Sex

Podcast: Zero elite press coverage of 'heresy' accusations against an American cardinal?

Podcast: Zero elite press coverage of 'heresy' accusations against an American cardinal?

The question at the heart of this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) was not whether Springfield (Ill.) Bishop Thomas Paprocki was on target with his First Things essay that all but accused San Diego Cardinal Robert McElroy of heresy.

The question was not whether Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg — a strategic leader in the Vatican’s Synod on Synodality — was right when he said the church's teaching on homosexuality are “no longer correct,” and added, “I think it is time for a fundamental revision of the doctrine."

The question was not whether Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich was correct when he suggested, in print, that priests should absolve Catholics who come to Confession, allowing them to receive Holy Communion, even if these individuals refuse to repent of behaviors that Catholic doctrine insists are sin.

The question was not what Pope Francis meant when he told bishops in the Congo, “Always. Always forgive in the Sacrament of Reconciliation” — even if there is confusion about whether penitents are repenting of their sins or not.

No, the journalism question discussed during this podcast was this: Why are these developments — especially that stunning “Imagining a Heretical Cardinal” essay by Paprocki — receiving (as of this morning) zero coverage in the mainstream press?

By the way, it’s important that Bishop Paprocki is the chairman-elect of the Canonical Affairs and Church Governance Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

It may also be relevant that, in 2017, Paprocki and McElroy clashed — in print — over the Springfield bishop’s decision not to allow Catholics to receive Holy Communion if they are openly living in same-sex marriages and, thus, rejecting centuries of Catholic doctrines on marriage and sex.

Why the lack of coverage? I have several theories.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Yo, journalists: It's time for a big update (or two) on the old, old Anglican wars timeline

Yo, journalists: It's time for a big update (or two) on the old, old Anglican wars timeline

Scribes who have been covering the Anglican Communion wars since, oh, the late 1970s or so (there are a few of us Jurassic journalists left) know that this has been a long, complicated road.

In most recent elite-press coverage, this timeline has been radically truncated, turning battles over a wide range of doctrines and church-history issues into a simple good vs. evil clash over LGBTQ rights. In this version of history, this global doctrinal war began in 2003 with the consecration of a non-celibate gay bishop in the tiny, shrinking Diocese of New Hampshire here in America.

Here at GetReligion, I have long referred to this fallacy as “Anglican timeline disease.” Hold that thought, because we will come back to it.

The key, right now, is that journalists need to radically update this timeline, in the wake of some major global developments that are receiving little elite coverage. Here is the dramatic double-decker headline for the major report in The Wall Street Journal:

Conservative Anglican Leaders Call for Break With Church of England Over Same-Sex Blessings

Archbishops from Africa and elsewhere repudiate the Archbishop of Canterbury’s historic role as spiritual leader of Anglicans worldwide

The overture for this solid story included several bites of information that are worth noting:

Conservative Anglican archbishops on Monday said the Church of England had forfeited its traditional leadership role in the worldwide Anglican Communion by approving the blessing of same-sex relationships earlier this month, opening a historic rift in one of the world’s biggest Christian denominations. 


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Pope Francis and a liberal U.S. cardinal spark new firestorm on sex, sin and Eucharist

Pope Francis and a liberal U.S. cardinal spark new firestorm on sex, sin and Eucharist

When popes talk about sex, it tends to make headlines.

This was certainly true when Pope Francis told the Associated Press, "Being homosexual isn't a crime." He said the Catholic Church opposes criminalizing homosexuality and that, "We are all children of God, and God loves us as we are." The pope then noted that homosexual activity is "not a crime. Yes, but it's a sin."

The pope immediately responded to questions from Outreach.faith, a website serving LGBTQ Catholics. Francis explained: "I was simply referring to Catholic moral teaching, which says that every sexual act outside of marriage is a sin. … This is to speak of 'the matter' of sin, but we know well that Catholic morality not only takes into consideration the matter, but also evaluates freedom and intention; and this, for every kind of sin."

The timing was striking since the AP interview ran on January 25 -- one day after the Jesuit magazine America published a controversial essay by Cardinal Robert W. McElroy of San Diego, who Pope Francis selected as a cardinal last year.

"It is a demonic mystery of the human soul why so many men and women have a profound and visceral animus toward members of the L.G.B.T. communities," concluded McElroy. "The church's primary witness in the face of this bigotry must be one of embrace rather than distance or condemnation. The distinction between orientation and activity cannot be the principal focus for such a pastoral embrace because it inevitably suggests dividing the L.G.B.T. community into those who refrain from sexual activity and those who do not."

The cardinal linked this "pastoral" approach to another hot-button issue -- offering Holy Communion to Catholics divorced and remarried outside the church. Previously, he had claimed that the "Eucharist is being weaponized and deployed as a tool in political warfare" by bishops attempting to withhold Communion from Catholic politicians who publicly promote abortion rights.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Is the Asbury revival a 'news' story? Let's seek journalism advice from Screwtape

Podcast: Is the Asbury revival a 'news' story? Let's seek journalism advice from Screwtape

Throughout this week, I have been following the online reports about the remarkable day-after-day revival gatherings that are taking place at Asbury University in Kentucky.

If you know about Methodist and Holiness movements, it isn’t surprising that this kind of spiritual earthquake would take place — again — at this location (here are some Asbury library resources on the history of earlier revivals).

Years ago, I went to Asbury for a speaking engagement. I noticed that there were tissue boxes placed a regular intervals along the sanctuary prayer rail-kneeling area. In other words, this is a campus in which it is normal for worshippers to kneel in sorrow/joy (often part of the same experience) while offering prayers of petition or repentance. This is part of the spiritual DNA of this community.

While reading social-media offerings about the revival, I also ran regular Google News searches (sample here) to see if journalists — including those at elite publications — have been covering this event.

The pickings have been rather lean, for reasons we discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). I found myself, in a kind of time-travel experience, imaging myself attempting to convince a newspaper editor that this mysterious, spiritual outbreak was a BIG. NEWS. STORY.

This led me, believe it or not, straight to “The Screwtape Letters,” by C.S. Lewis, the famous Oxford scholar and Christian apologist. In this classic, global bestseller a master demon writes letters to his nephew Wormwood, an apprentice in need of advice on how to lead a human soul into hell. The relevant text, in my musings on the “news value” of this Asbury revival, is Letter 25. The key passage states:

“The real trouble about the set your patient is living is that it is merely Christianity. … What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call ‘Christianity AND.’ You know –– Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring.”

In other words, national journalists may be trying to figure out what the “AND” is in this story.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Dangerous four-way intersection looms ahead in Christian debates about LGBTQ issues

Dangerous four-way intersection looms ahead in Christian debates about LGBTQ issues

Flying home from his February Africa pilgrimage, Pope Francis held an unprecedented three-man press conference alongside Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, leader of the Church of England and some 85 million members in the global Anglican Communion, and the Right Rev. Iain Greenshields, this year’s titular head of the Church of Scotland (equivalent of the mainline U.S. Presbyterians).

These men personify three emerging approaches to same-sex revisionism that reporters will be observing. A fourth option,of course, is strict limitation of sex to heterosexual marriage, a doctrine articulated in the Catholic Catechism and shared by all churches until recently. For example, see this summary issued last week by the Rev. J.D. Greear, a former Southern Baptist Convention president.

In the West, many “mainline” Protestant groups have shifted to option one — full-on approval of same-sex relationships, exemplified by liturgies to celebrate church weddings. The Church of Scotland joined them last May as assembly delegates gave this change 67% support. (Dissenting clergy will not be forced to perform weddings they oppose in conscience.) This followed an earlier go-ahead in America’s largest Presbyterian denomination.

With option two, Pope Francis has not proposed any alteration in the Catholic teaching that same-sex acts are sinful, but is ambiguous about how Catholic churches should welcome and potentially bless gay people (see this earlier GetReligion post on a test case in Chicago). That and his other “dialogue” initiatives rile doctrinal traditionalists. Backed by Welby and Greenshields, Francis asserted that secular law should not criminalize people for gay acts -- a striking plea in Africa, where many nations outlaw gay activity and some impose the death penalty.

Then Archbishop Welby’s church made an historic decision for option three — half-way liberalization. This approach would continue to bar same-sex weddings, while approving church “blessing” ceremonies for such couples after their civil marriages (legal in England since 2013). After six years of formal nationwide church discussion, and more than eight hours of floor debate, the General Synod voted February 9 to “welcome” that policy, which the bishops approved in January.

The motion expressed repentance over past and present “harm that LGBTQI+ people have experienced” in church. Welby and the Archbishop of York jointly stated that their church “will publicly, unreservedly and joyfully welcome same-sex couples.” This includes sexually active same-sex couples? Debate continues on that point.

This decision by no means settles matters.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

The Associated Press turns crisis pregnancy centers into 'anti-abortion' sites and that's that

The Associated Press turns crisis pregnancy centers into 'anti-abortion' sites and that's that

There comes a time when some journalists feel they must dissent from the prevailing winds of their occupation, and I’ve finally reached that point.

My concern comes from a piece in the National Catholic Register on how new terms describing abortion handed down by the Associated Press –- the standard bearer for American journalism –- have made this new normal something I can no longer follow.

The Associated Press or AP, for those of you not employed by news organizations, sets the correct titles and grammar for work in American journalism. Everyone follows whatever AP decides something should be called, using the evolving standards of the Associated Press Stylebook.

Until now. Typically, AP leaders have tried to avoid taking sides in the abortion and gender debates. However, their most recent rules makes it quite impossible for some journalists — including myself — to cover this complicated topic the way AP insists that we cover it.

In the past, for example, journalists argued about calling activists on one side “anti-abortion,” as opposed to “pro-life,” while those on the other side were given a label they welcomed, as in “pro-choice.” That second label evolved into “pro-abortion rights.” We will come back to that.

Now this. From the Register:

The Associated Press (AP) issued new guidelines advising reporters not to use the terms “crisis pregnancy center” or “pregnancy resource center” but to instead refer to centers that offer pro-life counseling and support as “anti-abortion centers.”

Reporters should “avoid potentially misleading terms such as pregnancy resource centers or pregnancy counseling centers,” because “these terms don’t convey that the centers’ general aim is to prevent abortions,” according to the AP’s Abortion Topical Guide.

The changes were made last November but are just getting publicized now.  And these centers –- PRCs --aren’t just there to prevent abortions, which anyone who walks into one soon discovers.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Washington Post looks at 'school choice' bills, and (#surprise) omits 'equal access' info

Washington Post looks at 'school choice' bills, and (#surprise) omits 'equal access' info

For a minute or two, I thought that the Washington Post was going to publish a fair-minded news feature about the complex issues involved in “school choice” legislation.

Alas, it soon became clear that this was another business-as-usual piece that was, for the most part, committed to featuring the voices of activists on one side of the story. The story also avoided a key church-state legal term that is shaping recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on this subject.

Thus, it’s time — once again — for readers to grab some highlighter pens. Hold that thought.

You can sense what’s going on in the headline: “More states are paying to send children to private and religious schools.”

Ah, but private schools are private schools, too. Some are secular, some are openly religious. Some of the religious schools are on the left, in terms of doctrine, and some are on the right. But they are all “private” schools. Are all private schools created equal? Did the Post team “get” this angle of the story and include some diversity in the sourcing?

The bottom line: What we have here is another one of those “highlighter pen” stories that GetReligion digs into every now and then. What readers need to do is print a copy of the story and then grab three pens with different colors — maybe red, blue and some variation on purple. The goal is to mark quotes representing voices on the cultural left, right and, maybe, even in the middle.

But first, here is how the story opens:

For years, school-choice advocates toted up small victories in their drive to give parents taxpayer money to pay for private school. Now, Republican-led states across the country are leaving the limitations of the past behind them as they consider sweeping new voucher laws that would let every family use public funds to pay for private school.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Concerning Pope Francis, hockey, Pride night and putting 'scare quotes' around 'beliefs'

Concerning Pope Francis, hockey, Pride night and putting 'scare quotes' around 'beliefs'

I have no idea if Pope Francis follows professional hockey — but that really isn’t what this post is about.

This post starts with some fascinating “scare quotes” in a headline with a Reuters report about another Pride Night controversy in the National Hockey League.

The use of “scare quotes” is a topic that, to put it mildly, consistently pushes buttons for GetReligion readers. Once again, here is a Merriam-Website definition of that term:

scare quotes …

: quotation marks used to express especially skepticism or derision concerning the use of the enclosed word or phrase

This brings us to that Reuters headline: “Rangers back right to 'beliefs' after Pride Night jerseys absent from warm-ups.” Actually, based on the context, that should have been “religious beliefs” — because it’s clear that this reference refers to centuries of religious doctrines, in several faiths.

What happened here? New York Rangers players were scheduled to take part in pre-match warm ups, as part of the team’s seventh annual Pride Night festivities, with Pride-themed jerseys and hockey sticks. That didn’t happen, which made headlines. Here is a key part of that Reuters story, which I will note did not contain “scare quotes” around the controversial term.

… one player told the New York Post … that he saw only his standard jersey hanging in his locker when he went to get ready and did not know why the alternate top was not available.

"Our organization respects the LGBTQ+ community and we are proud to bring attention to important local community organizations as part of another great Pride Night," Rangers said in a statement.

"In keeping with our organization’s core values, we support everyone’s individual right to respectfully express their beliefs."

I guess it is possible that a professional athlete could have “political” beliefs that were relevant in this case. There may even be Seinfeld-ian “compelled speech” issues here (Click here for classic clip on YouTube). In light of recent news, it’s clear the headline writer’s “scare quotes” nod refers to centuries of Christian doctrine on marriage and sex.


Please respect our Commenting Policy