Scriptures

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

Words matter: What kind of Catholic is Joe Biden? What kind of American is Rep. Cawthorn?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Words matter: What kind of Catholic is Joe Biden? What kind of American is Rep. Cawthorn?

For serious journalists, words matter.

This is especially true when covering a subject as complex and nuanced as religion. So let’s ponder a religion-beat issue that, in political terms, is quite simple. However, in terms of history and doctrine, it’s rather complex.

Fill in the blank: “Joe Biden is a ______ Catholic.”

Now, if you follow the mainstream press, you know that for many the answer is “devout.” As in this CNN headline: “Trump claims Biden, a devout Catholic, wants to 'hurt God'.” And here is a typical news-story passage, care of CBSNews.com:

On Election Day, Mr. Biden, a devout Catholic, started out by attending Mass and visiting the graves of his son, Beau, and his first wife Neilia and infant daughter Naomi, who were both killed in a car crash in 1972.

On Sunday, Mr. Biden did the same, attending Mass with his daughter Ashley and grandson Hunter at St. Joseph on the Brandywine Catholic Church in Wilmington, Delaware, and then visiting his family members' graves.

Religion-beat veterans will notice that an important detail is missing from that passage — whether or not Biden received Holy Communion. The assumption, of course, is that he did (and that’s a safe assumption in East Coast establishment Catholicism).

It would appear that the key is that Biden says Catholicism has been a crucial force in his life and that Catholic social doctrine affects his political work. He carries a rosary. He goes the Mass — frequently. Other Catholics will note — a statement of fact — that some parts of Catholic social doctrine affect his political work and others clearly do not.

All of this came up for discussion as we recorded this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), which focused on a common theme from this blog’s 17-year history. Here it is: While many conservatives claim that the mainstream press is “anti-Christian,” or “anti-religion,” that simply isn’t true.

Take the New York Times, for example.


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

Daily Beast team stunned to learn that 'The Great Commission' remains in New Testament

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Here is a tip for reporters getting ready to tip-toe into coverage of stories that mix politics and centuries of Christian tradition.

Ready? There are times when it really helps to find out if Jesus — look for quotes in the New Testament — has addressed the issue that you are preparing to cover. This is especially true if you are considering an attack on a believer for defending a doctrine that is so central to Christianity that Bible passages about it have been given a unique name.

Like this one — “The Great Commission.” Here’s the quote from St. Matthew:

… Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This brings us to that headline atop a short piece at The Daily Beast that keeps popping up in my email: “Newly Elected GOP Congressman Madison Cawthorn Has Tried to Convert Jews to Christianity.”

Yes, I know that there are debates about whether The Daily Beast is a proper source for hard-news coverage of serious topics, such as this one. And this “story” is actually a short piece of aggregated news from another source (click here for more Jewish Insider info).

It’s pretty easy to spot the buzz words in this overture, which argues that it is controversial for Christians to, well, take “The Great Commission” seriously — even in private life:

Madison Cawthorn, the North Carolina Republican who will become the youngest member of Congress in history, has admitted he tried to convert Jews and Muslims to Christianity.

In an interview with Jewish Insider, the 25-year-old, who came under fire for selfies he took at Hitler’s vacation retreat in Germany, claimed he had converted “several Muslims to Christ” and several “culturally Jewish people.”

“If all you are is friends with other Christians, then how are you ever going to lead somebody to Christ?” Cawthorn said. “If you’re not wanting to lead somebody to Christ, then you’re probably not really a Christian.”

It’s all about the word “admitted.”


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

New York Times went tone deaf when Matthew McConaughey started talking about God

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Let’s see. I feel an urgent need, right now, to write about news coverage that has nothing to do with Donald Trump, Joe Biden or Theodore “Uncle Ted” McCarrick.

There is, you see, a side of my journalism personality linked to those long-ago days when I was an entertainment reporter-rock columnist. Also, when I taught at a seminary, I spent most of my time trying to get future pastors, religious educators and counselors to realize that, for ordinary Americans, “signals” sent via entertainment matter way more than those in news content. That’s tragic, but true.

So let’s flashback to that New York Times feature that ran not so long ago under this headline: “Matthew McConaughey Wrote the Book on Matthew McConaughey.” Let’s skip the second deck of that headline since it contained the obligatory reference to “all right, all right, all right (or in Texan, that would be '“alright” or some other spelling with an extra “w” or “h” in there somewhere).”

I was curious if this book — or perhaps I should say this Times feature about the book — would make any references to this complex superstar’s take on Christian faith. Maybe a reference to his infamous, by Hollywood standards, Oscar acceptance speech in 2014? You remember, when he said:

First off I want to thank God, because he's the one I look up to, he's graced my life with opportunities that I know are not of my hand or any other human kind. He has shown me that it's a scientific fact that gratitude reciprocates. In the words of the late (British actor) Charlie Laughton, who said, 'When you got God, you got a friend and that friend is you.’ “

There was more, but we’ll leave it at that. It was kind of a short “Pilgrim’s Progress” with his trademark twang.

The Times feature does use the safe b-word — “beliefs” — but doesn’t seem very interested in the who, what, when, where, why and how. Thus, readers are told:

... McConaughey wants readers to look beyond the boldface name on its cover and focus on its fundamental message. No one can escape hardship, he said, but he can share the lessons “that helped me navigate the hard stuff — like I say, ‘get relative with the inevitable’ — sooner and in the best way possible for myself.”


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

Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks -- a modern voice in the news, defending ancient truths

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks -- a modern voice in the news, defending ancient truths

A typical Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks speech would open with a self-deprecating jab at long-winded rabbis and then flow into a blend of Hebrew texts, science, law, literature, current events and the scriptures other faiths.

When the former chief rabbi of the United Kingdom died on Nov. 7 at age 72, after battles with cancer that began in his 30s, the Prince of Wales said: "His immense learning spanned the secular and the sacred, and his prophetic voice spoke to our greatest challenges with unfailing insight and boundless compassion. His wise counsel was sought and appreciated by those of all faiths and none."

Most of all, Lord Sacks was known for using modern information and insights to defend ancient truths. One famous address, at a 2014 Vatican conference on marriage, began with fish mating in a Scottish lake 385 million years ago before charting humanity's rise from polygamy to monogamy, including some awkward biblical dramas.

Before this speech ended with a standing ovation, the rabbi explained that his goal was to defend the “most beautiful idea in the history of civilization," the concept of love as the origin of new life.

"What made the traditional family remarkable, a work of high religious art, is what it brought together: sexual drive, physical desire, friendship, companionship, emotional kinship and love, the begetting of children and their protection and care, their early education and induction into an identity and a history," he explained.

“Seldom has any institution woven together so many different drives and desires. … It made sense of the world and gave it a human face -- the face of love. For a whole variety of reasons, some to do with medical developments like birth control, in vitro fertilization and other genetic interventions, some to do with moral change like the idea that we are free to do whatever we like so long as it does not harm others, some to do with a transfer of responsibilities from the individual to the state … almost everything that marriage once brought together has now been split apart. Sex has been divorced from love, love from commitment, marriage from having children and having children from responsibility for their care."

Lord Sacks was part of the Modern Orthodox movement and wrote two dozen prayer books and works about science and spirituality, as well serving as a commentator on BBC Four's "Thought for the Day." He became chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth in 1991, holding that post until 2013, Queen Elizabeth knighted him in 2005 and he entered the House of Lords in 2009.


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

Demons are in the details: Reporters may want to write serious Halloween stuff this year

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

Let’s make this a holiday feature story day here at GetReligion.

In addition to the Thanksgiving coverage memo from our patriarch, Richard Ostling, I would like to offer a “think piece” link to all of those reporters who are out there — right now — writing stories about (a) conservative Christians who don’t celebrate Halloween at all, for some reason or another, (b) megachurches that hold “You could go to hell” haunted houses full of fake blood and images of sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll or (c) churches that attempt safe versions of the holiday, keeping kids off the street and (d) congregations of all kinds who plan to have safe, socially distanced activities in 2020.

OK, that last one is completely valid, but rather tame.

Truth is, lots of religious believers wrestle with Halloween for a variety of reasons — including people who would simply prefer to emphasize the feasts of All Saints Day and All Souls Day. Lots of churches will hold events with children in costumes — dressed up as their patron saints.

Then there’s the whole question of Hollywood providing all the occult-scary imagery for this event, along with the rather recent trend toward young adults in skimpy, sexy “fill in the blank” costumes.

So with all of that in mind, let me ask reporters to consider doing a feature this year on how clergy, parents and believers in ancient churches wrestle with these issues. I am referring to an op-ed at The Washington Times by a friend of mine, Father Andrew Stephen Damick — who is an online apologetics scribe working with the Antiochian Orthodox Church here in America. Here’s the double-decker headline:

Should Christians participate in Halloween?

Halloween is about demons. No, that's not a problem

The essay starts exactly where journalists tend to start when thinking about stories of this kind:

Every October, Christians trash each other on social media over Halloween. Is it harmless costumes and candy? Participation in the occult, cavorting with demons? Co-opting a pagan holiday?

Christians believe demons are real. The Bible talks about them. Most Christians agree that you should stay away from them.


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

Pope Francis' same-sex union media storm opens another front in a Catholic civil war

, , , , , , , , , ,

If you think about it, journalism is about conflict. A news story is generally about an issue and how two sides (or more) view said issue. The top of the story, known as the lede, is about something someone said or did. The rest is information to support that new information.

In 2020, of course, all that is easier said than done. The fast-paced nature of news in the Internet age, the concept of objectivity being questioned by some mainstream journalists and this desperate need by some to highlight one side over another has made for some murky waters in the news.

Case in point: Pope Francis’ bold proclamation released on October 21 that he endorsed civil same-sex unions. Clearly, this announcement represented some kind of turning point for the Roman Catholic church, a change in tradition on LGBTQ rights and the dawn of a new, more loving era.

Well, that’s what the mainstream press said. Here’s how The New York Times opened its report:

Pope Francis expressed support for same-sex civil unions in remarks revealed in a documentary film that premiered on Wednesday, a significant break from his predecessors that staked out new ground for the church in its recognition of gay people.

The remarks, coming from the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, had the potential to shift debates about the legal status of same-sex couples in nations around the globe and unsettle bishops worried that the unions threaten what the church considers traditional marriage — between one man and one woman.

“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered,” Francis said in the documentary, “Francesco,” which debuted at the Rome Film Festival, reiterating his view that gay people are children of God. “I stood up for that.”

Clearly, the pope — as head of the church — had in three sentences changed Catholicism forever.

Not so fast, said numerous on-the-record voices in the world of Catholicism.

This was typical Francis, who is known for his off-the-cuff comments (as the Times story noted) that often come into direct conflict with doctrine or they appear to do so. The key is that they produce a tsunami of headlines and news reports.

I have found that the news media isn’t so great at parsing Francis’ statements on deadline. Whenever they do, it is often to highlight Francis as a progressive who heads an evolving church.

It is also crucial that some major Catholic voices tend to be overlooked in the coverage. For example, did you hear what the Archdiocese of New York said, in response to these Pope Francis comments?


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

Today's Associated Press: Why cover both sides of an important Amy Coney Barrett story?

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

Dear editors at the Associated Press:

Let’s discuss a few issues behind your recent feature that was sent to newspapers everywhere with this headline: “Barrett was trustee at private school with anti-gay policies.”

The key, of course, is “policies” — a vague term that way too many mainstream journalists consistently use in place of the simple word “doctrines.”

Yes, of course, traditional Catholic schools have “policies” that affect students, faculty and staff. However, these policies are almost always attempts to teach and defend the doctrines of the church. It’s significant that the word “doctrine” does not appear anywhere in this long AP piece and the same goes for the word “catechism.” Also, “scripture” is used once — by a progressive Catholic stressing that conservative Catholics are “literalists” when reading the Bible.

Anyone who has covered Catholic education for a decade or two knows what is going on here. Yes, Democrats are furious about Amy Coney Barrett’s arrival on the high court. But this Associated Press story is built on divisions inside the American Catholic church, both on moral theology linked to LGBTQ issues and fights over the goals of Catholic education in colleges, universities, seminaries and private schools such as the ones linked to Barrett and People of Praise.

With that in mind, let’s add two other factors to this case that are ignored (or all but ignored) by AP.

First of all, once upon a time there was a man named St. Pope John Paul II. In 1990, this pope issued a document entitled “Ex Corde Ecclesiae (From the Heart of the Church)” focusing on issues in Catholic education. You could tell that it was a controversial document (a) because it said Catholic doctrines should be taught and defended in Catholic schools, (b) progressive Catholics, speaking through the press, went ballistic and (c) it took almost a decade of fighting for American Catholic church leaders to act (sort of) on the pope’s guidelines.

This fight was primarily about colleges and universities, but the principals in Ex Corde are relevant to fights, these days, about classroom and student-life issues in Catholic schools at all levels. So what was John Paul II saying?


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

Where does the Catholic Church stand on the death penalty and war?

, , , , , , , , , ,

THE QUESTION:

Where does the Catholic Church stand on the death penalty and war?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Pope Francis’s encyclical letter Fratelli Tutti (“Brothers All”), issued October 3, reinforces his profile as a socio-political liberal and idealist. Employing this the highest vehicle for authoritative papal teaching, he addresses racism and rampant nationalism (which some say especially targets the current U.S. situation), and yokes concern for the poor with a semi-socialistic view of private property. His views perhaps reflect the culture of economically troubled Argentina as much as teaching by previous popes.

In terms of church history, Francis’s most important innovations here are total opposition to the death penalty and, regarding warfare, nudging of the church toward full-blown pacifism. We can predict many lay parishioners will dissent, as with papal decrees on such matters as birth control. Francis wants the church to upend centuries of teaching by pontiffs and theologians. It seems probable that pressure for abortion and mercy-killing in secular culture has strengthened “pro-life” zeal on these other matters of life and death.

With the death penalty, biblical tradition reaches back to primeval times. God protects the life of the first murderer, Cain, but later gives this commandment: “Anyone who sheds the blood of a human being, by a human being shall that one’s blood be shed, for in the image of God have human beings been made”(Genesis 9:6).

This is interpreted to say that, paradoxically, death by execution upholds respect for life by making murder so abhorrent. At face value, the statement seems not only to allow but to require the death penalty. However, the Jewish Publication Society’s Genesis commentary says ancient rabbis shied away from execution and sought “every mitigating factor in the laws of evidence” to avoid imposing it for killing or other misdeeds.

Most Christians endorsed the practice across the centuries. As recently as 2018, the Catholic Catechism was still saying that though government should avoid the death penalty if “bloodless means are sufficient,” a society can claim legitimacy when execution is necessary to “defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons.”

However, Pope John Paul II had stated in a 1995 encyclical that though the death penalty seems a “legitimate defense” of society, we can effectively suppress crime without killing criminals.


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

Newspaper that once sang praises of Stalin shocked Babylon Bee likes to sting liberals!

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

If you have been reading The Babylon Bee since Day 1, you know that its bread and butter has always been satire of evangelical Protestants of all kinds — from bearded Reformed seminarians who study theology in hipster craft-brewing establishments to megachurch musicians who yearn to play Eddie Van Halen solos during the 100th repetition of whatever praise chorus is currently all the rage.

You can see the Summa Theologica of that viewpoint in the book “How to Be a Perfect Christian: Your Comprehensive Guide to Flawless Spiritual Living,” by Bee founder Adam Ford and Kyle Mann, the website’s current editor. Hold that thought, because we will come back to it.

Lots of core early readers clicked on classic headline like “New Prayer App Delivers Electric Shock Every Time User Says 'Just' ") or "Joel Osteen Sails Luxury Yacht Through Flooded Houston To Pass Out Copies Of 'Your Best Life Now.' "

Then along came Donald Trump: Superstar. Legions of people wanted to click a headline like this one: “Trump Announces He Was Born Of A Virgin And Will Bring Balance To The Force.” Eventually, it was obvious that the Bee also needed to harvest the gazillions of clicks that would result from posts mocking blue-zip-code liberals who have been suffering from so-called “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

The fact that I needed to add “so-called” in that sentence points to the complexity of the current age for satirists. As another Bee headline noted: “Reality Criticized For Not More Clearly Distinguishing Itself From Satire.”

Now, if Bee readers were going to write a New York Times headline about all of this — the evangelical subculture humor, the jabs at Trump and then the wisecracks about liberals — wouldn’t it look something like this epic double-decker?

What ‘The Babylon Bee’ Thinks Is So Funny About Liberals

The comedy site, a conservative answer to ‘The Onion,’ used to have Trump squarely in its cross hairs. But now it’s less about him and more about the people who can’t stand him.

This is actually a pretty interesting article, if one is willing to ignore the history of the Babylon Bee. Also, it helps to assume that, in order to be legitimate (whatever that means for a satire site) and funny, it needs to focus most of its attention on the sins of Citizen Trump, while ignoring all those freakouts about his existence seen in the highest ranks of the cultural establishment — especially the world of high tech billionaires and America’s entertainment, academic and journalism elites.

All of that brings us to this Times overture that simply writes itself:


Please respect our Commenting Policy