Godbeat

, , , , , ,

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
, , , , , , , ,

Does this ancient document have authority in modern debates about moral theology?

, , , , , , , ,
Does this ancient document have authority in modern debates about moral theology?

THE QUESTION:

What was the ancient Didache and what is its to moral controversies relevance today?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

Except for the Bible or Quran, ancient writings rarely pop up in 21st Century public disputes. So it was rather interesting to see that happen with the Didache, whose importance rests on its likely status as the oldest surviving text from Christianity's earliest days other than the New Testament itself. Certain scholars think it was written even before the Gospels, between A.D. 50 and 70, but more common dating puts it in the early 2nd Century A.D.

This text's sudden media appearance involved the unending abortion debate, which is hotter than ever in the U.S. with the Supreme Court set to re-examine the law next term in the Dobbs case and the Catholic bishops' conference considering whether to endorse denial of Communion to "pro-choice" office-holders, President Biden included.

Garry Wills, the Northwestern University historian and renegade Catholic, recently sought to convince New York Times readers that "the cult of the fetus" embraced by Catholic bishops (also evangelical Protestants) is off-base because, among other things, Jesus and the New Testament authors never condemn abortion as sinful.

A blistering response by National Review's Michael Brendan Dougherty cited the Didache as prime evidence in contending that Christianity from its earliest phase opposed abortion. The document's second chapter forbids "grave sins," listed as follows:

"You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge . . . (Roberts-Donaldson translation).

A later section targets "murderers of children, destroyers of the handiwork of God" in a catalogue of people who are living out "the way of death."


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
, , , , , , , , , ,

Step back from digital news blitz with deeply layered religion pieces about China and India

, , , , , , , , , ,
Step back from digital news blitz with deeply layered religion pieces about China and India

The web has seduced us — and by us I mean me — into a life of 24-7 journalistic overload. For me, that can mean running out of bandwidth before getting to a story that actually deserves close attention. My limited brain can digest only so much before it shorts out.

Even a strung-out news junkie such as myself needs to log off every so often. Self-styled media literacy is as addictive as blissful ignorance.

Religion coverage has suffered greatly in this new journalistic reality. We’re provided an abundance of attention-grabbing stories about clergy hypocrisy, largely involving sexual, material or political excess. We get too few stories that connect the data points of everyday religious complexity that allows us to understand issues more deeply.

Here are two recent stories that struck me as worthy of the attention that’s too often withheld. One involves China, the other India. The only connection between them is that they both reveal deep truths about the religious reality of the societies they report on.

Let’s start with China, the more straightforward of the two stories.

It comes from Foreign Policy and ran under the intriguing, but incomplete, headline: “The Chinese Communist Party Is Scared of Christianity.”

Why incomplete? Because as the writer notes, it’s not just Christianity that scares China’s totalitarians rulers. It’s all unauthorized official thinking, religious or otherwise.

Did the headline mention Christianity alone because editors figured that would play best with their mostly western readership? Is this another example of algorithmic journalism?


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

'Where there is incense there is fire.' True, but reporters can seek voices in middle of that war

, , , , , , , , , ,
'Where there is incense there is fire.' True, but reporters can seek voices in middle of that war

Raise your hand if you are old enough to remember the Vietnam era.

That may sound like a strange question to ask after a weekend of reading the tsunami of online reactions to the decision by Pope Francis to all but crush the 2007 Summorum Pontificum apostolic letter by the now retired Pope Benedict XVI, the document defending the use of the old Latin Mass, now called the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

Now the fighting — another sign of real divisions between Catholic bishops almost everywhere — will almost certainly be turned up to 11. As Father Raymond J. de Souza of the National Catholic Register put it: “Where there is incense there is fire.”

This brings me back to Vietnam. Here’s the phrase that jumped into my mind, about an hour or two into watching the firestorm on Catholic Twitter: “We had to burn the village in order to save it,” the popular paraphrase of a line in an Associated Press report from that era stating, “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

There appear to be people on both side of the Latin Mass war who are ready to do something like that. Pope Francis has clearly stated that he believes the “ordinary” modern form of the Vatican II Mass cannot live peacefully with rules allowing many Catholics to embrace the faith’s earlier liturgical traditions.

This is an unbelievably complex story and I feel only compassion for the wire-service reporters who had to write short hard-news stories about this action by Pope Francis.

Why? At one point, I started listing some basic facts built into the foundations of this story.

Truth be told, there are:

* Latin Mass activists who reject Vatican II and, from time to time, refer to this pope simply as “Bergoglio,” meaning they still consider him to be Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina — not the real pope. They reject Vatican II, period. Pope Benedict XVI has never been in this camp.

* Progressive Catholics whose hatred of the traditional Mass and its proponents is so fierce that they are willing to roll the dice on schism. They believe the “spirit,” not the actual teachings, of Vatican II must be defended at all costs. Some of these liberal Catholics are openly sympathetic to the doctrinal “reforms” sought by German bishops, which could lead to schism in some form.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Newsy question that won't go away: Should Southern Baptist Convention change its name?

, , , ,
Newsy question that won't go away: Should Southern Baptist Convention change its name?

THE QUESTION:

After 176 years, does the Southern Baptist Convention need a new name?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

This question has simmered over the years within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), which is by far America's largest Protestant body. How long? Check out the video at the top of this post (and note the name of the local pastor who was interviewed).

Discussions heated up a decade ago and are now more pertinent than ever, in part due to the growth of African-American churches in the SBC. Some Baptists hope this step toward a fresh new image might help overcome public relations disasters over SBC mishandling of sexual abuse cases, misogyny, racial insensitivity and partisan politicizing of the Gospel -- at a time when slow membership decline follows decades of impressive growth.

One reason to keep the old name is that the SBC has had what historian Bill Leonard calls "a powerful denominational self-consciousness" more than other Protestants. Its clear identity has long been associated with biblical conservatism in belief and energetic evangelistic effort at home and abroad. And yet the SBC faces the general move of U.S. Protestants away from loyalty and identity with a particular denomination. Some SBC congregations no longer emphasize their affiliation or even shun "Baptist" in their name.

Then again, is the Southern Baptist Convention even “southern” any longer? If not, the name is misleading even as it announces a narrowly sectional identity.

The answer to this is “yes” and “no.”

On the one hand, for a generation domestic missionaries and southern expatriates have extended the SBC's presence across the North and West to create a truly nationwide denomination. On the other, about four-fifths of members still live in the traditional turf extending southward from the arc of Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri and Oklahoma.


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

Any kind of turnaround for 'Mainline' Protestantism would be big news, but is it true? 

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Any kind of turnaround for 'Mainline' Protestantism would be big news, but is it true? 

One danger facing religion-beat veterans is that a broad trend becomes so familiar we overlook its continuing journalistic importance. One example is the year-by-year-by-year decline of America's once-influential "Mainline" Protestant churches over the past half-century, even as conservative or "Evangelical" Protestants generally kept up with population growth -- until recently.

(For additional background, please note that the June 24 Guy Memo lamented media neglect of Mainline angles in spot news coverage. See also this recent Ryan Burge post.)

The Mainline shrinkage is one of this era's momentous changes in American religion, a great void in the public square into which evangelicals moved. Other major trends include the substantial rise of unaffiliated "nones," immigration-driven increases in Hispanic Catholics and followers of Asian religions, and white Catholics' shift from loyal Democrats to pivotal Republican constituency.

It's big stuff if that Mainline Protestant slide has bottomed out or that’s any kind of upswing. And what if Mainliners now suddenly outnumber the rival white Evangelicals (leaving aside the distinctive Black and Hispanic Evangelicals). Such is the scenario in a major new survey released July 8 by the Public Religion Research Institute (contacts at press@prri.org or 202-238-9424).

PRRI tells us that white Mainliners are now 16.4% of the U.S. population, a remarkable gain from 13% as recently as 2016, while white Evangelicals have fallen to 14.5% from a 23% peak in 2006. White Catholics constitute a pretty stable 11.7%.

Politically, Mainliners are divided and thus have less clout than other groups, identifying as 35% Democrats, 33% Republicans, and 30% Independents.

As journalists ponder what to make of this surprising report, begin with what's “Mainline” in the church marketplace. The Guy (and others) say the word designates those Protestant denominations — the so-called “Seven Sisters” — born in Colonial America or the early Republic, with predominantly white memberships, that are affiliated with the National Council of Churches and are tolerant or favorable toward liberal belief. We could add that the well-educated Mainliners typically enjoy relatively high incomes and social status.

Here is the key: This PRRI survey at hand identified Mainliners by what they are not instead of what they are.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Independent, charismatic churches getting new scrutiny, but do reporters get why people choose them?

, , , , ,
Independent, charismatic churches getting new scrutiny, but do reporters get why people choose them?

It wasn’t that long ago that I was trying to get reporters to wake up to a whole new world of charismatic/Pentecostal churches that are networked into a movement led by modern-day apostles and prophets.

I chaired a panel at a 2017 gathering of religion reporters in Nashville that had two representatives of this movement plus a third person who opposed it. But very few writers caught on. One reason is because it’s so tough to define. Observers and participants can’t even agree on a name. Some call the movement the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and others call it the apostolic/prophetic movement.

Then Jan. 6 happened at the US Capitol. Now it seems as though reporters can’t get enough of asking: Who were these people? Every week now seems to be something new about this movement, like this piece in Christianity Today, which is a fairly decent overview of what’s happened since last fall. The reporter wrung some quotes out of reclusive former prophet Jeremiah Johnson, which is a first.

My one plaint is that the CT piece is several months late, as some of us were reporting on this in April. Plus, given the extra time the reporter had, I would have liked to have seen fresher material. And California evangelist Shawn Bolz should have been dinged for wrongly prophesying the end of the coronavirus back in April 2020. The up note the article ends on doesn’t reflect the reality that the majority of the false prophets out there have not repented nor apologized.

On the other side of the spectrum, the Washington Post has come out with two pieces, one including the “cowboy shaman” so visible in the attack on the Capitol and the other an account of a visit to Mercy Culture Church in Fort Worth.

The first piece was an attempt to explain just what these Capitol invaders believe.

Many forces contributed to the attack on the Capitol, including Trump’s false claims of electoral victory and American anger with institutions. But part of the mix, say experts on American religion, is the fact that the country is in a period when institutional religion is breaking apart, becoming more individualized and more disconnected from denominations, theological credentials and oversight.

That has created room for what Yale University sociologist Phil Gorski calls a religious “melee, a free for all.”

I’d definitely agree that it’s everyone for him or herself out there. However, non-denominational churches have been on the scene since the late 1970s. It just took scholars several decades to start tracking them. And do you think the typical church member really cares what the theologians are saying?


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

Think about it: Southern Baptist tweetstorm spotlights an important issue for religion-beat pros

, , , , , , , , , ,
Think about it: Southern Baptist tweetstorm spotlights an important issue for religion-beat pros

How many times have you read a story that said something like, “Southern Baptists are expected to do so-and-so or such-and such”?

I’m not talking about coverage of the actual annual meeting when “messengers” from autonomous SBC churches actually get together and vote on this-and-that and make statements and changes in the mechanisms that affect their common work. I am referring to news stories that seem to assume that Southern Baptists can be summed up with one set of cultural or political images or a set of data points.

You know: I’m talking about news coverage of Southern Baptists that assumes that Sunbelt suburban megachurches are the only reality. It’s so easy, when trying to write news reports of 666 words or so, to settle into language that attempts to make the blurry real world snap into super-sharp focus.

The same is true of all big religious movements, of course. We all know that the singular “Catholic vote” doesn’t exist, now or ever. We know that rural United Methodists are not the same folks as blue zip-code urbanites (and there are complexities inside those two groups). We know that many Episcopalians in north Texas are not the same as those in northern California. But there’s only so much space (even in today’s online world) and editors always want snappy phrases and punchy conclusions, usually with a political hook or two.

Anyway, Nathan A. Finn — provost at North Greenville University, a campus in South Carolina with strong Southern Baptist ties — recently rolled out a tweetstorm in the wake of all the news coverage of the SBC annual meeting in Nashville.

This is not a news story. It isn’t even a conventional “think piece,” although Finn could have turned it into one quite easily. It’s “just” a long chain of tweets. Nevertheless, there is much to learn here. Let us attend.

The chain opened with the tweet at the top of this post. Here’s the rest of the “storm” (sorry about the repeats, but it’s the best way to keep the URLs clear).


Please respect our Commenting Policy