Church & State

Inauguration Day showdown: U.S. Catholic bishops remain divided on 'McCarrick doctrine'

Inauguration Day showdown: U.S. Catholic bishops remain divided on 'McCarrick doctrine'

Speaking to an Italian family association in 2018, Pope Francis compared the abortion of children with genetic problems to "what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today, we do the same thing but with white gloves."

A year later, Francis bluntly asked a journalist from Mexico if it's "fair to eliminate a human life in order to solve a problem? The answer to which is, 'No.' Second question: Is it fair to pay a sniper to solve a problem? No. Abortion is not a religious problem. … It is a problem of eliminating a human life. Period."

But the pope was careful in his Inauguration Day message to America's second Catholic president, assuring Joe Biden that he would "pray that your decisions will be guided by a concern for building a society marked by authentic justice and freedom, together with unfailing respect for the rights and dignity of every person, especially the poor, the vulnerable and those who have no voice."

The pope's text was examined closely after reports that the Vatican -- on behalf of progressive American bishops -- tried to stop the circulation of a sobering statement from the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The letter from Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles addressed the challenge, and blessing, of working with "our first president in 60 years to profess the Catholic faith."

Clearly, Biden's piety had offered "solace in times of darkness and tragedy," said Gomez, leader of America's largest diocese and a crucial voice among Hispanic Catholics. He also praised Biden's "longstanding commitment to the Gospel's priority for the poor."

Nevertheless, Gomez noted that "our new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the … the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences."

Cardinal Blasé Cupich of Chicago fired back on Twitter, attacking this "ill-considered statement on the day of President Biden's inauguration" while claiming "there is seemingly no precedent" for this action by Gomez.

The Pillar, a Catholic news website, reported that the Vatican Secretariat of State intervened to "spike" the statement from the U.S. bishops after objections from Cupich, Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark and some other bishops.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Skeptical thinking (from left) about role of religion in President Joe Biden's big day

Skeptical thinking (from left) about role of religion in President Joe Biden's big day

Back in the early days of GetReligion (we launched on Feb. 2, 2004) I urged reporters not to forget the old Religious Left and, when covering believers in those flocks, not to forget that there is more to their stories than politics. The left is the left because of doctrinal and worship traditions, as well as convictions that align with the New York Times editorial page.

Then something happened that modified my thinking on this subject. Hang in there with me, because I am working my way to an interesting think piece, care of Religion Dispatches. The headline: “The Inauguration’s Beautiful Call for Unity Was Undermined by the Invocation of Religion.”

Faithful readers of GetReligion will remember that, in the summer of 2007, political scientist and polling maven John C. Green spoke at a Washington Journalism Center seminar to a international circle of journalists who came to Capitol Hill to discuss press freedoms in their homelands. But the hot topic of the day was the rise of Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and whether he could reach the White House. As I wrote in a previous post about that:

The bottom line: Obama was speaking directly to Democrats in the black church, but he was also reaching out to an emerging power bloc in his party — a group Green called the “religiously unaffiliated.” These so-called “nones” were poised to form a powerful coalition with atheists, agnostics and liberal believers.

Green made a prediction that was years ahead of schedule, in terms of the conventional thinking of Beltway politicos. At some point in the future, that growing coalition of secularists and religious liberals was going to cause tensions inside the Democratic Party.

Five years later, when the Pew Forum released its groundbreaking report on religiously unaffiliated Americans, Green raised that issue once again in a public event. Here’s a bite of the “On Religion” column that I wrote at that time.

[The] unaffiliated overwhelmingly reject ancient doctrines on sexuality with 73 percent backing same-sex marriage and 72 percent saying abortion should be legal in all, or most, cases. Thus, the "Nones" skew heavily Democratic as voters — with 75 percent supporting Barack Obama in 2008. The unaffiliated are now a stronger presence in the Democratic Party than African-American Protestants, white mainline Protestants or white Catholics.

"It may very well be that in the future the unaffiliated vote will be as important to the Democrats as the traditionally religious are to the Republican Party,” said Green, addressing the religion reporters. "If these trends continue, we are likely to see even sharper divisions between the political parties."

This brings us to Biden, today’s Democratic Party and some of the challenges he faces, when dealing with moral, cultural and religious issues in American life.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Conspiracy theory news isn't going away, so how will religious leaders respond?

New podcast: Conspiracy theory news isn't going away, so how will religious leaders respond?

Here we go again. This week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) offers yet another journey into the world of QAnon and its impact in American pews.

All the evidence is that this subject is not going away, even as it gets more complex. See this week’s post entitled, “The New York Times looks at QAnon leader who is, wait, a Manhattan mystic from Harvard?” Some interesting court trials loom ahead, no doubt, after the January 6th riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Still, if you were looking for a thesis statement that captures how elite American newsrooms view QAnon, and the red-hot topic of conspiracy theories in general, it would be a bite of revealed truth drawn from the must-read “Shadowlands” package published last June by The Atlantic. In “The Prophecies of Q,” author Adrienne LaFrance claimed that QAnon is an emerging sect that is defined by its evangelical hopes and dreams, since the “language of evangelical Christianity has come to define the Q movement.”

In a GetReligion post at the time (“The Atlantic probes QAnon sect and finds (#shocking) another evangelical-ish conspiracy“) I offered my own opinion on that:

There are times, when reading the sprawling “Shadowland” package … when one is tempted to think that the goal was to weave a massive liberal conspiracy theory about the role that conservative conspiracy theories play in Donald Trump’s America.

At the center of this drama — of course — is evangelical Christianity. After all, evangelical Christians are to blame for Trump’s victory, even if they didn’t swing all those crucial states in the Catholic-labor Rust Belt.

It’s almost as if evangelicals are playing, for some strategic minds on the left, the same sick, oversized role in American life that some evangelicals assign to Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Bill Gates and all those liberal Southern Baptist intellectuals who love Johnny Cash and Jane Austen.

That’s still half of what I think on this topic.

It is certainly true that (a) leaders of the “political cult” called QAnon — to use a term from a must-read Joe Carter FAQ on this topic — speak fluent evangelical and that (b) the gospel according to Q and similar conspiracy heresies have influenced many people in pews (including some who traveled to the National Mall for Trump’s March to Save America rally).

That’s an important, ongoing story that must be covered.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

The New York Times looks at QAnon leader who is, wait, a Manhattan mystic from Harvard?

The New York Times looks at QAnon leader who is, wait, a Manhattan mystic from Harvard?

It would have been hard to have consumed mainstream press coverage during the 2020 race for the White House without hearing quite a bit about the impact of QAnon and other conspiracy theories on the most dedicated followers of Donald Trump. Conspiracy theories on the other side of American life? Not so much.

At the same time, for totally valid reasons, it was impossible to read about QAnon and other conspiracy theories without hearing about their impact in church pews, as well as blue-collar bars. In some media reports, QAnon was presented as an “evangelical” Christian movement, pure and simple.

Here at GetReligion, we have argued that the impact of QAnon in grassroots evangelical culture has been obvious and that this is an important story. (See this post, in particular: “Thinking about QAnon — Joe Carter sends strong warning to evangelicals about new heresy.”)

At the same time, it has been hard — so far — to argue that there is evidence that major institutions, denominations and leaders at the heart of evangelical culture have been sucked into this tragedy. (See this podcast and post, in particular: “New York Times says 'Christian nationalism' tied to white 'evangelical power'.”)

At this point, I am convinced that QAnon is, to use Joe Carter’s term, a “political cult” led by social-media activists who clearly know how to rattle the chains of evangelicals who are obsessed with speculating about the End Of All Things.

With all of that in mind, I was interested to dig into the recent New York Times multi-media feature that ran with this dramatic double-decker headline:

A QAnon ‘Digital Soldier’ Marches On, Undeterred by Theory’s Unraveling

Valerie Gilbert posts dozens of times a day in support of an unhinged conspiracy theory. The story of this “meme queen” hints at how hard it will be to bring people like her back to reality.

I assumed that this story would contain some religious content, if not clouds of speculation about evangelical involvement in QAnon.

So who is Gilbert?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Watch what Biden does, not what he says: Executive orders will widen rift within U.S. bishops

Watch what Biden does, not what he says: Executive orders will widen rift within U.S. bishops

Can you feel the unity yet? That’s the joke among political conservatives as the Biden administration closed out its first week.

Within hours of taking the oath of office on his family’s massive Bible, President Joe Biden signed a raft of executive orders — something that went on in the ensuing days — to undo strategic executive moves during Donald Trump’s presidency. During that process, Biden fan afoul of traditional Catholic teachings and, once again, placed the spotlight on his Catholic faith.

Political and religious conservatives (not always the same thing) can agree that Biden’s actions over the past week didn’t foster unity. If anything, this blitz of activity highlighted the differences between two ever-divergent Catholic camps in this country, something that revealed itself on Day 1 among the U.S. bishops and across the Atlantic Ocean in Rome as a result of dueling statements and the polemics it unleashed, all of which pointed to old fights and old wounds. Can you say “Theodore McCarrick”?

Biden, the first Roman Catholic president since John F. Kennedy in 1960, is often identified as “devout” (click here for background), when journalists describe his faith. Of course, the doctrinal side of Biden’s piety isn’t something journalists dig into. We don’t know what is in Biden’s heart or even his head.

But here is the key point for journalists and news readers: What we do know — as is the case with every politician — is what he does and says. Options about church teachings on marriage and sexuality are one thing. Biden’s decision to perform an actual gay union rite represented open conflict with the teachings of his church.

Journalists can (and should) report and show where there is overlap regarding church teachings and where there is clear contradiction. The Religious Left will soon learn that it shouldn’t hitch their wagon to any political ideology. The Religious Right learned that the hard way with Trump — something that could take years to unspool when it comes to credibility.

With Biden being a Democrat, however, I don’t expect the mainstream press to do any of this. Instead, we see puff pieces from The New York Times calling Biden “perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in half a century.” Guess they forgot that George W. Bush was a born-again Christian who regularly attended services. What about Jimmy Carter’s decades teaching Sunday school?

Here’s the key excerpt from that very feature that ran this past Saturday:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

America remains bitterly divided: But is this country veering closer to another civil war?

America remains bitterly divided: But is this country veering closer to another civil war?

Call it the "Texit" parable.

America's new civil war begins with the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, creating an abortion-free zone in the Bible Belt and most heartland states.

Enraged Democrats pledge to end the U.S. Senate filibuster and expand the number of high-court justices. After restoring Roe, they seek single-payer health care, strict gun control and sweeping changes in how government agencies approach the First Amendment, with the IRS warning faith groups to evolve -- or else -- on matters of sexual identity. Big Tech begins enforcing the new orthodoxy.

Conservatives rebel and liberals soon realize that most of America's military, including nuclear weapons, are in rebel territory. Then federal agents kill Alabama's pro-life, Black governor -- while trying to arrest him as a traitor. That's too much for Gov. Francisco Gonzalez of Texas, who decides that it's time for a new republic.

David French fine-tuned this "Texit" vision early in 2020, while finishing "Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation." Best-known as a #NeverTrump conservative pundit, most of the Harvard Law graduate's career has focused on old-school First Amendment liberalism -- which in recent decades has meant defending conservative religious believers in religious liberty cases.

The book's first lines are sobering, especially after recent scenes on Capitol Hill.

"It's time for Americans to wake up to a fundamental reality: the continued unity of the United States cannot be guaranteed," wrote French. Right now, "there is not a single important cultural, religious, political, or social force that is pulling Americans together more than it is pulling us apart."

Americans are divided by their choices in news and popular culture. America remains the developing world's most religious nation, yet its increasingly secularized elites occupy one set of zip codes, while most traditional religious believers live in another. In politics, more and more Democrats are Democrats simply because they hate Republicans, and vice versa.

Ironically, cultural conservatives now find themselves hoping that the Supreme Court will protect them, said French, reached by telephone. Conservatives know they have lost Hollywood, academia, America's biggest corporations, the White House and both houses of Congress.

"I constructed the Texit scenario around court packing because that has become their last firewall," said French.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

On the agenda until Inauguration Day 2025: Whither Trumpism and, thus, evangelicalism? 

On the agenda until Inauguration Day 2025: Whither Trumpism and, thus, evangelicalism? 

In a city locked down as an armed encampment, Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris were inaugurated without the disruptions many feared. There were prayers and familiar political calls for healing and unity.

References to the January 6th riot at the U.S. Capitol came early and often.

Regarding that historic day, much remains to be investigated but Wall Street Journal veteran Gerald Seib offered a brisk summary: "Mr. Trump sent a crowd of his supporters to the Capitol to stop the constitutional transfer of power to his elected successor. That crowd turned into a mob that ransacked the seat of American democracy and tried to hunt down its elected leaders." Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell stated much the same Tuesday.

Seib added that in the melee, "mainstream Trump supporters were overshadowed by those swinging fire extinguishers at cops and a man wearing a 'Camp Aushwitz' sweatshirt." That is, the fringe dwellers, unhinged devotees and insurrection plotters emerged from a larger throng that obeyed the president's summons to attend his "Stop the Steal" rally and march upon the Capitol.

The same with a certain number of evangelical-style Protestants at the "Steal" protest and explicitly religious "Jericho" march. They were swept into the criminal rampage alongside violent extremists who trashed the symbolic citadel, spewed F-bombs, assaulted police (battering one to death) and chanted threats to assassinate America's #1 evangelical office-holder, Vice President Mike Pence.

Several top religion reporters publicized this unnerving aspect of the fray. In response, GetReligion editor Terry Mattingly questioned whether the rioting rabble truly represented elements of the power structures of the evangelical movement and its leadership, as some claimed.

The evangelical elite does not control many among the proletariat, as The Guy noted while pondering evangelicalism's future last July 29, and the gap has grown since then. Revulsion over Trump's words and deeds provoked some evangelical leaders to favor Biden but evangelical voters gave Trump a healthy margin (as always with Republican nominees, witness Romney, McCain, Bush). This is especially true among nondenominational, independent churches and among some self-proclaimed Pentecostal prophets (see this important Julia Duin post)

Whatever the numbers and stature of the those who waved Jesus banners, the day sullied evangelical Protestantism, and perhaps even religious faith in general, for the vast American citizenry that believes Trump and his disciples tried to steal the election from Biden.

Fairly or not, in the public mind and in the media, evangelicalism is now fused not just with the Republican Party but its dominant Trumpite wing.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

UK ready to welcome waves of Hong Kong residents (Yes, BBC ignored religion angles)

UK ready to welcome waves of Hong Kong residents (Yes, BBC ignored religion angles)

On the night of the Hong Kong handover to China, I walked through that great city’s old airport — noting the many residents who sat, passports in hand, preparing to leave. I was leaving after a small international gathering of journalists and academics focused, naturally, on religion and the news.

I talked to a few of the solemn people I saw that night in 1997. Some said they were leaving for good. Others said they were going abroad to explore the legal and economic hurdles they would need to clear if or when they decided to leave. I didn’t hear a single optimistic voice.

Like the people I interviewed for the two “On Religion” columns I researched during that stey, they said that they expected that, in a few years, the Chinese authorities would crack down on dissent, free speech and, yes, some mentioned freedom of religion. Here are those columns: “Silence and tension in Hong Kong” and “Hong Kong II: There’s more to life than $.”

I bring this up because of an important story that is unfolding, in slow motion, in the United Kingdom. Here is the top of a long BBC website story with this headline: “The Hong Kong migrants fleeing to start new lives in the UK.

The UK will introduce a new visa at the end of January that will give 5.4 million Hong Kong residents — a staggering 70% of the territory's population — the right to come and live in the UK, and eventually become citizens.

It is making this "generous" offer to residents of its former colony because it believes China is undermining Hong Kong's rights and freedoms.

Not everyone will come. Some of those eligible to leave have expressed their determination to stay and continue the fight for democracy.

In the end, Britain estimates that about 300,000 will take up the visa offer over the next five years.

As you would expect, the story introduces a family that is already in the UK, exploring their reasons for making the leap. Any signs of religion here?

Readers are told that Andy Li and his wife Teri Wong moved to York in October, just after the announcement of plans for this policy change. They said, no surprise, that they were thinking about their children, daughter Gudelia, 14, and son Paul, 11.

"We feel that the things we treasure about Hong Kong — our core values — are fading over time," said Mr Li. "So we decided we needed to provide a better opportunity for our children, not only for their education, but also for their futures."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Evangelical 'power' and U.S. Capitol rioting: What about Franklin Graham and Falwell Jr.?

Evangelical 'power' and U.S. Capitol rioting: What about Franklin Graham and Falwell Jr.?

As a rule, I don’t use GetReligion posts to respond to feedback from readers. But several people — in emails, for the most part — have raised two crucial, and valid, questions about last week’s “Crossroads” podcast and post: “New York Times says 'Christian nationalism' tied to white 'evangelical power'.”

Actually, it’s the same question asked in two different ways. Hold that thought.

In the podcast and post, I argued that a much-read New York Times piece (“How White Evangelical Christians Fused With Trump Extremism“) did a fine job while offering illustrations that conspiracy theories such as the QAnon gospel have soaked into many pews and a few pulpits, especially in independent (and often small) charismatic and evangelical churches. My question was whether the feature provided solid evidence for this thesis:

The blend of cultural references, and the people who brought them, made clear a phenomenon that has been brewing for years now: that the most extreme corners of support for Mr. Trump have become inextricable from some parts of white evangelical power in America. Rather than completely separate strands of support, these groups have become increasingly blended together.

The key word was “power,” as in “some parts of evangelical power” becoming “inextricable” from the “most extreme” forms of Trump support — which has to be a reference to those who planned, not the legal National Mall rally for Trump, but the illegal armed attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In response, I wrote:

… Anyone who studies “evangelicalism” — white or otherwise — knows that we are talking about a movement based on the work of powerful denominations (this includes megachurches), parachurch groups, publishers (and authors) and major colleges, universities and seminaries.

This led to several people asking this valid question: What about the Rev. Franklin Graham? Others asked: What about Jerry Falwell, Jr., and Liberty University?

These are certainly examples of evangelical brand names — Graham and Falwell.


Please respect our Commenting Policy