Catholicism

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

There's good news for COVID-era church leaders amid all that familiar bad news

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

America’s pastors are continually fretting about the threats of death, disease and destroyed careers that face their parishioners. Also, alongside analysts of religious trends, they have good reason to worry that in the long term shrinking coronavirus-era donations may hinder or doom their ministries and charities.

Reporters also need to ponder the following. Most U.S. congregations are now restricted to providing worship services online. Will meeting God in your pajamas become a convenient habit that permanently undercuts in-person attendance after states soften their stay-at-home and “social distancing” rules? This NPR piece anticipates a permanent slide for in-person worship. (Online classwork could similarly imperil the future prospects of expensive on-campus college and seminary programs.)

The problem is that supportive, face-to-face fellowship is an important reason people are attracted to active participation in religious congregations. Of course, it’s also possible that the new online visibility will pay off by reaching new people. (The Guy’s own Protestant church currently has many more people joining live worship online than appear in person on normal Sundays.). And some brave optimists are talking up a religious revival once this is behind us.

The local and national media have, of course, been asking religious leaders how actual donations and online attendance are running, and what they think the future holds.

Now those who haven’t yet developed such a story, or those who want to take a second look, have a news hook — and a bit of sunlight — in a Roper poll conducted in late April for the Pew Research Center, reported here and then analyzed here by political scientist Ryan Burge (a GetReligion contributor) for Religion News Service.

Reporters will observe that the poll reinforces a scenario that Religion Guy tends to accept.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

100 years of all kinds of Catholics -- good and bad -- going to confession in movies

, , , , ,
100 years of all kinds of Catholics -- good and bad -- going to confession in movies

Alfred Hitchcock knew a thing or two about complicated thrillers.

Having a murderer confess to a priest -- who couldn't betray this trust -- was already a familiar plot twist by 1953, when Hitchcock released "I Confess." Because of the seal of confession, this noble priest couldn't even clear his own name when police suspected that he was the killer.

Good prevails in the end. Shot by police, the killer makes an urgent final confession to the priest.

"It's natural for a Catholic filmmaker like Hitchcock to see the dramatic potential of confession, with its combination of mystery and holiness," said film critic Steven D. Greydanus, best known for his work for the National Catholic Register. "At the same time, Hitchcock thought 'I Confess' was a mistake, because he thought that his mostly Protestant audience in America just wouldn't get it."

The sacrament of confession is both sacred and secret -- facts known to Medieval playwrights as well as modern filmmakers. Thus, putting a confession rite on a movie screen is a "transgressive act" of the highest kind, said Greydanus, who serves as a permanent deacon in the Diocese of Newark, N.J. (Deacons do not hear confessions.)

"Voyeurism is an important theme in much of Hitchcock's work and he knew that using confession in this way was a kind of voyeurism. … He knew this was a kind of taboo."

Nevertheless, Hollywood scribes have frequently used confession and penance for everything from cheap laughs ("A League of Their Own"), to shattering guilt (Godfather III), to near-miraculous transformations ("The Mission"). In a recent 6,000-word essay -- "In Search of True Confession in the Movies" -- Greydanus covered a century of cinema, while admitting that he had to omit dozens of movies that included confession scenes.

The key is that filmmakers struggle to capture, in words and images, what is happening in a person's heart. The act of confession opens a window into the soul, since characters are forced to put their sins and struggles into words.

"Perhaps the very secrecy surrounding the sacrament of confession was part of what attracted filmmakers to depict it," wrote Greydanus. "Anyone can witness the Eucharistic liturgy, an ordination or a wedding. …

“But what transpires in confession can only be imagined -- which is the cinema's stock in trade. … Often enough, confession scenes have served in movies as a pretext to allow a character to articulate their spiritual or temporal struggles, whether or not any kind of sin is involved."


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

Jess Fields meets Ryan Burge: As you would image, they're talking 'nones,' 'evangelicals,' etc.

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

So here is the question: Is podcaster Jess Fields just going to work his way through the entire GetReligion team, sooner or later?

I think it would be logical to do that, since Fields is especially interested in topics linked to religion, current events and the impact of journalism on all of that. You can see that with a quick glance at his homepage at Apple Podcasts.

The other day, I spent an hour or so online with him and that podcast link was included in the GetReligion post that I wrote about Fields and his work: “Jess Fields got tired of short, shallow news interviews: So he started doing loooong podcasts.”

You may recall that Fields is a small businessman in Houston who also has worked quite a bit in nonpartisan think tanks linked to state and local governments. He is an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and that has affected a few of his podcasts.

So now he has had a lengthy chat (very long, even by Fields standards) with social scientist, and progressive Baptist minister, Ryan Burge.

Why not? Burge is all over the place right now — writing and chatting about the tsunami of charts, survey samples and commentary that he keeps releasing, day after day, on Twitter. He also showed up the other day in an NBC special:


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

Journalists should be gearing up for big 'culture war' cases at U.S. Supreme Court

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The COVID-19 emergency shouldn’t divert the media from getting prepared for an unusual pileup of big “culture war” news that will break at the U.S. Supreme Court during the weeks through early July.

Pending decisions the media will need to interpret involve abortion, religious conscience claims, gay and transgender rights, taxpayer aid for students at religious school and (yet again) religious objections to mandatory birth-control coverage under Obamacare. Next term, the court will take up the direct conflict between LGBTQ advocacy and religious conscience, an uber-important problem.

These cases will show us how the newest justices, Neil Gorsuch (age 52, seated 2017) and Brett Kavanaugh (age 55, seated 2018), will be reshaping court edicts on religio-cultural disputes.

Here are the imminent decisions to be ready for.

Espinoza v. Montana (docket #18-1195) — This regards the venerable “Blaine amendments” in many state constitutions that forbid religion-related aid by taxpayers. Does a state violate the U.S. Constitution’s “equal protection” clause if it denies generally available public scholarships to students who attend religious schools?

Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, incorporating Trump v. Pennsylvania (19-431) — Last week, the court heard arguments in this case involving claims of religious rights vs. women’s rights. Did a Trump administration setup properly exempt religious objectors from the Obamacare mandate that requires employers to arrange birth-control coverage?

June Medical Services v. Russo (18-1323) — Louisiana requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, which pro-choice advocates say hobbles women’s access to abortion. In 2016, a Supreme Court with different membership threw out such a regulation in Texas

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, incorporating St. James School v. Biel (docket # 19-267) — The court heard the argument on this Monday via a COVID-era telephone conference. This Catholic school case from California poses whether under the Constitution’s religious freedom clause schools and agencies can discriminate in hiring workers who are not officially ordained “ministers” but may carry out some religious functions. In a similar Lutheran case in 2012, the high court said yes.


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

Talk about burying the lede! Knox officials wanted to 'open up,' while banning Holy Communion?

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

If you have been following the ecclesiastical shelter-in-place wars, then you know that the most interesting stories — in terms of journalism and debates in the public square — as moved on to debates about safe worship that includes social-distancing principles.

Evangelicals and other low-church Protestants have a distinct advantage here, with their emphasis on preaching and small-ensemble praise music. It’s harder to distribute Holy Communion from a distance, even if worshipers in liturgical churches are six feet or more apart while sitting in their pews.

Some state and local officials seem to be struggling with these coronavirus issues. This is also true of for journalists, who really need to be listening to shepherds in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran churches. It may even be possible to interview them.

In a recent “On Religion” column, I noted these interesting remarks by a high-profile archbishop:

New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, in an online essay, stressed that whenever Catholic priests approach their altars the saints and "all God's people" are spiritually present. He also praised clergy who have found ways to carry on with their work – while following social-distancing guidelines.

"Our parish priests have risen to the occasion, with innovative ways to distribute Holy Communion, expose the Blessed Sacrament for adoration, hear confessions and anoint and visit the sick," noted Dolan. "They assemble at graveside to bury our dead. Our courageous chaplains in hospitals and nursing homes are on the front lines."

I bring this up because of a recent story in my local paper, The Knoxville News Sentinel, that ran with this headline: “Are church services allowed Sunday in Knoxville? Yes, but it's not encouraged.” It described a rather typical conflict between a rather lenient state governor and strict local officials — strict to the point of potential First Amendment clashes.

The problem? Some of the most shocking details were buried — quite literally — at the end of this story. Hold that thought. First, here is the overture:

There is nothing stopping worshipers from congregating for services, but no official is recommending churches, synagogues and mosques throw open their doors right away.


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

British tabloids use online reach and clickbait stories to intensify tale of warring popes

, , , , , , , , , ,

Where do you get your news? This is a question I often ask of my journalism students. If being aware of the world around us hinges on the websites we read, then the answer to this question often reveals a lot about a person’s worldview.

Political polarization and news consumption is a real. For example, even during a pandemic, Republicans and Democrats remain starkly divided in their attitudes toward journalists. Pew Research found recently that while 66% of Democrats say the news media’s COVID-19 coverage has been largely accurate, just 31% of Republicans. The viral Plandemic video has fueled conspiracy theories on platforms where users generate content like YouTube and Reddit.

Toss in decades of liberal media bias, the growing influence of conservative talk radio, advocacy social media and tweet-storms from President Donald Trump and it combines for a lethal cocktail of mistrust. It has gotten more difficult to differentiate between trustworthy news sources on Facebook and Twitter.

This brings me to a news outlet not afraid of covering religion (great!), but one that often fails in its delivery (that’s the bad part). What happens when journalists in this kind of newsroom take one the pope? How about two popes at the same time?

I’m referring to The Daily Express, a newspaper headquartered in London that was founded 120 years ago. You may have not heard of it, but you’ve certainly seen their stories in your Google News stream or retweeted by a friend on both the left and right. Like most online newspapers, the tiny “About us” section at the very bottom of the homepage reveals the following:

Express.co.uk is the digital arm of the Daily Express and Sunday Express – one of Britain’s most famous and trusted news brands.

Since 1900 the Express has been at the forefront of the news, and a fundamental part of the fabric of British life, crusading for truth and dignity and bringing millions of readers informed coverage of the most important world events in both print and online.

The Express has stood up for Britain, talked common sense, and fought for the rights of hard-working men and women across the country.


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

YouTube thinker: Methodist conservative chats with RNS' Jack Jenkins about religious left

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

Every few years, like clockwork, American newspapers roll out pre-election features about a revival of activity on what can accurately be called the “Religious Left” — even if few journalists have granted it the upper-case-letter status of the ominous Religious Right.

From Day 1 here at GetReligion, I have argued that activity on the theological and political left is one of the most overlooked stories of recent decades. I have at least three reasons for saying that:

(1) The demographic implosion of the denominations known as the Seven Sisters of liberal Protestantism — the decline escalated in the late ‘70s and the ‘80s — left room in the American public square for the emergence of modern evangelicalism. Religious progressives, however, maintained crucial high ground in elite institutions of the left and right coasts.

(2) Progressive Catholics have always played a crucial role in the Democratic Party, even as — at the ballot box — it was easy to see a growing divide between liberal “cultural Catholics” and more conservative Catholics who worship once a week or even more.

(3) Journalists tend to focus on religious liberals as a political force, while paying little or no attention to THEOLOGICAL trends on that side of the church aisle (other than changes that affect LGBTQ issues).

Theological questions will be even more important for the Religious Left in the future, as the political left grows more and more secular (think atheists, agnostics and “nones”). How will this affect, for example, crucial ties to African-American churches, which tend to be more conservative on moral issues? And while we are at it, check out this new chart from political scientist (and progressive Baptist pastor) Ryan Burge, a GetReligion contributor (whose Twitter feed has been on fire the past couple of days).

I bring all of this up because of a fascinating video chat that took place the other day between United Methodist conservative Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy and veteran progressive scribe Jack Jenkins — formerly of ThinkProgress and the Center for American Progress — who now covers national news for Religion News Service. The subject is a new book by Jenkins with the logical title, “American Prophets: The Religious Roots of Progressive Politics and the Ongoing Fight for the Soul of the Country.”


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

Lots of edgy thinking about 'Weird Christianity' -- in The New York Times, no less

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

I was going to let the “Weird Christianity” opus in The New York Times sail past, in part because I wondered if it was a bit too “inside baseball” for this audience.

Well, it is a major weekend piece in America’s most powerful newspaper and people keep asking me if I have seen it. I have also been asked — since it’s about people choosing ancient liturgies and non-binary politics — if this article is, in effect, about people like me.

Not really. This Times essay — by Tara Isabella Burton of The American Interest — is about a recent trend among young Americans. I am, well, old and I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy 20-plus years ago. I did drop my registration in the Democratic Party in 2016. Here is the double-decker headline on this essay:

Christianity Gets Weird

Modern life is ugly, brutal and barren. Maybe you should try a Latin Mass.

I think it’s important to note that this “Weird Christianity” term is not new and there’s more to it than a taste for smells and bells (as Burton makes clear). There’s no question that issues of culture and aesthetics play a role in this trend, but the key is doctrine. And this trend is pre-modern, not postmodern.

To see that in practice, check out this 2015 Christianity Today piece by Sarah Pulliam Bailey, now of the Washington Post (and also a former GetReligion contributor). In this case, the term is being used in a Southern Baptist and evangelical context, as in, “Russell Moore Wants to Keep Christianity Weird: The public-policy leader for the largest US Protestant denomination isn’t worried over Christians’ loss of power. He says it might just be the best thing to happen to them.”

But back to Burton and the Times. Here is a crucial chunk (long, but essential) of her first-person piece:

… I’m not alone. One friend has been dialing into Latin Masses at churches across the United States: a Washington Mass at 11 a.m.; a Chicago one at noon.

The coronavirus has led many people to seek solace from and engage more seriously with religion. But these particular expressions of faith, with their anachronistic language and sense of historical pageantry, are part of a wider trend, one that predates the pandemic, and yet which this crisis makes all the clearer.

More and more young Christians, disillusioned by the political binaries, economic uncertainties and spiritual emptiness that have come to define modern America, are finding solace in a decidedly anti-modern vision of faith.


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

Podcast: Do journalists doubt that the Little Sisters of the Poor are doing ministry work?

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

It should be an obvious question for journalists who have been covering the Little Sisters of the Poor drama at the U.S. Supreme Court.

What do the sisters do in their ministry work that downgrades their First Amendment rights? What are they doing that undercuts their vows to follow the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church?

There has to be something that creates a legal gap between Catholic parishes and a religious order like the Little Sisters of the Poor, who specialize in taking care of the elderly and the poor.

Maybe the problem is that they do something other than “worship” inside the doors of a chapel or convent? Maybe the problem is that they hire other people to assist them in their ministries? Is that what turns them into a vaguely religious non-profit organization?

These are some of the questions discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), which dug into some of the news coverage of this order’s latest visit to SCOTUS. This is, of course, linked to the order’s rejection of the Obamacare mandate requiring most “religious institutions” to offer their employees, and often students, health-insurance plans covering sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including "morning-after pills."

What’s the problem? Consider this passage from the NPR coverage of the sisters and the high court:

At issue in the case is a Trump administration rule that significantly cuts back on access to birth control under the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare, the massive overhaul of the health care system, sought to equalize preventive health care coverage for women and men by requiring employers to include free birth control in their health care plans.

Houses of worship like churches and synagogues were automatically exempted from the provision, but religiously affiliated nonprofits like universities, charities and hospitals were not. Such organizations employ millions of people, many of whom want access to birth control for themselves and their family members. But many of these institutions say they have a religious objection to providing birth control for employees.

Maybe the problem is that all churches and synagogues do is “worship,” inside the doors of their sanctuaries, while schools, charities and hospitals (often called “ministries”) do “real” things, like education, medicine and social activism. Thus, even if religious doctrines are at the foundation of their work, these groups are not as “religious” as houses of worship?


Please respect our Commenting Policy