Ethics

Left and right: Where do U.S. religious groups stand on abortion-rights issues?

Left and right: Where do U.S. religious groups stand on abortion-rights issues?

THE QUESTION:

Where do major U.S. religious groups stand on the contentious abortion issue?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

If the U.S. Supreme Court enacts that draft decision leaked to Politico, within weeks abortion policies will be returned to the 50 states for decision, adding to contention. Religious groups often consider the claims of the two lives, mother and unborn fetus, rather than this as simply a woman’s “decisions about her own body” per Vice President Kamala Harris’s formulation. Here are summaries of some major religious views.

It’s well-known that the Catholic Church, the largest religious body in the U.S. (and worldwide), profoundly abhors abortion, A 1965 decree from the world’s bishops at the Second Vatican Council declares that “from the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care,” and calls abortion and infanticide “unspeakable crimes” against humanity. The church’s Catechism says the same and dates this belief back to Christianity’s first century (citing Didache 2:2 and Epistle of Barnabas 19:5).

These statements do not permit any exceptions. But a 1993 ruling from the Vatican office on doctrine, approved by Pope John Paul II, allowed removal of a woman’s uterus (hysterectomy) in “medically indicated” cases that “counter an immediate serious threat to the life or health of the mother” even though sterilization results. A 2019 follow-up defined other rare cases. Since abortion is only the directly intended killing of a fetus, some moral theologians would apply this principle when loss of a fetus is a “secondary effect” of necessary surgery.

America’s Eastern Orthodox hierarchy has joined with Catholic leaders to affirm “our common teaching that life begins at the earliest moments of conception” and is “sacred” through all stages of development. However, America’s 53-member Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops acknowledges “rare but serious medical instances where mother and child may require extraordinary actions.”

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) advocated nationwide abortion on demand fully a decade before the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade liberalization, stating that limitations are “an affront to human life and dignity.” It specifically endorsed abortion rights in cases of “grave impairment” of the mother’s “physical or mental health,” a child’s “serious physical or mental defect,” rape or incest, or any “compelling reason — physical, psychological, mental, spiritual or economic.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Texas couple survives journey through COVID hell, apparently without clergy help of any kind

Texas couple survives journey through COVID hell, apparently without clergy help of any kind

One of my closest friends is a veteran doctor in a town deep in the Bible Belt. I’ve had lots of conversations with him about this experiences during the coronavirus pandemic. He has had COVID and so have I.

One common theme in our conversations has been a sense of mystery that medical professionals, from the beginning, have had about this evolving disease. They understand why COVID hits some people hard, especially older patients and people who, for various reasons, have respiratory problems. The mystery is why this disease strikes with deadly force in some cases — but clearly not all — involving young, healthy adults. And why does COVID attack some hearts and not others?

Readers will collide with some of these mysteries while reading a stunning Washington Post story about a family’s 139-day hospital drama that has received quite a bit of attention in social media and the mainstream press. The headline: “Chris Crouch was anti-vaccine. Now his pregnant wife had covid, and he faced a terrible choice.” Here is the overture:

KINGWOOD, Tex. — Chris Crouch had had low expectations for online dating. He was a police officer in his 30s, almost a year out from a painful divorce, and, he said, the women he had met had been “playing games” in ways that left him dispirited.

Then he met her.

Diana Garcia Martinez was 24 and a busy single mom whose sister had set up her profile without her knowing. She was intelligent, empathetic and upfront, and by the third date, he was in love. “It was just a feeling. … I felt like I knew her my whole life,” he recalled explaining to his cousin Gilbert, knowing it was a cliche but also true.

What role does religious faith play in this story? That’s a complex question.

I mean, we are talking about people in Texas. No one should be surprised by frequent Godtalk and references to prayer.

However, as the son of a Texas Baptist pastor (who spend the last decade of his ministry as a hospital chaplain), I was very surprised that the word “church” is missing. Did this couple really go through this medical hell alone, without a pastor or friends who share a pew with them? Maybe this couple is in the “Nothing in particular” demographic, but I have my doubts.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: As it turns out, it was totally logical for Jerry Falwell, Jr., to embrace Donald Trump

Podcast: As it turns out, it was totally logical for Jerry Falwell, Jr., to embrace Donald Trump

When reading That. Vanity. Fair. Article, it will help to focus on the obvious answer to the big question that will immediately pop into your head (especially if you happen to be a journalist).

The question: Why did Jerry Falwell, Jr., choose to talk to a magazine with a solid footprint on the American cultural and journalistic left?

The answer: Falwell is a lawyer who, at the moment, has a number of pressing legal issues in his life. To put this in D.C. Beltway lingo, he appears to be “hanging a lantern” on his problems. Here is one online definition of that term:

"Hang a lantern on your problem” was entered into the political lexicon in the 1980s by Chris Matthews, a former chief of staff to Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O’Neill. Matthews explained “hang a lantern on your problem” to the New York (NY) Times in 1987: “The first step is, admit you have a problem; that gives you credibility. The second step is to use that credibility to redefine your problem, or use the problem for your own purposes.”

As I explained during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), it is interesting to read the Vanity Fair piece and, with a mental highlighter pen (a real one if you get the analog magazine), mark the questions that Falwell chooses to answer and the ones that he declines to answer. Then, repeat the process with the questions that are answered and rejected by other key voices — think Giancarlo “pool boy” Granda and legal representatives for Liberty University.

This process will yield insights into two of the most obvious plot lines in this soap-opera mess, as in its steamy Miami-angle sex scandal and the ugly legal wars between Jerry Falwell, Jr., and the shamed leaders of Liberty University.

Once you’ve done that, you’re read to dig into the deeper elements of this story, which are clearly visible in the long, long, long second deck of it’s double-headline:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Do athletes have a moral duty to protest Chinese authoritarianism? How about Elon Musk?

Do athletes have a moral duty to protest Chinese authoritarianism? How about Elon Musk?

Do elite international athletes have a moral responsibility to publicly comment or act in a way that acknowledges their awareness of oppressive — or worse — political conditions in nations in which they compete?

Do societal moral standards require them to speak up, even when criticism and confrontation jeopardize their ability to compete and may threaten to derail an entire career?

The Beijing Winter Olympics — scheduled to begin in early February in and around China’s capital city — makes this a timely question.

Several democratic nations have announced “diplomatic” boycotts of the Beijing competition. They include the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, and Japan. (To be clear: democratic claims alone do not necessarily stifle a nation’s darker impulses and render it “moral.”)

That means that no political office holders from the the boycotting nations will attend these Games, but qualifying athletes are free to make their own choices about competing.

The following paragraphs from the above linked Washington Post article explain the limits on free speech China is demanding (with International Olympic Committee acquiescence).

The IOC has said athletes will be free to express themselves during the Games as long as they abide by IOC rules barring any demonstrations during sporting events or medal ceremonies.

Athletes could raise any number of issues, including allegations of cultural genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the erasure of civil freedoms in Hong Kong, and the arrests of human rights lawyers, activists and outspoken Chinese citizens. [Note that the Post left Tibetan issues, a major international sticking point for the West, off this list.]

But Chinese authorities are extremely sensitive to criticism about the country’s human rights record, its role in the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic, and even the country’s efforts during the Korean War.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Five big Catholic news angles that journalists will need to cover during 2022

Five big Catholic news angles that journalists will need to cover during 2022

As 2021 comes to a close, everyone is looking towards 2022. The news cycle over the last two years has been dominated by COVID-19 and that doesn’t seem to be subsiding — given the rash of infections the past few weeks as a result of the Omicron variant.

The Catholic world, meanwhile, had in 2021 one of its busiest years. The election of Joe Biden as president — this January will officially mark his first year in office — also dominated news coverage. That Biden was also a Catholic (only second after John F. Kennedy in 1960) thrust Catholicism into the political news coverage. Politics plus religion equals news. It’s a familiar formula.

Biden, a practicing Catholic who attends Mass on Sundays, was at odds this year with many U.S. bishops — setting up a year-long debate over whether he (and other pro-abortion politicians) should receive Holy Communion. In the end, the bishops offered more clarification in the importance of the Eucharist without singling out Biden. Truth is, no one knows if the bishops actually considered mentioning Biden or other pro-abortion-rights Catholics.

Issues around politics and religion will likely dominate once again in 2022. The abortion issue and a pending Supreme Court decision regarding access to it will be a big story in the coming year. The Catholic church, a major part of the abortion debate in this country for decades, will play a major role in news stories that will be written over the coming months.

At the same time, Pope Francis, who recently turned 85, will again be surrounded by rumors that he will either resign or die. Whether this pope — the most polarizing in centuries — can chip away at his agenda to change the church in the 21st century will continue to pit traditionalists versus progressives.

Here are the five big news trends and stories journalists need to keep an eye on in the new year:

(5) Pope Francis and his focus on a progressive agenda

This coming year could be the one where the battle between this pontiff and doctrinal traditionalists intensifies even further. A Dec. 17 Associated Press story set the stage for such a confrontation in what will be Francis’ ninth year as head of the Catholic church.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Plug-In: Americans favor religious exemptions for COVID-19 vaccine mandates — sort of

Plug-In: Americans favor religious exemptions for COVID-19 vaccine mandates — sort of

What a difference a year makes.

Or not.

Fifty-two weeks ago, this news topped Weekend Plug-in.

Sound familiar?

Trump calls COVID-19 vaccine ‘a medical miracle,’ but many religious people are skeptical

Guess what? Many religious people remain highly skeptical of the vaccines, despite their strong effectiveness at preventing serious illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

Which leads us to this week’s news: a new public opinion poll on religious exemptions to the vaccines.

Religion News Service’s Jack Jenkins reports:

WASHINGTON (RNS) — A new poll reveals most Americans are in favor of offering religious exemptions for the COVID-19 vaccines, yet express concern that too many people are seeking such exemptions. In the same survey, more than half of those who refuse to get vaccinated say getting the shot goes against their personal faith.

The poll, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and Interfaith Youth Core and released Thursday (Dec. 9), investigated ongoing debates about COVID-19 vaccines as well as emerging divisions over whether religious exemptions to the shots should even exist.

According to the survey, a small majority (51%) of Americans favor allowing individuals who would otherwise be required to receive a COVID-19 vaccine to opt out if it violates their religious beliefs, compared with 47% who oppose such religious exemptions.

See additional coverage of the poll by the Washington Times’ Mark A. Kellner, a former contributor at GetReligion, and NPR’s Megan Myscofski.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

As the news media churn, two rising religion muckrakers belong on your source list

As the news media churn, two rising religion muckrakers belong on your source list

It's the worst of times for the American media, with vanishing newspapers and magazines, shrinking staffs and budgets with what's left, the heavy-handed slant on cable TV "news" and polls showing record lows for consumer confidence in the accuracy and honesty of work done by journalists.

But the religion beat offers one ray of hope with gutsy investigative journalism from within evangelical Protestant ranks that sets the standard for other media -- and is one reason this movement so dominates religious news.

For years, Christianity Today and World magazines have bravely lifted rocks regarding what's been called the "evangelical industrial complex.". One can hope World will persist after its recent shakeup (click here for GetReligion post on that topic).

This Memo spotlights two muckrakers who belong on source lists of religion writers and religious organizations: Julie Roys of "The Roys Report" and Warren Cole Smith of "Ministry Watch."

Alas, there's much muck for them to rake. Religion-watchers are unlikely to miss any newsworthy scandals if they subscribe to free listserves and monitor their original reporting, alongside pick-ups such as this $600,000 mystery at THE Houston superchurch or this academic fuss at Cornerstone University.

By coincidence, both editors, who are resolutely conservative in terms of religious beliefs, jumped into the scene in 2019. Either or both would make for a good story, as would Roys' "Restore 2022" conference May 20-21 at Judson University in Elgin, Illinois.

Roys, a Wheaton and Medill School alumna, was a newswriter and reporter for Chicago TV stations. She took 13 years off to raise her three children and then, for a decade, hosted Moody Radio Network's "Up For Debate" show. She then exposed "corruption and mission drift" at the sponsoring Moody Bible Institute on her personal blog, which evolved into the "Report," with a special focus on #ChurchToo sexual exploitation scandals. She is even a watchdog of watchdogs, catching the president of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability in resume-padding.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

America's secular and religious death-by-choice debate is perennial and always newsworthy

America's secular and religious death-by-choice debate is perennial and always newsworthy

By count of the Death with Dignity organization, which devised Oregon's pioneering 1997 law under which 1,905 lives have been ended as of January 22, 10 states plus the District of Columbia have legalized euthanasia and -- assignment editors note -- 14 more states are currently debating such proposals. Click here to check on the situation in each state.

To begin, writers dealing with this perennial and newly current issue should be aware of the verbal politics with what's variously known as "euthanasia" (from the Greek meaning "good death"), "the right to die," "death on demand," "assisted suicide," "physician-assisted suicide” or "mercy killing." The activists who use the “pro-choice” label dislike any blunt mention of "suicide" or "killing" and urge instead that we use "physician-assisted death," "aid in dying" or "death with dignity."

Coverage by some media outlets, to be blunt, replaces non-partisanship with cheerleading.

Britain's The Economist had this mid-November cover headline: "The welcome spread of the right to die." However, to its credit the news magazine's (paywalled) editorial and international survey did summarize problems and opposing arguments.

A November 16 New York Times roundup on U.S. action — “For Terminal Patients, the Barrier to Aid in Dying Can Be a State Line” — reported that in addition to states that may newly legislate death-by-choice, states that already permit it are weighing further liberalization such as ending in-state residency requirements, shortening or waiving waiting periods, dropping the mandate that only physicians handle cases, filing of one request rather than two or more and other steps to streamline the process.

Reporters can find non-religious arguments in favor from Death With Dignity, cited above. It also recommends procedures to avoid abuse of this right. On the con side, pleas and cautions can be obtained from various disability rights organizations (click here for information).

On that score, psychiatrist-turned-journalist Charles Krauthammer, a non-religious Jew, spent much of his adult life paralyzed from the waist down.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

It's hard to write SBC news reports when key players keep hanging up their phones

It's hard to write SBC news reports when key players keep hanging up their phones

What are reporters supposed to do when key actors on one side of a controversy in a major religious group keep refusing to respond to calls and other contacts seeking their input and information?

I ask this because of the challenges that reporter Liam Adams is facing as (welcome to the religion-news beat) he tries to cover the legal questions and accusations swirling around the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention — America’s largest non-Catholic flock.

I can imagine a scenario in which some readers read this recent Nashville Tennessean story — “Resignations follow Baptist vote on privilege” (text is behind a high paywall) — and asked themselves: Hey, where are the quotes from people on the more conservative (if that’s the right word in battles over sexual abuse) side of this story? And why are there so many quotes from someone like Ed Stetzer, a hero of the current SBC leadership?

This story is so complex that it’s hard to pull out individual chunks of material, but lets try this long passage::

After two failed attempts at meetings on Sept. 21 and 28, the Southern Baptist Convention’s executive committee met for a third time Oct. 5 and voted to waive privilege. The committee acts on behalf of the convention when it is not in session.

In response, at least 10 executive committee members resigned either just before vote or shortly after — including some who are supporters of the Conservative Baptist Network. …

Conservative Baptist Network’s supporters on the executive committee all voted against allowing third-party investigators access to privileged files.

“It’s hard to see the correlation between the CBN and the objection to the waiver of privilege,” said Ed Stetzer, executive director of the Wheaton College Billy Graham Center. 'But there is clearly a correlation.'

In a news release last week, the Conservative Baptist Network said the group desired '“ruth and integrity.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy