Vatican

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New podcast: Are tensions between Speaker Pelosi and her archbishop a valid news story?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Are tensions between Speaker Pelosi and her archbishop a valid news story?

The following is not a hypothetical case or a parable. This is the heart of the news story that was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

Step one: Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a guest on Hillary Clinton’s “You and Me Both” podcast. As you would expect, since this was recorded a week after the stunning January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, they spent some time discussing their views on the Donald Trump years.

This led to a discussion about the choices made by pro-life voters in the 2016 election. Here is some crucial material from a Catholic News Agency story about the exchange.

… House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that support of pro-life voters for former President Donald Trump was an issue that “gives me great grief as a Catholic.”

“I think that Donald Trump is president because of the issue of a woman’s right to choose,” she said of abortion, implying that pro-life voters boosted Trump to victory in 2016. She added that these voters “were willing to sell the whole democracy down the river for that one issue.”

Other than the “sellout” implication, the key phrase there is “as a Catholic.”

Step two: The archbishop who — canonically speaking — is charged with overseeing Pelosi’s life as a Catholic believer was not amused by this assertion. Here is another chunk of that CNA report.

“No Catholic in good conscience can favor abortion,” said Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, Pelosi’s home diocese. … “Our land is soaked with the blood of the innocent, and it must stop.”

Pelosi has long supported abortion despite her Catholic faith. In 2008, she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” regarding when life begins, “over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition.” She said that her Catholic faith “shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to choose.” …

Archbishop Cordileone clarified that "Nancy Pelosi does not speak for the Catholic Church. … And on the question of the equal dignity of human life in the womb, she [Pelosi] also speaks in direct contradiction to a fundamental human right that Catholic teaching has consistently championed for 2,000 years.” …

Step three: Write a mainstream news story?


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

Happy birthday (I guess): GetReligion will keep highlighting 'religion ghosts' in the news

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Happy birthday (I guess): GetReligion will keep highlighting 'religion ghosts' in the news

Growing old is complicated.

This is especially true during these bizarre COVID-19 days in which one day runs into another and sometimes it’s hard to remember what is what and when is when.

Oh well, whatever, nevermind. I being this up because GetReligion.org launched on Feb. 2, 2004 (even though the first post was written a day earlier). I think that means we just turned 17 and are headed into year No. 18, but my aging mind goes rather numb just thinking about it.

This blog has always had two essential goals.

The first is to highlight what we call “ghosts” in mainstream news coverage, as in essential facts and themes about religion that journalists — on lots of beats — frequently miss when covering news stories, big and small. A side effect of that task has been urging newsroom managers to hire experienced religion-beat reporters to strengthen their newsrooms.

Goal No. 2 is related to that. We have tried, year after year, to defend what is frequently called the American Model of the Press (see this .pdf) — with its emphasis on accurate, fair-minded, even balanced coverage of stories in which there are competing, or even clashing, viewpoints. For a taste of what that sounds like, check out this famous 2003 memo by the late, great, Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll. Here’s a crucial chunk of that, after his critique of a one-sided story:

The reason I'm sending this note to all section editors is that I want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage. We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times.

I'm no expert on abortion, but I know enough to believe that it presents a profound philosophical, religious and scientific question, and I respect people on both sides of the debate. A newspaper that is intelligent and fair-minded will do the same.

In recent years, economic, cultural and political forces have greatly weakened the American Model of the Press (see this recent Celemente Lisi post on that topic). Some people say this model is outdated, in a digital age in which opinion is cheap and information is expensive and the safest business model — producing mouse-clicks and loyal subscribers — is to tell your niche audience what it wants to hear.


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

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
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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
, , , , , , , , , ,

New podcast: Why the infamous 'McCarrick doctrine' haunted U.S. Catholic bishops this week

, , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Why the infamous 'McCarrick doctrine' haunted U.S. Catholic bishops this week

It was a great week to be a Cardinal Theodore McCarrick Catholic.

Now, before anyone gets mad, let me stress that the McCarrick mentioned during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) was not the “Uncle Ted” McCarrick known for bunking with seminarians or the trusted priest or bishop accused of fondling teen-aged boys from families that trusted him.

No, it was Cardinal McCarrick, the consummate networker, trusted fundraiser, ecclesiastical kingmaker and media manipulator. This was the man who, as archbishop of Washington, D.C., created the so-called “McCarrick Doctrine” that protected national-level Catholic politicians whose faith was a crucial part of their lives and images, even if many ancient doctrines didn’t mesh well with their political agendas. This McCarrick also claimed — in a public speech — to have helped elect Pope Francis.

This was the McCarrick whose legacy helped shape the remarkable war inside the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that jumped into clear view on Inauguration Day.

It was easy to see this coming. I wrote about it several weeks ago in this “On Religion” column: “Joe Biden and the U.S. Catholic bishops — Tensions remain about Holy Communion.” And Catholic-press veteran J.D. Flynn clearly knew something big was coming when, a day before the Biden inauguration, he wrote an analysis — “Biden and the bishops. This probably will not go well” — for his new (and essential) website called The Pillar. Check out this lede:

Shortly after President Joe Biden begins his term of office, the U.S. bishops will be derided as culture warriors and abortion obsessives, unwilling to find common ground with the administration of the second Catholic U.S. president.

Sure enough, the elected leader of America’s Catholic bishops issued a letter (hold that thought) criticizing Biden’s actions supporting abortion rights, while hinting at clashes over religious liberty (Hello, Little Sisters of the Poor) and church doctrines on marriage and sex.

This drew an angry social-media response from Catholic progressives — including key men wearing red hats. Their outcry led to this headline in The Washington Post: “As Biden is sworn in, president of U.S. bishops assails him over abortion.”

In a bombshell report, The Pillar noted that the Vatican tried to ban the distribution of the USCCB statement by Gomez — at least until team Pope Francis could release a more politically nuanced letter. That headline: “Vatican intervened to spike US bishops’ Biden statement release.”

But back to the Post. The overture for that report says exactly what one would expect it to say:


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

Catholic press braces for Biden presidency: How it will further polarization on doctrine

, , , , , , , , , ,
Catholic press braces for Biden presidency: How it will further polarization on doctrine

Inauguration Day this year comes two weeks after pro-Trump rioters descended on the U.S. Capitol before President-elect Joe Biden’s victory was certified by lawmakers. It was the latest — and most stark — demonstration of how our nation’s media ecosystem is in a state of decay and under attack.

Two weeks removed from that awful day, it’s worth taking stock in where we are, how we got here and, more importantly, what can we expected over the next four years under Biden.

This road, more than a decade in the making, was exasperated by Donald Trump’s presidential run and election in 2016. At the same time, citizens on the left and right have grown increasingly weary of institutions (the press being one of them) and that’s made violence an acceptable means for retribution.

As a result, the political, cultural and religious polarization that has taken place over the past four years, ignited further last year amid a pandemic and the presidential election, can’t be undone. The violence on Jan. 6 in Washington, D.C. is the latest tangible example of where we are as a country. The National Catholic Register made this observation in the wake of the riot:

The United States is troubled today by something deeper: At its core this is a spiritual and cultural crisis, even more than a political one.

The Founding Fathers worried about the same factionalism we saw on full and ugly display at the Capitol. But in the past, as Alexis de Tocqueville observed in Democracy in America, shared religious values have provided a glue that allowed for peaceful coexistence in our strikingly individualistic nation, while reminding us that politics was not ultimate.

Today, that is no longer the case. The system of Judeo-Christian values that grounded our political and civic life for more than two centuries has eroded and not been replaced. The ensuing vacuum means our national tendency toward factionalism has no “ballast” to steady the ship of state at turbulent moments, such as this disputed presidential transition.

The events of the last six months and how they have been covered by news organizations — spanning the COVID-19 lockdowns and #BlackLivesMatter protests to the presidential race and the attack on the Capitol — mark an end to an era in press history. It would appear that the American Model of the Press is dead and that reality has become mangled as Americans get their news through a prism of advocacy, partisan media sources.

This journalism earthquake has shaken Catholic media, as well. Hold on, because that’s where we are headed.


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

Big symbols, big story: Pope Francis changes church law to put women 'on the altar' in robes

, , , , , , , ,
Big symbols, big story: Pope Francis changes church law to put women 'on the altar' in robes

It’s not every day that the pope changes canon law. Pope Francis did just that in allowing women a larger role during Mass.

The pope said, using a powerful phrase in Catholic thought, that this headline-grabbing change was based on “a doctrinal development” seen in the recent life of the church.

The move — in the wake of a decades-old priest shortage — will grant “non-ordained ministers” the chance to serve as lectors, read scripture, act as eucharistic ministers and, in a crucial symbolic change, wear robes while serving in the sacred space around the altar. The changes, however, will continue to forbid women from being made deacons or ordained priests.

The pope changed canon law to read: “Lay people who have the age and skills determined by decree of the Episcopal Conference, they can be permanently assumed, through the established liturgical rite, to the ministries of lectors and of acolytes; however this contribution does not give them the right to support or to remuneration by the church.”

For the sake of comparison, the law had previously read: “Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte.”

In other words, this codifies into the canon the role of women as part of Roman liturgical rite. The announcement, however, caused lots of confusion, especially among many Catholics who have already witnessed women in some of these roles for decades.

The Associated Press headline on the story read, “Pope says women can read at Mass, but still can’t be priests.” That vague language didn’t clarify matters.

In a letter that accompanied the changes, the pontiff said he wanted to bring “stability” and “public recognition” to women already serving during the Mass. Beyond the headline, the AP, in its reporting of the announcement, said that the pope had “amended” church law “to formalize and institutionalize what is common practice in many parts of the world: Women can be installed as lectors, to read Scripture, and serve on the altar as eucharistic ministers. Previously, such roles were officially reserved to men even though exceptions were made.”

The original AP story caused even more confusion when it initially reported that women could read the Gospel during Mass.


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

Yearenders-palooza finale: 2020 Top 10 religion-news lists from several Getreligionistas

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Yearenders-palooza finale: 2020 Top 10 religion-news lists from several Getreligionistas

OK. This is it. I promise. This is the last GetReligion #2020 Top 10 religion-news post that you’re going to see. I think. And sorry about the Kiss 2020 goodbye concert video with this post (I could not resist).

Let me be clear what this is. A few of us have already written columns or posts evaluating the results of the Religion News Association poll, like this “On Religion” column that I shared here: “Of course the pandemic was top 2020 religion-news story: But which COVID-19 story?”

However, each of us — when creating our own personal lists — saw the religion-news landscape through our own lens. Thus, I thought readers might enjoy seeing all of the RNA poll items — 27 news events and trends were on the ballot — and how some of us arranged them. Some readers, for example, have expressed a desire to explore what was left OFF the list and how the items were described on the official ballot. Read it all at the RNA.org website.

As I said earlier, in the GetReligion podcast and post in which I shared my own ballot (“The year when religion news went viral, and that was a bad thing”), I thought the key was that the COVID-19 crisis was several stories in one. I thought the most important angle was the First Amendment fights, so I wrote:

According to journalists who cover religion, this was the year's biggest story: "COVID-19 pandemic claims lives of many religious leaders and laity, upends death rituals, ravages congregational finances, spurs charitable responses, forces religious observances to cancel or go online and stirs legal fights over worship shutdowns."

But there was a problem on my ballot. The RNA list included another coronavirus item focusing on religious liberty. In some cities and states, officials created pandemic regulations that claimed many institutions — from grocery stores to casinos — provided "essential services." Meanwhile, other institutions — like churches and synagogues — were deemed "non-essential."

The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled that religious institutions shouldn't face tougher rules than secular groups and activities. It was wrong, for example, to ban masked priests from hearing confessions – outdoors, 10 feet away from masked penitents – while consumers were lined up at liquor stores.

Ryan Burge, in a post this weekend, had a similar take at the top of his list, stressing First Amendment and Supreme Court issues. The key, he said, was this: “I made a list based on what I thought would have the most lasting impacts into 2021 and beyond.”

So that brings us to new material from other members of the team, starting with Julia Duin. She sent me an email raising another issue with the RNA results:


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

New year and many old issues: Catholic storylines journalists need to keep an eye on in 2021

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I am not a very good prognosticator. Yet this is the time of year that forces many journalists to do just that.

What will 2021 bring? That’s the big question following a 2020 that will forever remain a year where the world was held hostage by a pandemic. It was also a year where we had a combative presidential election and a reawakened social justice movement that brought our divided politics out into our streets. Could any of us have accurately predicted what 2020 would have been like? I don’t think so.

That hasn’t stopped many from trying to predict what next year will be like. The vaccine could bring with it prosperity and freedom again, but a new strain of the virus has forced much of Europe into lockdown once again. A lot of what 2021 will look like — in terms of religion and faith — will depend on the virus and how politicians choose to handle it.

It’s true that the pandemic exposed all kinds of issues in our society. The journalism that is tasked with objectively reporting these issues so that citizens can make informed decisions failed us miserably, a trend that was years in the making, but peaked in 2020 with the presidential election. My post from this past June highlighted this extremely difficult realization for me after more than 20 years in the business. Here’s the main thrust of that post:

News coverage — be it about politics, culture or religion — is largely made up of crimes (in the legal sense) or lapses in judgement (in a moral one). But the news media has changed in the Internet age, primarily because of social media. Facebook, Twitter and TikTok, to name just three, allows users — everyday people — to pump out content. That content can take many forms — from benign observations to what’s called hot takes — for all to read and see.

Truth, fact checking and context are not important. What matters are likes and followers. What we have now is something some have called “The Great Awokening” and it appears to have forever transformed our political discourse and the journalism that tries to report on it.

Mainstream news organizations, in their quest for clicks amid hope of figuring out a new business model, now mirror the content we all see on social media platforms. Newsrooms loaded with a younger generation who grew up in this environment have imposed their own woke politics as their morality thermometer.

The news media both underplayed COVID-19 and then hyped it, only to pause their concern in the wake of the George Floyd protests. For a list of 2020 media misses, check out this roundup.

That’s in the past now, but we will indeed be talking about 2020 for years and decades to come. Instead of trying to predict the future, the aim of this post is to advise mainstream journalists on what the major Catholic news storylines will be over the next 12 months — in the United States and the world.


Please respect our Commenting Policy