Euthanasia

Elite editors often ignore Catholic stories, so why is St. Pope John Paul II a target?

Elite editors often ignore Catholic stories, so why is St. Pope John Paul II a target?

What is news? Who gets to define that term?

These are questions that I ask students when I teach journalism during their freshman year in college.

It sounds like a simple question — but increasingly an important one as we examine trends in recent religion coverage in the news media.

The bottom line: There is a trend where many religion stories — especially those regarding Catholicism — receive zero coverage whatsoever in the secular mainstream press. However, stories about evangelicals, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodoxy and other faiths have also vanished or never appeared in the first place.

When some issues do get coverage, it’s often because it has more to do with politics than debates about doctrine, theology or faith. Why?

That’s the key question.

It takes us back to the original question: What is news?

This trend includes Catholic stories that I have written about here — vandalism of churches/pro-life centers and the FBI spying on parishioners — and others that I have not regarding other faith traditions such as the split in the Anglican Communion.

All of these stories are news — “big” news, even. However, they clash with what left-leaning readers of major legacy news organizations want to see and hear in the publications that they support with their online clicks and subscription payments. That appears to affect a majority of elite editors and reporters (click here for tmatt’s Religion & Liberty manifesto on that topic).

Coverage of these stories either never happened or just vanished, like the manifesto of the Nashville school shooter. Regarding Catholic storylines, a recent First Things essay — written by a prominent American bishop — that all but accused a cardinal of heresy never drew any mainstream media ink.

Neither have the statements of a progressive cardinal who now heads the pro-life Vatican office who says he has no issue with euthanasia.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: ProPublica probes for-profit hospice horrors, but ignores faith-based networks

Podcast: ProPublica probes for-profit hospice horrors, but ignores faith-based networks

Every now and then, your GetReligionistas run into a story that puts us in a real bind, in terms of the basic media-criticism work that we do here.

The nonprofit journalism group ProPublica, in this case working with The New Yorker, recently published a great example of this kind of report. We are talking about a deeply researched piece that is a must-read story — period. Reporter Ava Kofman’s work is painful, even agonizing, to read, for all the right reasons.

At the same time, the story is seriously lacking when it comes to exploring religious facts and beliefs that are essential to its subject, which is hospice care.

The feature does include a nod to the Christian history of hospice care, but avoids any meaningful discussion of the differences between the work done in faith-based hospice networks — which are massive — and what happens with some (maybe many) for-profit hospices, such as those at the hellish heart of this report. The headline: “Endgame: How the Visionary Hospice Movement Became a For-Profit Hustle.”

This must-read report was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in) and I will stress that this subject was deeply personal for host Todd Wilken and for me. Wilken is a Missouri-Synod Lutheran pastor and has years of experience assisting with end-of-life issues and questions. My father was a Southern Baptist pastor who spent the last decade of his ministry working in Houston’s hospital complex, include the Texas Children’s Hospital.

This story does a great job of the “follow the money” components of scandals linked to for-profit hospice care. Here is the anecdotal lede:

Over the years, Marsha Farmer had learned what to look for. As she drove the back roads of rural Alabama, she kept an eye out for dilapidated homes and trailers with wheelchair ramps. Some days, she’d ride the one-car ferry across the river to Lower Peach Tree and other secluded hamlets where a few houses lacked running water and bare soil was visible beneath the floorboards. Other times, she’d scan church prayer lists for the names of families with ailing members.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Tip for reporters: Don't assume what Catholics believe based on politics or Internet memes

Tip for reporters: Don't assume what Catholics believe based on politics or Internet memes

There are moments in journalism that stand out more than others. One of those moments is when a certain piece — whether it’s a news story, analysis or opinion — gets a lot of attention by a large group of people for good and/or for bad reasons.

For a set of bad reasons, The Atlantic piece on the weaponization of the rosary was that piece for many Catholics and those who keep a watchful eye on media coverage of matters pertaining to the largest Christian denomination in the United States.

The piece — not necessarily a news story, but it was not labeled as commentary or even analysis — became a viral conversation topic among many family and friends over the last week. While the issue of Christian nationalism is important to understand, the bigger discussion — and questions I had to field — was more like this: What’s wrong with journalism these days?

That’s the central preoccupation of many — especially those of us who have been doing this for decades. (For more on that, please check out tmatt’s post and podcast from this past Friday. This view of what was going on in this piece may shock you.)

There were many lines from the Atlantic piece that stood out, but one that did most was this one:

The theologian and historian Massimo Faggioli has described a network of conservative Catholic bloggers and commentary organizations as a “Catholic cyber-militia” that actively campaigns against LGBTQ acceptance in the Church. These rad-trad rosary-as-weapon memes represent a social-media diffusion of such messaging, and they work to integrate ultraconservative Catholicism with other aspects of online far-right culture. The phenomenon might be tempting to dismiss as mere trolling or merchandising, and ironical provocations based on traditionalist Catholic symbols do exist, but the far right’s constellations of violent, racist, and homophobic online milieus are well documented for providing a pathway to radicalization and real-world terrorist attacks.

There’s the thesis of the piece, the connect-the-dots language linking strange behavior to current tensions in Catholic life in America.

There’s plenty to unpack here, but the reality is that citing a few political websites claiming to represent Catholic thought and then adding a smattering of social media memes is no way to gauge for what anyone really thinks and believes.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: What's up with this Gray Lady 'mind meld' with readers worried about Biden's faith?

Podcast: What's up with this Gray Lady 'mind meld' with readers worried about Biden's faith?

Popes rarely, in my experience, produce the kinds of five-star news soundbites that go viral.

However, Pope Francis has used striking language when addressing one of the hot-button issues of this or any other age — abortion. That was one of several topics woven into this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which focused on another elite-media political feature about President Joe Biden’s “devout” approach to practicing the Catholic faith.

Here is that New York Times headline: “Biden Is an Uneasy Champion on Abortion. Can He Lead the Fight in Post-Roe America?” The sub-head is just as provocative: “A practicing Catholic, President Biden has long sought a middle ground on abortion. But activists see the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as a sign that Democrats have tiptoed too carefully around the issue.”

Back to Pope Francis. Some of his abortion bytes have even made it into news reports. Does anyone remember this one, offering “hitman” imagery he has used many times (even adding Mafia imagery):

Abortion is more than an issue. Abortion is murder. Abortion, without hinting: whoever performs an abortion kills. … It’s a human life, period. This human life must be respected. This principle is so clear. And to those who can’t understand it I would ask two questions: Is it right, is it fair, to kill a human life to solve a problem? Scientifically it is a human life. Second question: Is it right to hire a hitman to solve a problem?

How about this one?

When I was a boy, the teacher was teaching us history and told us what the Spartans did when a baby was born with deformities: they carried it up the mountain and cast it down, to maintain “the purity of the race.” … Today we do the same thing. Have you ever wondered why you do not see many dwarfs on the streets? Because the protocol of many doctors — many, not all — is to ask the question: “Will it have problems?” It pains me to say this. In the last century the entire world was scandalized over what the Nazis were doing to maintain the purity of the race. Today we do the same thing, but with white gloves.

“White gloves.” Yes, there are many other Francis quotes along these lines. Of course, the pope has also angered Catholic conservatives with words and deeds that seem to downplay church teachings on abortion, especially in high-profile contacts with powerful Catholic politicians.

In other words — President Biden. This brings us to the content of that Times political-desk feature.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Did the Washington Post profile of Karen Swallow Prior help critics understand her or not?

Did the Washington Post profile of Karen Swallow Prior help critics understand her or not?

It’s hard to do a critique of an elite-media feature about someone who is a real online friend.

But, in this case, there’s an issue that — at least to me — cannot be avoided in the glowing Washington Post religion-desk feature that ran the other day with this headline: “Karen Prior has worked for Roe's overturn for decades. This isn't what she'd hoped to feel.

Most fans of the “Notorious KSP,” I would imagine, loved this piece.

At the same time, I’m sure her worst critics loved it as well — for reasons linked to the journalism issue that I would like to spotlight in this post. It helps to understand that Prior has critics (and friends) who disagree with some things that she says and does and then she has critics that basically don’t want her to exist.

Meanwhile, anyone — worthy critics and supporters — who has followed KSP’s work through the years with any kind of an open mind knows the strength of her logic and (dare I say it) art when defending centuries of Christian doctrines about life issues, as well as marriage and sexuality. But to grasp that side of her life, and how it fits into the total package of her apologetics, people need to actually read or hear her address those topics.

This Post piece focuses, for the most part, on her actions and beliefs that have fueled controversy about her among some evangelicals (like me, she was #NeverTrump #Never Hillary in 2016). A more balanced profile of her would have included quoted material that would have — with good cause — offended, well, most Post readers and editors. Hold that thought, because I will come back to it.

The piece starts with Prior’s feelings of elation at the news that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to be poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Prior was shocked and thrilled. But within minutes the deep divisions and differences in priorities among antiabortion advocates came into view. After being put aside for decades as they worked together to overturn Roe, they had become impossible to ignore. While Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains to say the leaked opinion may not be the final one, experts on abortion in America say even the potential of Roe’s demise is a turning point for the movement. If Roe falls, what does it mean to be for life now?

For Prior, it means much more than overturning Roe. It means more support for child care and pregnant women as well as supporting sex abuse victims, vaccinating as many people as possible against the coronavirus, and helping start and run an inner-city high school in Buffalo. But not all antiabortion activists agree and lately have begun splintering over next steps, such as whether to classify abortion as homicide and restrict contraception, as well as whether issues outside of reproduction even qualify as part of the “pro-life” cause.

Once again, this is an old, old story that is presented as something essentially new and, thus, linked to COVID-19, the Trump era and all kinds of “now” things. In reality, debates among evangelicals, and especially Catholics, about what it means to be “consistently pro-life” go back to the 1980s or earlier.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

No way around it: Bombshell Roe v. Wade leak was the religion story of the week

No way around it: Bombshell Roe v. Wade leak was the religion story of the week

News that the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority might overturn Roe v. Wade is not overly shocking. We’ve known that for months.

But the timing — and manner — of this week’s leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion that would strike down the landmark 1973 decision, which legalized abortion nationwide? That counts as a bombshell.

To discuss the big scoop by Politico’s Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward, ReligionUnplugged.com convened a panel of top religion journalists who have written extensively about the abortion debate. Click here to watch the discussion.

Clemente Lisi and I moderated the panel. Lisi, who teaches journalism at The King’s College in New York, is a ReligionUnplugged.com senior editor and a veteran GetReligion writer who focuses on Catholic news for both websites. The panelists were:

Adelle Banks, Religion News Service production editor and national reporter (see “If Roe goes, Black church leaders expect renewed energy for elections”).

Kelsey Dallas, Deseret News religion reporter and associate national editor (see “As some rallied over Roe v. Wade, these Christians prayed”).

BeLynn Hollers, Dallas Morning News reporter who covers women’s health, politics and religion (see her coverage of Texas’ restrictive abortion law).

• And Kate Shellnutt, Christianity Today senior news editor (see “This is and isn’t the moment pro-life evangelicals have waited for”).

Among the tantalizing questions the panel explored: Is the abortion debate a religion story?

Yes and no, Hollers said.

Yes, Dallas said. “But maybe not for the reasons people might assume,” she quickly added.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

When assisted suicide becomes 'a crossing over' church rite and a mere 'procedure'

When assisted suicide becomes 'a crossing over' church rite and a mere 'procedure'

Writer Emily Standfield drew a challenging assignment recently for Broadview magazine: write about Betty Sanguin, who chose to hasten her death as part of a religious rite performed inside the church she loved for many years, amid a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Here’s the full headline: “Manitoba’s first medically assisted death in a church was an ‘intimate’ ceremony — Betty Sanguin spent her last day with family and friends at Churchill Park United.” And this is the overture:

At around noon on March 9, Betty Sanguin arrived at her church, Churchill Park United in Winnipeg, on a stretcher.

“The moment we rolled her in … and sat her up in her recliner, she lit up like a Christmas tree,” Lynda Sanguin-Colpitts, one of Sanguin’s daughters, recalls. “I hadn’t seen that much life in her eyes, so much joy [in a long time]. And honestly I think part of it was just being in the church.”

But this was no ordinary church service. Sanguin chose to die in the sanctuary that day.

Let’s stipulate some points up front:

First of all, Standfield is an editorial intern. Also, it’s crucial that Broadview, a publication affiliated with the United Church of Canada, has many ideological commitments and states them explicitly on its website. Here are some quotes:

— “Broadview’s values include LGBTQ2 inclusion, environmental sustainability and ethical investing, as well as increasing the presence of diverse contributors.”

— “In October 2020, we pledged to have one-third BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour) staff and freelance contributors by 2025, and we’ll check in on our progress annually. Our governing board has also committed to achieving a similar target among its 11 members.”

— “In our writing, we refer to diverse communities with their preferred cases and spellings. For example, we capitalize ‘B’ in ‘Black’ and ‘I’ in ‘Indigenous,’ and use our Indigenous writers’ and subjects’ preferred spellings for Indigenous nations.”


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

Complex doctrinal story or mere politics? Hmmm ... What shaped news about U.S. bishops?

Complex doctrinal story or mere politics? Hmmm ... What shaped news about U.S. bishops?

Let’s face it. This Baltimore meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was a classic example of what kind of stories drive front-page news in the mainstream press.

For starters, you had a complicated story about a doctrinal, moral and institutional crisis in Roman Catholicism today — the collapse of Catholic beliefs and practice related to sin, confession, forgiveness and Holy Communion.

Then you had a political story that, for journalists, pitted the satanic hordes of conservative bishops linked, somehow, to Donald Trump against the wise, progressive, nuanced shepherds who sympathize with ordinary Catholics like President Joe Biden.

Guess which story framed most of the coverage? Consider this headline from the journalistic college of cardinals at The New York Times: Catholic Bishops Avoid Confrontation With Biden Over Communion.” And here’s the overture:

BALTIMORE — The Roman Catholic bishops of the United States backed away from a direct conflict with President Biden …, approving a new document on the sacrament of the eucharist that does not mention the president or any politicians by name.

At issue was the question of which Catholics, under which circumstances, are properly able to receive communion, one of the most sacred rites within Christianity. For some conservative Catholics, the real question was more pointed: Should Catholic politicians who publicly support and advance abortion rights be denied the sacrament?

For some of the most outspoken critics of Mr. Biden and other liberal Catholic leaders, the document represented a strategic retreat.

OK, here is a blunt question about that last statement: Is there any evidence that ANY DRAFT of this document — "The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Life of the Church" (.pdf here) — included a single reference to Biden, the White House or the presidency? If conservatives drove the process that led to this document, as assumed in the news coverage, isn’t it logical that references of this kind would have made it into digital ink at some point?


Please respect our Commenting Policy