Catholicism

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

New podcast: New York Times lets Planned Parenthood spin bad news about Margaret Sanger?

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

Soon after the founding of Amazon.com in 1995, I began offering the following research tip to my journalism students.

When reporting about a person or a topic, especially when the subject is controversial, go to Amazon.com and type in two or perhaps three search terms — including a proper name or the keyword linked to the topic you are researching.

Of course, reporters should do broader searches online and in professional-level periodical collections — looking for experts and activists on both sides of the story being covered. What an Amazon.com search gives you is a look at who has been doing, well, book-length studies of a person or a topic.

So let’s take a look at an Amazon.com search linked to this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). Let’s search for “Margaret Sanger” and “eugenics.” We are looking for sources that could have been used in the New York Times piece that ran the other day with this sobering double-decker headline:

Planned Parenthood in N.Y. Disavows Margaret Sanger Over Eugenics

Ms. Sanger, a feminist icon and reproductive-rights pioneer, supported a discredited belief in improving the human race through selective breeding

That’s a very controversial topic and this Times piece, we shall see, includes some rather blunt information about this “icon” of the cultural left.

What the story does not contain, however, is a single quote from a scholar or activist who has done years of research to gather information critical of Sanger and her legacy in American life and culture.

Right at the top of that Amazon.com search are books by two experts who, to my eyes, look solid.

One book is entitled “War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race.” The author is not a scribe at a right-wing think tank. Instead, Edwin Black — on his Amazon.com biography page — is described as:

Edwin Black is the award-winning, New York Times and international investigative author of 200 bestselling editions in 20 languages in more than 190 countries, as well as scores of newspaper and magazine articles in the leading publications of the United States, Europe and Israel.


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

Where is the national news coverage of current surge of vandalism at Catholic churches?

, , , , , , ,

What kind of year has it been for news?

Consider this: At the start of 2020, Australian wildfires raged, President Donald Trump was acquitted in a Senate impeachment trial, former basketball star Kobe Bryant, his daughter and seven others were killed in a helicopter crash and disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of rape.

None of these would likely make it into a top three list of the most-important news stories of the year.

Then came March 11. It was the night Utah Jazz center Rudy Gobert tested positive for the coronavirus, forcing the NBA to suspend games. It was the same night we learned actor Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson had tested positive as well. It was the day our reality was changed and the United States had officially entered the COVID-19 era, a pandemic that has altered the lives of millions and millions of Americans. It continues to do so for the foreseeable future.

The decision to report on the aforementioned stories involved something journalists employ while reporting and delivering information — news judgement. That’s the fuel — motivation if you will — that keeps journalism moving. Without deciphering what is news and what isn’t, it’s impossible for editors and reporters to package what’s happening around the world to readers.

One important trait of news judgement is the word “new.” After all, if it’s not new to those who consume it, then it really isn’t news. That isn’t all. The decisions that newsroom managers, beat writers and journalists in general — no matter the size of the publication — make each day can be very difficult, involving matters that include importance, audience interest, taste and ethics.

What does this have to do with the defacing and destruction of so many religious statues — predominantly Catholic ones — around the country and the world these days?

As Americans go from the racial reckoning that has engulfed America for the past two months to the start of the general election season, vandalism involving the burning of a church or the decapitation of a Jesus statue can become highly symbolic and significant.

That was the case last year when France — a nation seemingly proud to have moved on from its Christian past into secularism — saw widespread church fires and other acts of vandalism. It was a wonderful piece of journalism by Real Clear Investigations that delved into this frightening trend. The feature by Richard Bernstein, a former foreign correspondent at The New York Times, even called these acts “Christianophobia,” a term U.S. news outlets never use.


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

Thinking with Ryan Burge charts: Whaddaya know? Some evangelicals are rethinking Trump

, , , , , , , ,

If you follow American evangelicalism closely, you know that there are quite a few divisions and fault lines inside the movement. I’m talking about evangelicalism as a whole, but this is also true among the infamous “white evangelicals.”

It’s true that, heading into the 2016 election, white evangelicals played a major role in Donald Trump’s success in the primaries. However, many evangelicals supported other candidates — including the most active evangelicals in Iowa. I continue to recommend the book “Alienated America” by Timothy P. Carney, for those who want to dig deeper on that subject.

In the end, about half of the white evangelicals who supported Trump in the general election really wanted to vote for someone else. They were voting against Hillary Clinton.

Now, there is evidence — thank you GetReligion contributor Ryan Burge, as always — that some white evangelicals have started to rethink their reluctant votes for Trump.

To be honest, I have been telling reporters, since 2016, to watch for this mini-trend. But, in the end, the force that will pull many of these voters back to Trump has nothing to do with Trump himself. The support is rooted in opposition to Democratic Party actions on crucial issues linked to abortion and also the First Amendment ( that’s “religious liberty” in most news reports),

While pointing readers to these recent Burge tweets, let me frame them with some material from an On Religion column I wrote two years ago about the whole 81% of white evangelicals love Trump myth. The bottom line? It’s the issues, not the candidate.

Most "evangelicals by belief" (59 percent) have decided they will have to use their votes to support stands on specific political and moral issues, according to a … study by Wheaton College's Billy Graham Center Institute, working with LifeWay.

This time around, 50 percent of evangelical voters said they cast their votes to support a candidate, while 30 percent said they voted against a specific candidate. One in five evangelicals said they did not vote in 2016.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

John Paul II is already a saint -- is it time to add 'the great' to this pope's title?

, , , ,
John Paul II is already a saint -- is it time to add 'the great' to this pope's title?

As he began his 1979 pilgrimage through Poland, Pope John Paul II preached a soaring sermon that was fiercely Catholic, yet full of affection for his homeland.

For Communist leaders, the fact that the former Archbishop of Cracow linked faith to national pride was pure heresy. The pope joyfully claimed divine authority to challenge atheism and the government's efforts to reshape Polish culture.

"Man cannot be fully understood without Christ," John Paul II told 290,000 at a Mass in Warsaw's Victory Square. "He cannot understand who he is, nor what his true dignity is, nor what his vocation is, nor what his final end is. … Christ cannot be kept out of the history of man in any part of the globe, at any longitude or latitude of geography."

That was bad enough. Then he added: "It is therefore impossible without Christ to understand the history of the Polish nation. … If we reject this key to understanding our nation, we lay ourselves open to a substantial misunderstanding. We no longer understand ourselves."

This was the stuff of sainthood, and John Paul II received that title soon after his 26-year pontificate ended. But the global impact of that 1979 sermon is a perfect example of why many Catholics believe it's time to attach another title to his name -- "the great."

"The informal title 'the great' is not one that is formally granted by the church," explained historian Matthew Bunson, author of "The Pope Encyclopedia: An A to Z of the Holy See."

"Every saint who is also a pope is not hailed as 'the great,' but the popes who have been called 'the great' are all saints. … When you hear that title, you are dealing with both the love of the faithful for this saint and the judgement of history."

In the case of John Paul II, mourners chanted "Santo subito!" (Saint now!) and waved posters with that slogan at his funeral. During a Mass only 13 hours after his death, Cardinal Angelo Sodano spoke of "John Paul, indeed, John Paul the Great."


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

Was Jesus white and should sacred art that depicts Him in that manner be scrapped?

, , , , , , ,
Was Jesus white and should sacred art that depicts Him in that manner be scrapped?

THE QUESTION:

Was Jesus white?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

No.

But in these racially anxious times for America, there’s more to be said.

In a biblical dream-vision, presumably not meant to be taken literally in racial terms (Revelation 1:15), the feet of the triumphal Jesus Christ are bronze in color. In terms of actual 1st Century history, it makes the most sense to think that Jesus was neither north European white nor African black. As a man of the Mideast, he’d presumably have had a light brown or olive complexion like today’s Arabs or Sephardic Jews, with a good tan from all those outdoor travels.

Megyn Kelly assured Fox News viewers in 2013 of the “verifiable fact” that “Jesus was a white man.” In recent days, similar racial uproar was generated by Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King. After tweeting that memorials to “despicable” slaveowners George Washington and Thomas Jefferson must come down, he added obliteration of statues of “the white European they claim is Jesus,” seen as “a form of white supremacy.” A further tweet extended the ban to such “racist propaganda” in murals and stained glass of Jesus.

King did not specify that paintings should likewise be removed from display or destroyed, though that seems an obvious implication. Such iconoclasm would denude the world’s museums of countless masterpieces. In one example, so treasured is Leonardo da Vinci’s “Savior of the World” portrait of a Caucasian-looking Jesus that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia paid $450 million for it in 2017.

Moving to popular art, should we still watch those movies and TV productions where Jesus looks Caucasian, and more Gentile than Jewish? On that score, Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ” (2004) gave Jesus a modest prosthetic nose and colorized the actor’s eyes to darken them.


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

Epic New Yorker 'chin stroker' meets thin Guardian 'head scratcher' in no-news showdown

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

Among the varieties of “news” stories dumped on an ever more skeptical clientele by the rapidly metastasizing news business are two categories I’ll call the “chin stroker” and the “head scratcher.”

Examples of both recently caught my eye. One was unquestionably high brow, the other decidedly not. I’ll get to them soon enough, but first some clarification.

Never confuse a “head scratcher” with a “chin stroker.”

The first is confounding — as in, what the *&#@ is this? Or, why’d they bother to publish this useless collection of words and punctuation, the point of which eludes?

The chin scratcher, in contrast, can be stimulating and have value, even if it leaves you wondering, why run this feature on this subject right now? Thus, chin stroking here is meant to conjure the image of the serious reader massaging their chin in thought.

My GetReligion colleague Richard Ostling recently tackled one such chin stroker in a post about a super-long New Yorker piece about the search for archeological evidence that the biblical King David was a historical figure. It’s the same one that caught my eye.

It’s a great read — if one has the time and patience to explore 8,500 words on the political and religious differences that infect the field of biblical archeology in Israel. Because I do — the coronavirus pandemic has me hunkering down at home with considerable time to fill — I found the piece an interesting, solid primer on the subject.

Journalistically, however, and as Richard pointed out, why did the New Yorker choose to run this story now? We’re in the middle of a scary pandemic and a brutal presidential election campaign complicated by great economic uncertainty and racial and social upheaval.

One need not be an ace news editor to conclude there’s plenty of more immediate fodder that readers might prefer. And given that it’s the New Yorker, why give it, as Richard put it, “10 pages of this elite journalistic real estate” when there’s no discernible news peg?

If you missed it, read Richard’s post — fear not, it’s far, far shorter than 8,500 words — because I’ll say no more about it here. Richard covered the finer points of the piece’s journalistic questions. Should you care to go straight to the New Yorker article, then click here.

Now let’s pivot from our chin stroker to a definite head scratcher, courtesy of the The Guardian.


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

Keeping up: Tumultuous times reshaping journalism, objectivity and even common language

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

What do pundits David Brooks and Fareed Zakaria, leftist intellectual Noam Chomsky, author Malcolm Gladwell, choreographer Bill T. Jones, chess champion Garry Kasparov, jazz leader Wynton Marsalis, novelists J.K. Rowling and Salman Rushdie, feminist Gloria Steinem, civil liberties scholar Nadine Strossen, and teachers’ union head Randi Weingarten have in common?

Not a whole lot except that they are celebrities and joined 153 critics of both President Donald Trump and “cancel culture” in endorsing a dire July 7 letter warning that “ideological conformity” is stifling “open debate and toleration of differences” in America. The signers see “greater risk aversion” among journalists and other writers “who fear for their livelihoods,” alongside editors “fired for running controversial pieces” (talking to you, New York Times).

Another large group, heavy with journalists of color, quickly issued an acerbic response that hailed the media and cultural institutions for starting to end their protection of “bigotry” and the power held by “white, cisgender people.”

Wait, there’s more. Media circles will be buzzing for some time about the resignation letter of Bari Weiss upon leaving The New York Times, made public Tuesday, which contained hints at possible legal action linked to on-the-job harassment. This was followed immediately by Andrew Sullivan's announcement of his departure from New York magazine. which he will explain in his final column Friday.

The bottom line: This is the most tumultuous time for American culture, and thus for the news media, in a generation.

In one aspect, financially pinched print journalism continues to drift toward imitation of slanted and profitable cable TV news (often quote — “news” — unquote).


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

Does it matter if journalists have quit asking about the missing McCarrick report?

, , , , , , ,

It’s July of 2020.

Do you know where the McCarrick report is?

There are people who still care about the who, what, when, where, why and how of the scandal that brought down former cardinal Theodore McCarrick, at one time the most press-friendly and influential cardinal in the United States of America.

In a way, it’s even more important to know more about the rise of McCarrick in church circles in and around New York City and then learn the details of his networking years in Washington, D.C. Who were McCarrick’s disciples and to what degree did they protect him, during the years when rumors were thick on the ground about — to be specific — his unique personal style when dealing with seminarians.

It’s totally understandable that the McCarrick investigation has faded from view. The year 2020 has, after all, served up challenge after challenge for journalists and church leaders, alike. McCarrick was shipped off to western Kansas and, now, it appears that he has moved to a safe house of his own choosing.

The former cardinal is now an afterthought.

But not for everyone. The other day, J.D. Flynn of the Catholic News Agency produced a thoughtful essay on what this silence means and the long term effects it could have on Catholic laypeople and their trust of the church hierarchy. It’s worth reading — even as the year 2020 rages around us. Here is the overture:

On June 20, 2018, American Catholics woke up to discover that retired Cardinal Theodore McCarrick stood accused of sexually abusing a teenager.

The cardinal said he was innocent. The New York archdiocese said it was a singular allegation. Dioceses in New Jersey said they had received isolated allegations of misconduct with adults.

Then the dam broke. It emerged that McCarrick had a pattern of sexual abuse and coercion, with minors and with young priests and seminarians. American Catholics learned about the cardinal’s beach house, his wandering hands, his preference for thin non-smoking seminarians. His coercive and manipulative letters became available to read, the testimony of his victims was crushing.

But the story didn’t stop at McCarrick.


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

Are the Sexual Revolution vs. religious liberty wars over at Supreme Court? Let's ask Bluto ...

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

Want to hear a depressing question?

How many years, or even months, will it take for someone to pull the Little Sisters of the Poor back to the U.S. Supreme Court for another case linked to the status of Obamacare’s contraception mandate?

That’s right. The odds are good that we can brace ourselves for yet another Little Sisters of the Poor vs. the United States of America (or maybe the leaders of a blue-zip-code state or local government).

I predict that we will see Little Sisters of the Poor Round 4 in the headlines sooner or later, for reasons that host Todd Wilken and I discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

For starters, in this recent case the high court upheld an executive order from the Donald Trump White House, as opposed to grounding its decision in the defense of a specific piece of legislation — as in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. You may recall that this bill defending a liberal (in the old sense of that word) take on religious freedom passed with an impressive margin — 97-3.

One of the sponsors of that legislation — which was backed by a Clinton-Gore era coalition of liberals and conservatives — had this to say about its importance:

Today I am introducing legislation to restore the previous rule of law, which required the Government to justify restrictions on religious freedom. …

Making a religious practice a crime is a substantial burden on religious freedom. It forces a person to choose between abandoning religious principles or facing prosecution. Before we permit such a burden on religious freedom to stand, the Court should engage in a case-by-case analysis of such restrictions to determine if the Government’s prohibition is justified. …

This bill is needed because even neutral, general laws can unnecessarily restrict religious freedom.

That was U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, of course, during an era when he was considered a moderate who tended to stand with the U.S. Catholic Bishops on quite a few social and moral issues.

The question now is this: What are the odds that one of the first things President Joe Biden’s team will do is erase most, if not all, of the Trump-era executive orders linked to religious liberty and the First Amendment?


Please respect our Commenting Policy