Catholicism

, , , , , , , , ,

Press braces for the Supreme Court's big one: Religion and abortion (phase I)

, , , , , , , , ,
Press braces for the Supreme Court's big one: Religion and abortion (phase I)

In late July the U.S. Supreme Court's in-box was clogged with dozens of secular and religious briefs that oppose its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which established women's right to abortion, further defined in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey case.

Next up, watch for briefs that back the high Court's existing abortion-rights regime, which are due by mid-September. There should be keen journalistic interest in which religions decide to bless "pro-choice" policies and why, with likely contentions that 1st Amendment religious liberty requires legalized abortion even as other Christian and Jewish thinkers disagree.

The media are well aware that the Court's upcoming decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health case (docket #19-1392) will be epochal, and the new briefs show the issue is as politically contentious as ever.

Dobbs involves rigid abortion limits even before fetal "viability" as legislated by Mississippi.

In response, fully 25 of the 50 states, all with Republican attorneys general, are asking the Court to scuttle Roe and Casey. Also, 87% of the Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate, from 40 states, want the two decisions overturned "where necessary" while lower courts clean up legal muddles. Also filing on this side are 396 legislators in 41 states.

Briefs also come from "pro-life" or religious physicians, nurses, and attorneys, "pro-family" organizations, and notable intellectuals like John Finnis of the University of Oxford, Robert George of Princeton University (click here for his recent tweetstorm), and Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School.

Also Dr. Ben Carson, the world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon and Donald Trump Cabinet member. He argues not from his Seventh-day Adventist faith but from embryology, saying the existence of a "new unique human life" at conception is "objective scientific fact. " He considers life to be a "natural right" that "does not depend on theology."

Writers will find a similar approach in the most important religious organization brief.


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

When a Catholic politician is denied Communion, why does Axios think he's heroic?

, , , , , , ,
When a Catholic politician is denied Communion, why does Axios think he's heroic?

Ever since President Joe Biden took office, fellow GetReligionista Clemente Lisi has been writing articles about the new president’s inevitable clash with Catholic bishops over Communion, and how President Biden is regularly framed as a “devout” Catholic despite his major departure from said doctrine on life issues, not to mention religious liberty. The bishops, on the other hand, are framed as “right wing.”

The Communion conundrum has spread to a state where I used to live: New Mexico, home of the country’s largest annual pilgrimage of penitents who walk 30 miles every Good Friday from Santa Fe to the Chimayo sanctuary in the northern hills. New Mexico is drenched in Catholicism, starting around April 30, 1598, when Spanish explorers coming north from Mexico held a Thanksgiving Mass and dinner near the Rio Grande.

There are evangelical Protestants, Jews, Buddhists and other groups around the state, but the bulk of the populace is Catholic, so the Communion issue is going to matter there, which is why one bishop’s decision to bar a local Catholic politician from the altar makes waves. Here is how Axios framed it:

A New Mexico lawmaker denied Communion by a bishop over his vote to advance abortion protections told Axios exclusively he won't be bullied and looks forward to receiving Communion with President Biden one day.

Just for fun, I’ll also run the lede from the National Catholic Register just for comparison:

After a New Mexico state senator said he was denied Communion this weekend because of a political matter, his diocese responded that it had privately warned him he should not present himself for Communion, due to his obstinate support for a pro-abortion bill.

Two different takes, no? Back to Axios:

Why it matters: The example set by Sen. Joseph Cervantes, a Democrat, is drawing the attention of lawmakers around the country. Blue states are moving to protect abortion rights should the Supreme Court overturn or erode Roe v. Wade.

• "I won't have any problem finding to place to receive Communion," Cervantes said during an interview. "In fact, I look forward one day to receiving Communion at the same parish where President Biden does."

• He said other parishes and another diocese in New Mexico have offered to give him Communion, highlighting the split among U.S. Catholic bishops over elected officials and abortion.

The slant of this piece is a textbook example of why conservatives of all religious persuasions tend to loathe the media. The lede basically states takes Cervantes’ word for it that he is being “bullied,” without mentioning that Cervantes went out of his way to defy private exhortations from his spiritual overseers.


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

Washington Post still thinks sin and repentance have nothing to do with Holy Communion

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Washington Post still thinks sin and repentance have nothing to do with Holy Communion

For years now, quite a few mainstream journalists have made it pretty obvious that they think the bishops of the Catholic church have a moral and perhaps even legal obligation to let Catholics do whatever they want to do in public life while continuing to take Holy Communion.

All that matters, according this newsroom version of the evolving spirit of Vatican II, is that these Catholic individuals believe — as a matter of conscience — that they are good to go. Catholics who are on the right side of history even have the right to openly state, in word and deed, that they believe Catholic doctrine is wrong and should be changed. This used to be called Protestantism, but nevermind.

This brings us to yet another Washington Post report about the life and times of a Michigan judge named Sara Smolenski, her same-sex wife Linda and the East Grand Rapids parish in which she is not allowed to take Holy Communion. (For a flashback to earlier coverage, please see this Julia Duin post: “Press doesn't get why a Catholic priest would withhold Communion from outspoken gay judge.”)

This story does a great job of proving that progressive Catholics have strong views on this issue. The story also offers small bites of material from Catholics stating the church’s doctrinal stance on this matter. If you are looking for any sense of fairness and balance — such as Catholics explaining or defending church doctrine — then you are not going to find it in the Post coverage. Again.

One other key point: This story contains zero references to the role that Confession — the Sacrament of Penance — plays in Catholic teachings on sin, repentance, forgiveness, salvation and, thus, Holy Communion. Hold that thought, because we will return to that point.

The Post headline, this time around, states: “Bishops’ debate over Communion sparked by Biden seeps into holiest sacrament for Catholics.” Here’s the overture:

St. Stephen Catholic Church is the parish and school where Sara Smolenski grew up with her nine siblings, where her parents were married, where she worshiped on Sundays and served as a volunteer distributing Communion. It was also the place where the priest called in late 2019 to tell her she should no longer come up during Mass to receive the holy sacrament.

“He says: ‘I’m going to have to ask you not to take Communion because you’re married to Linda in the state of Michigan. He just kept saying: ‘Respect the church,’” said Smolenski, 63, a longtime District Court judge.


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

No vacation at Vatican? Thinking about an 'August surprise' from Pope Francis

, , , , , , , , , ,
No vacation at Vatican? Thinking about an 'August surprise' from Pope Francis

If you have lived and worked in Washington, D.C., you know that Beltway-land has its own unique media traditions.

For example, no one is surprised when politicos issue somewhat embarrassing statements and proposals late on Friday afternoons, especially during the seasons in which half of the city’s journalists and chattering-class superstars are parked in traffic on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in Annapolis on their way to the beach. After all, who pays attention to the news on Saturdays and it’s too late to do a major feature for the Sunday newspaper.

Then there is the “October surprise,” which is when a presidential candidate who is trailing — especially an incumbent president — makes a wild domestic policy proposal, foreign policy gesture or accusation against his enemies in an attempt to jump-start the race and gain ground in the polls.

With that in mind, it’s interesting to pause and think about an interesting Crux analysis piece by editor and super-insider John L. Allen, Jr., that just ran with this headline: “Pope’s ‘August surprise’ could be most counter-cultural stand of all.” Allen didn’t make a specific proposal for an upcoming bombshell, but did say that this pope has a history of making news during a month when Italians — it's almost a sacred tradition — are on vacation.

I asked Clemente Lisi, our resident Italian and Catholic-media pro, what he thought of this thesis. He quickly answered — even though (irony alert) he is on vacation this week. His email said:

I know the feeling well. I spent every August in Italy as a child visiting relatives and being on vacation. And yes, everything was closed!

This papal August surprise could very well be a symptom of the media’s lack of attention during this month. In the pre-Donald Trump years, August was typically considered a “slow month” — at least in the United States — and also a time when many editors took time off after a long year. The same thing happens in Italy, probably on a grander scale.


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

Here we go again: White House reaches out to Latino 'faith leaders'? Why not quote a few?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Here we go again: White House reaches out to Latino 'faith leaders'? Why not quote a few?

First, my apologies. Once again, I need to write about an issue that I have covered over and over here at GetReligion.

I mean, like this: “Why are Latinos veering into GOP? It's all about money, money, money (and zero faith).”

Then there was: “Concerning Hispanic evangelicals, secret Trump voters and white evangelical women in Georgia.”

And also this: “New York Times listens to Latino evangelicals: 'Politically homeless' voters pushed toward Trump.”

Now, that third post did get to point readers to a passage in a New York Times story in which it appears that the reporter did pay attention to what a circle of Latino evangelicals had to say. For a brief moment, a window opened into a world that is larger than mere partisan politics:

When Pastor [Jose] Rivera looks at his congregation of 200 families he sees a microcosm of the Latino vote in the United States: how complex it is, and how each party’s attempt to solidify crucial support can fall short. There are not clear ideological lines here between liberals and conservatives. People care about immigration, but are equally concerned about religious liberty and abortion. …

To explain his own partisan affiliation, Mr. Rivera says he is “politically homeless.”

In that post, I noted that this sounded like words I have heard before, spoken by many frustrated Democrats in pews. To go further, I added:

That sounds just like the laments I have heard from all kinds of reluctant Trump voters — Catholic, Orthodox, evangelicals, etc. — who define themselves in terms of their religious convictions, more than loyalty to a political party. They feel stuck, but shoved toward the GOP because of an overwhelming sense of fear caused by Democrats (and mass media professionals) who now put “religious liberty” inside scare quotes.

So this brings me to a new headline at The New York Times: “Latino Voters Moved Toward Republicans. Now Biden Wants Them Back.” Yes, here we go again.


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

Spot the religion test (again): What's at stake when politicos ask if nominees believe in God?

, , , , , , , , , ,
Spot the religion test (again): What's at stake when politicos ask if nominees believe in God?

This is one of those GetReligion topics that — alas — keep popping up every year or two. Here is the Deseret New headline on the latest case study for journalists to file in the growing “Spot the religion test” file: “Is it legal to ask nominees to federal office if they believe in God?”

There’s a reason that this keeps happening. Church-state conflicts, especially those involving Sexual Revolution doctrines, are among the hottest of America’s hot-button political issues. The First Amendment is, for different reasons, under assault from some camps on the political right and also from many illiberal voices on the left.

In terms of raw statistics, Democrats rely on a grassroots base that, with the exception of the Black Church, is increasingly made up of Nones, agnostics, atheists and religious liberals. Republicans seeking office cannot afford to ignore people in pews — period.

All of this leads us back to these words in Article 6 in the U.S. Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives … and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The headline on the Deseret News piece reads like an opinion essay, but this is actually a solid news feature that quotes a variety of voices active in debates about this church-state issue. Here is the overture:

The Constitution states that the government can’t create a religious test for public office. But does that mean confirmation hearings should include no mention of faith?

There are at least a few members of each party who think some religion questions are fair game.


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

Conservative Catholic media set the journalism agenda on Latin Mass and Burrill resignation

, , , , , , , , , ,
Conservative Catholic media set the journalism agenda on Latin Mass and Burrill resignation

It’s been a busy month on the Catholic beat. There’s rarely a dull moment, especially in the Pope Francis era, as debates over the past few weeks focused on the Latin Mass and Grindr-clicking gay clergy in high places.

These are two different issues, of course, but ones where conservative Catholic media outlets have excelled. I’d even go as far as to say that the coverage in various corners of the Catholic press has set the agenda on these two raging issues — for everyone.

I have written about the importance of the growing independent Catholic press before. At a time when mainstream media very often ignores one side on hot-button issues, a healthy alternate media that covers the church and isn’t afraid to give those voices space has helped readers fully understand the broader spectrum of U.S. and global Catholicism.

The health scare that Pope Francis recently went through has seemingly inflamed the culture wars within Roman Catholicism. There is a feeling that this pope’s time may be coming to an end and that reformers need to move quickly before conservative bishops and priests embark on a takeover.

I have lauded The Pillar in this space for their ability to explain complicated issues as well as break stories and embark on investigations. This has been a wonderful month for them, even as they have been catching flak from the Catholic left (and, thus, from key mainstream news outlets).

The story they broke on July 20 is what we in the journalism business call “a bombshell.” The story revealed that Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill, former general secretary of the U.S. bishops’ conference, had resigned after The Pillar “found evidence the priest engaged in serial sexual misconduct, while he held a critical oversight role in the Catholic Church’s response to the recent spate of sexual abuse and misconduct scandals.”

This is what The Pillar’s reporting found (this is long, but essential):


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Catholic worship wars rage on: Pope Francis decides Latin Mass is too divisive to embrace

, , , , , ,
Catholic worship wars rage on: Pope Francis decides Latin Mass is too divisive to embrace

The message to Catholic traditionalists in Southwest England was blunt, yet pointed.

Because of the new Traditionis Custodes ("Guardians of the tradition") document from Pope Francis, and the wishes of Bishop Declan Lang of the Diocese of Clifton, the upcoming "Latin Mass at Glastonbury will be the final Latin Mass here."

The message delivered to another circle of believers there was quite different. As a "Clifton Diocese Initiative," the "LGBT+ Mass" series at a Bristol church would continue because the bishop "wishes to express pastoral care and concern for our Catholic LGBT+ community."

Thus, the Catholic worship wars rage on.

This bolt of liturgical lightning from Pope Francis struck one of his predecessor's signature achievements. In his 2007 apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum ("Of the Supreme Pontiffs"), the now retired Pope Benedict XVI declared that the post-Vatican II rite was the "ordinary form" for the church, but that the older Latin Mass was an "extraordinary form" and could be encouraged when requested by the faithful.

While Benedict said these rites could coexist, Pope Francis argued -- in a letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes -- that the old Latin Mass has become too divisive.

Benedict was "comforted" by his belief that the "two forms of the … Roman Rite would enrich one another," wrote Pope Francis, but some bishops now believe the Latin Mass has been "exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church."

Thus, Francis declared, bishops must guarantee that any priests and laity they allow to celebrate the old rite have accepted the validity of Vatican II and its "Novus Ordo" Mass. Bishops may "designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather" for approved Latin Masses, but these services may not be held in "parochial churches" and there should be no new parishes created for the extraordinary rite.


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

New podcast: What kinds of Catholic fears are hiding in these Latin Mass wars?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: What kinds of Catholic fears are hiding in these Latin Mass wars?

Over the past 40 years or so, I have learned this lesson: If you are covering a controversial story and you find a key point where an activist or two in the clashing armies agree with one another, that’s probably something worth noting.

That happened this week while reading a couple of thousand words of commentary about the decision by Pope Francis to all but crush some of the growing communities of priests and traditional Catholics who choose to celebrate the old Latin Mass. To catch up on that, see: “'Where there is incense there is fire.' True, but reporters can seek voices in middle of that war.” And check out this one, too: “Ties that bind? Concerning journalism, Grindr, secrecy, homophobia and the Latin Mass.”

While recording this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to check that out), I read two quotations — one from the Catholic right and one from the left. They offer two completely different takes on what’s happening in the Latin Mass wars, except that they seem to agree on one crucial reality.

The goal is to spot that common ground. Ready?

Quote No. 1 comes from conservative Amy Welborn, writing at her “Charlotte was Both” weblog:

Let’s do an Occam’s Razor on this new Motu Proprio.

It seems pretty simple to me: A number of bishops wanted the tools to restrict celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, and Pope Francis gave it to them.

There you go.

I mean, we can talk history, ecclesiology, theology and liturgy all day long, but that’s about as basic as it gets or needs to be. I was there. Well, not literally, but I can tell you that this generation of clergy and church activists – now maybe from their late 60’s on up – were formed in a way that they cannot envision a healthy Church in which the TLM is still a part. At all.

What we see here is a papacy, backed by strategically placed cardinals loyal to this pope, that:

… in words, emphasizes synodality, accompaniment, listening, dialogue outreach to the margins and consistently condemns “clericalism” — has issued a document that embodies a rigid approach to the issue, and then restricts, limits and directs more power, ultimately, to Rome. And shows no evidence of actually “listening” to anyone except bishops who are annoyed by the TLM and TLM adherents who conveniently fit the “divisive” narrative.

Now, let’s contrast and compare that view of the conflict with the contents of quote No. 2.


Please respect our Commenting Policy