gap”) between the two major political parties for several decades now.

Here’s another obvious statement: There is no sign that this debate will end anytime soon.

Most of the time, people argue about (all together now) white evangelical Protestants — when the real swing voters in American life are ordinary Sunday-morning Catholics (see this GetReligion post related to this subject).

However, GetReligion contributor Ryan Burge has — on Twitter and in his Religion in Public blog posts — been doing a bang-up job that today’s Republican Party is packed with all kinds of white churchgoers, not just evangelicals. While we think of Mainline Protestant denominations as culturally “liberal,” that is more true about the ordained folks in the pulpits and the professionals in the ecclesiastical bureaucracies than in the pews.

This brings me to two Burge charts that are really interesting when studied together.

First, consider this statement with the first chart:

A Republican was twice as likely to be raised a evangelical than a Democrat. And much more likely to be raised a mainline Protestant.

In other words, is there some kind of “cradle gap” the precedes the “pew gap”?

Also, how important are these trends anyway, for journalists who are trying to understand the various cultural camps inside today’s Republican and Democratic parties?


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

Podcast: What do Oprah and Michelle have that Bernie and Bloomberg need?

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

Let’s say that you are the leader of a social-service program operated by African-American activists at a Pentecostal or evangelical megachurch in the Bible Belt. Or maybe you are the leader of a non-profit religious school operated by evangelicals, Catholics or Orthodox Jews.

What did you learn about religious liberty disputes that are crucial to the future of your faith-based work, if you watched that Nevada showdown for Democrats in the 2020 White House race?

To quote that classic Edwin Starr song — “Absolutely nothing!”

At the end of that slug fest, you may have been entertained or depressed. But it would be hard to say that you were joyful or hopeful. In other words, you didn’t feel the way blue-zip-code believers folks felt after the “gospel revival” sessions (a term used by The Washington Post) during the Oprah and Michelle Obama 2020 tour.

This was the territory that host Todd Wilken and I explored during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). The goal was to explore the role that religious faith is playing in the current Democratic Party campaign and how that will affect an eventual showdown with President Donald Trump.

Let’s start with a flashback to that article about Oprah and Michelle Obama — “Washington Post says blue USA needs 'a healer': So Oprah and Michelle are in savior biz?” Here’s the Post thesis statement about this not-political (but not-religious, either) event:

The not-“Oprah 2020” event could have been a political rally from an alternate dimension where two of Blue America’s most beloved figures have teamed up to take back the country from President Trump. The Vision tour was, in fact, an event from this dimension, where Blue Americans, anxious and exhausted and restless, have directed some of that energy toward better governing their own bodies and minds.

That article was packed with references to “healing,” visions, yoga, meditation and some vague sense that — in the Trump era — many downcast Americans are looking for a “savior” (presumably of a political nature). They appear to be yearning for someone named Oprah or Obama 2.0.


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

Ostling in Mississippi, religion-politics 2020 and video of first GetReligion forum at Ole Miss

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Who knew?

In his long and distinguished career in journalism, GetReligion Patriarch Richard Ostling had never set foot in Mississippi. The Time magazine and Associated Press religion-beat scribe had covered events in 43 states across America, but had never made it into the land of William Faulkner.

Ostling was on hand, Tuesday night, for the first GetReligion-related public forum at the Overby Center at the University of Mississippi. The host, of course, was journalism educator Charles Overby — best known for his 22 years as CEO of the Freedom Forum, a non-partisan foundation focusing on the press, religious freedom and the First Amendment. Also, this was my first visit to the center as a senior fellow, after GetReligion’s move there at the start of 2020.

The weather was sketchy, but the crowd came loaded with great questions.

Our topic was the role that religion is playing, early on, in the 2020 race for the White House. I was expecting that to stir up lots of conversation about (all together now) the 81% of white evangelicals who just love Donald Trump. This forum was being held deep in the Bible Belt, of course. I also expected questions about liberal Democrats attempting to build bridges to voters in black churches.

But who knew?

The topic that dominated the night — starting with Ostling’s first salvo — was the role of centrist and pew-frequenting Catholics in the crucial swing states that will decide this year’s election. We are talking, of course, about the Rust Belt Midwest and Florida. (Click here for GetReligion’s typology on the four basic kinds of “Catholic voters.”)

Click on other to the next page of this post to see the video of the forum.


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

Mainstream press misses backstory of why Francis has (for now) vetoed married clergy

, , , , , , , , , ,

Pope Francis — a week after the dust settled from his decision not to create an Amazonian rite that would have allowed married men to serve as priests and women as deacons — continues to garner news coverage as Catholic progressives and traditionalists debate what it all means.

The mainstream press, often too concerned with propping up Francis’ progressive bona fides, has largely not reported on why the pope decided to go the way he did. The factors that resulted in the pope’s decision came from a variety of camps inside the church. And what about this question: Did conservatives in the Vatican hierarchy, led by Cardinal Robert Sarah (helped by the recent intervention of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), raise enough concerns to tip the decision in their favor?

The Amazonian rite, however, was never only just about South America. The pope’s decision could have had global ramifications. The tug-of-war mostly involves German bishops pushing the pope to allow all clergy to marry (along with other changes in discipline and doctrine), while on the other is conservative prelates warning against doing away with the 1,000-year church tradition.

Once again, much of the backstory behind Francis’ decision can be learned from reading the religious press, both Catholics on the doctrinal left and right.

The mainstream press largely missed these angles, meaning readers had to delve really deep into internet news sources (with help from social media) to get analysis of how Francis reached his decision and whether the issue of married clergy/women deacons will rage on.

In the end, much to the chagrin of the mainstream press, Francis decided in favor of Catholic orthodoxy and tradition. What the mainstream press saw, but failed to report, was the Francis defies typical contemporary political categories.


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

Concerning married Catholic priests: Do reporters know they are common in parts of the world?

, , , , , , ,

For years — unto ages of ages, amen — I have hit the same roadblock when reading mainstream news stories about the Catholic church and mandatory celibacy for priests. You know: We’re talking about statements that the Catholic church does not allow the ordination of married men to the priesthood.

It’s a classic, “Close, but no cigar” situation. The problem is that it is mostly true, but the statement simply is not accurate. Thus, news organizations should not publish or broadcast this kind of statement.

It is accurate to say that MOST Catholic priests are not married. It’s even better to say that MOST priests in Catholicism’s LATIN Rite are required to be celibate. You see, even in the Latin Rite there are some former Episcopal priests and a few Lutheran pastors who were allowed to make the transition to the Catholic priesthood — after they were married.

However, in terms of statistics, the main thing that reporters need to know is that married priests are the norm in the Eastern Rite bodies that are in communion with the Vatican. These churches exist in North America, but they are at the heart of Catholic life in the Middle East. Many readers, and apparently quite a few editors, get confused and assume that these churches are part of ancient Eastern Orthodox Christianity (where married priests are the norm, as well).

Every now and then, a news hook comes along that encourages journalists to remember that there are lots and lots married priests in the Christian East. That leads to helpful stories such as this think piece in The Washington Post: “Pope Francis won’t allow married priests in the Amazon. But in this part of the world, married priests are the norm.” Here is the rather standard-form overture:

ROME — After one-and-a-half years of feeling their bond deepen, after coffee meetups and French study sessions, Oleh Kindiy leaned in close to his girlfriend in a mostly quiet chapel and offered her a ring. She said yes. But asking for marriage was just his first question.


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

Is Europe 'Christian'? That depends on how, and when, someone asks that question

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Is Europe 'Christian'? That depends on how, and when, someone asks that question

THE QUESTION:

Is Europe Christian?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

The intriguing question above is the title of a brief new book (from Oxford University Press) by prominent French social analyst Olivier Roy, a professor at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, and critic of political Islam.

To Roy, the correct answer is that it all depends on what you mean by “Christian.”

The Religion Guy agrees. If the answer is no, that’s an epochal change. The continent has served as the faith’s heartland through much of history, symbolized by Catholicism’s headquarters in Rome and the World Council of Churches offices in Geneva, though thriving churches in the Global South are now taking the numerical lead.

Across the continent, the Christian heritage involves some cultural and moral influences, nostalgia, folkways, and a residuum of respect. But actual belief, practice, and church participation are weakening steadily. Is Shrove Tuesday February 25 merely about pancake recipes, or Christmas a season of street markets and consumer excess? Pope Benedict XVI and allies could not even win acknowledgment of the continent’s past Christian roots in the European Union’s constitution of 2004.

The Pew Research Center tells us Europe is the only sector of the world where the population labeled Christian in whatever way is shrinking by demography as deaths steadily outnumber births, resulting in a net loss of 5.6 million in just the years 2010 to 2015.

Before turning to Roy’s argument, let’s scan relevant data from Pew’s 2018 report on telephone interviews with 24,599 randomly selected adults conducted in 12 languages in 15 nations of Western Europe (post-Soviet Eastern Europe was not surveyed).

It’s striking that only 27 percent of West Europeans “believe in God as described in the Bible” any longer.


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

From Ryan Burge and Co. -- Has that rising 'religiously unaffiliated' tide started to slow?

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

Here is a headline that I was not expecting from Ryan Burge and his colleagues at the Religion in Public weblog: “The Decline of Religion May Be Slowing.”

Argue with this crew all that you want. But what we have here is another snapshot of poll numbers that demonstrates why Religion in Public is a website that religion-beat professionals and their editors really need to have bookmarked. When in doubt, just follow GetReligion contributor Ryan Burge on Twitter.

In this case, Yonat Shimron of Religion News Service spotted this story pronto. We will come back to that report in a minute. But first, here is the top of the crucial Religion in Public post, written by Paul A. Djupe and Burge:

In a companion piece published … on Religion in Public, Melissa Deckman of Washington College finds that the probability of being a religious none in Gen Z (born after 1995) is the same as for Millenials (born between 1981-1994). This bombshell finding sent us running for other datasets. Like all good scientists, we trust, but verify. …

It is conventional wisdom at this point that the incidence of religious nones is on a steady rise after 1994. Driven by a mix of politics, scandal, and weak parental religious socialization, non-affiliates have risen from about 5 percent to 30 percent. That trend appears to be accelerating by generation, so the rate of being a religious none is much greater among Millennials than it is among Greatest, Silent, and Baby Boomer generations as the figure below shows using the General Social Survey time series. Those older generations are still experiencing some secularization (the rates are rising across time), but not nearly as rapidly as the young. From this evidence, we expected that the rate of being a none among Gen Z might be even higher, leading to a bump above Millennials. The initial, small sample estimate from the General Social Survey, however, suggests that Gen Z is not outpacing Millenials and may have even fallen behind.

The assumption for some media-beat pros, including me, has been that the percentage of actively involved religious believers would remain fairly steady — somewhere around the 20-22% numbers that appear in Gallup Organization work for several decades.

However, it seemed like the “nones” were going to keep growing by feeding on the vast, mushy, sort-of-religious middle of the American marketplace.


Please respect our Commenting Policy