Vatican

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

Vatican 'Synod on Synodality': Why the press has largely ignored this big Catholic story

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Vatican 'Synod on Synodality': Why the press has largely ignored this big Catholic story

We interrupt your reading about the war in Ukraine with a very important post about the global Catholic Synod on Synodality.

Synod on synodality? Say that three times fast. For some Catholics it’s kind of a Zen thing.

The Synod of Synodality is a two-year process that Pope Francis began last October. Officially known as “Synod 2021-2023: For a Synodal Church,” it is a process that allows bishops to consult with Catholics — from parishioners all the way up to priests — in a spirit of collaboration and openness. This includes official dialogue with some activists who actively dissent from church teachings.

Why should anyone care? Is this a news story that editors will care about?

A phrase like Synod on Synodality certainly won’t ever make it into a punchy headline, not even at The New York Post.

The secular press isn’t all that interested in doctrinal issues that don’t appeal to a larger audience or lack a political connection. It’s the reason why the pope going after the Latin Mass got little mainstream news attention while bishops batting President Joe Biden about receiving Holy Communion got tons of coverage. Then again, the synod will almost certainly contain strong LGBTQ news hooks.

It was in March 2020, on the eve of the pandemic, that Pope Francis announced the synod. It was quickly forgotten as the world battled the outbreak of COVID-19. The Vatican even set up a Twitter account for the synod.

Last October, when the pope launched the start of this process, the Catholic press did a very good job explaining what the Synod of Synodality is. For example, Catholic News Agency explained this global synod and its purpose this way:

The pope acknowledged that learning to listen was “a slow and perhaps tiring exercise” for bishops, priests, religious, and laity.


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

That word always gets surprising media attention. What does biblical 'inerrancy' mean?

, , , , , , , , , ,
That word always gets surprising media attention. What does biblical 'inerrancy' mean?

THE QUESTION:

What does biblical "inerrancy" mean?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

A February article by Stephen Young of Appalachian State University in North Carolina pulls the "inerrancy" of the Bible into a surprising media spotlight.

Writing in the liberal ReligionDispatches.org, Young blames this concept for American Christian racism and "white patriarchy" that subjugates women. By coincidence, days before Young's posting Michael F. Bird of Ridley College, an Anglican seminary in Australia, contended via the interfaith Patheos.com that his fellow evangelicals in the U.S. advocate a version of inerrancy that's a bit skewed.

Hold those thoughts while the Memo sketches some background.

Merriam-Webster defines inerrancy as "exemption from error," with "infallible" as a synonym. However, the modern debate distinguishes between those two words, as we'll see below.

Churchgoers may simply view the Bible as trustworthy because, after all, it's the Word of God, but "inerrancy" is a more sweeping contention meant to cover every detail of the events depicted in the Bible.

Inerrancy came to the fore, especially among U.S. Protestants, through Princeton Theological Seminary professors such as B.B. Warfield (1851-1921) who believed Christianity had always taught the Bible is error-proof.

As theological "modernism" made inroads, the largest Presbyterian denomination in 1910 defined five tenets as "essential doctrine" required of clergy candidates. The first one stated that "the Holy Spirit did so inspire, guide and move the writers of the Holy Scriptures as to keep them from error." The 1910 platform evolved into the "five points of Fundamentalism," embraced by that militant new movement even as the Presbyterians themselves moved away from their requirement.


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

Pronoun wars? The 'usual suspects' quoted by the press skewed Baptism-gate coverage

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Pronoun wars? The 'usual suspects' quoted by the press skewed Baptism-gate coverage

What is the role of journalism? Above all, it is to inform and educate. We know that reliable information is needed for any society to properly work. At the very least, readers deserve accurate information.

What happens when this isn’t the case? That’s the dilemma that befell many news organizations in recent days when a big Catholic news story came across their newsroom desks.

Yes, I’m referring to the botched baptism story out of Arizona last week that made so many headlines. And that’s hard to do considering the ongoing pandemic, the Beijing Olympics and Russia-Ukraine crisis.

Yes, baptism-gate has been all the rage. News coverage of it, however, not so good. More on that later.

To summarize: a priest named Andres Arango, following a church investigation, determined that he’d incorrectly performed thousands of baptisms over more than 20 years. It meant that those who had been baptized in Phoenix, and at his previous parishes in Brazil and San Diego, needed to be baptized again.

What did he do wrong? Arango, who has since resigned after making the mistake, used the wrong pronoun. Instead of saying, “I baptize you in the name of” he used “we.” After diocesan officials found out, they said people who Arango baptized aren’t officially Catholic. That means they weren’t eligible for other sacraments like Holy Communion.

This is where the news coverage got interesting. Once again, on an issue of great importance to Catholic readers and church leaders, secular news outlets assumed the views of one side were normative — even accurate — at the expense of church doctrine. Here at GetReligion, we have a name for that approach (click here for information).

Everyone from The New York Times and USA Today to NPR and local news outlets covered the story. What we learned from the coverage was telling. It was also largely one-sided and inaccurate.


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

Yes, a cardinal with strong Pope Francis ties said church doctrines on LGBTQ issues are wrong

, , , , , , , , ,
Yes, a cardinal with strong Pope Francis ties said church doctrines on LGBTQ issues are wrong

It isn't every day that a prince of the Roman Catholic Church, and a strategic Jesuit ally of the pope, openly rejects centuries of Christian teachings that clash with core doctrines of the Sexual Revolution.

"The Church's positions on homosexual relationships as sinful are wrong," said Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg, in a recent interview with KDA, a German Catholic news agency. "I believe that the sociological and scientific foundation of this doctrine is no longer correct. It is time for a fundamental revision of Church teaching, and the way in which Pope Francis has spoken of homosexuality could lead to a change in doctrine. …

"In our archdiocese, in Luxembourg, no one is fired for being homosexual, or divorced and remarried. I can't toss them out, they would become unemployed, and how can such a thing be Christian? As for homosexual priests, there are many of these, and it would be good if they could talk about this with their bishop without his condemning them."

The latest unorthodox proclamations by Cardinal Hollerich commanded attention because he leads the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Union, as well as being the pope's choice as "relator general" for the October 2023 global Synod of Bishops, helping shape its work to weigh the church's future.

"This Cardinal seems to be claiming a private revelation which is contrary to scripture & the Catechism of the Catholic Church," tweeted Bishop Joseph Strickland, an outspoken conservative who is Bishop of Tyler, Texas. "Any private revelation that contradicts public revelation must be condemned."

However, the recent "Synodal Way" meetings of German Catholic leaders voted to approve draft texts that affirmed some of Cardinal Hollerich's beliefs, including overwhelming approval for a document entitled "Blessing celebrations for couples who love each other." Support was just as strong for a "Magisterial reassessment of homosexuality" text stating that official church teachings on chastity and homosexuality "should be revised."


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

Thinking about Orthodox history and the complex West vs. East divisions in Ukraine

, , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about Orthodox history and the complex West vs. East divisions in Ukraine

First things first, as I wade into “think piece” territory once again. I am, of course, a convert to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. I converted into parishes linked to the ancient church of Antioch (currently based in Damascus) and now attend a growing parish in the Orthodox Church in America, which grew out of the work of Russian Orthodox missionaries long ago.

Why clear that up? It’s important, in light of some of the complex issues linked to the threat of war in Ukraine. I have been to Kiev twice and was blessed to worship with monks in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra. I know more than a few Russian and Eastern European Orthodox believers and I don’t think I’ve met anyone who is overly fond of Vladimir Putin (to say the least). Attempting to understand what many Russians think and believe about Ukraine has nothing to do with approving of Putin or wanting to see an invasion by Russian troops.

Moving on. The other day I spent an hour or so on the telephone with GetReligion patriarch Richard Ostling, working through some of the unbelievably complex and explosive issues surrounding Ukraine and the churches therein. The results are in an Ostling “Memo” with this headline: “In reportage on Russia and Ukraine, don't neglect the importance of two rival churches.”

May I encourage GetReligion readers to check that out or even, if you read this piece before, glance through the two sections of it, in light of ongoing events?

Ukraine's ecclesiastical history, like its political history, is highly complex. The saga began with the A.D. 988 "baptism of Rus" in Kyiv (Russians prefer "Kiev") when Prince Vladimir proclaimed Orthodoxy the religion of his realm and urged the masses to join him in conversion and baptism.

Russians see Christendom's entry into Eastern Europe as the origin of their homeland and the Russian Orthodox Church. Russian President Vladimir Putin cites this history to support his claim for Ukraine as a client area within greater Russia instead of a validly independent nation. His post-Soviet Kremlin maintains close bonds with the Russian Church's Moscow Patriarchate, which in turn has centuries of ecclesiastical authority within Ukraine.

The key to all of this is understanding that highly European (with Catholic roots) Western Ukraine is a radically different place — in terms of language and faith — than Eastern Ukraine, with strong ties to Russian history and culture.

Is there one Ukraine?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Was the Washington Post take on supposed FGM in Washington state really a national story?

, , , , , ,
Was the Washington Post take on supposed FGM in Washington state really a national story?

It sounded like a horrendous story, with a Muslim couple wrongly accused of practicing female genital mutilation. Which is why I wanted to read it, especially since it was in my state, albeit an isolated corner on one of the beautiful –- and remote -- islands in Puget Sound.

But the more I read this story, the more I wondered if the reporter was being manipulated into creating a national narrative where none exists.

Before we start, remember that the locale of this story, the bucolic San Juan Island, has all of 6,822 residents. It’s not a large place and you can only get there by plane or (during the Covid era) by increasingly erratic ferries.

This Washington Post story notes that there are no nearby mosques, as if to make out the various islands in the San Juan de Fuca Strait as bastions of white Christian supremacy. Well, there aren’t any nearby synagogues or Hindu temples, either. There are scattered churches, an Orthodox monastery, a Catholic convent and several Buddhist retreat houses.

SAN JUAN ISLAND, Wash. — On the afternoon of July 28, the Homeland Security Investigations tip line received a call about a sensitive matter on an island off the coast of Washington state: “the suspected female genital mutilation of an infant by her Turkish mother.”

A babysitter on San Juan Island had seen what she considered an “abnormality” while changing the girl’s diaper, according to law enforcement reports. The sitter enlisted a friend to also inspect the child’s vagina, without the parents’ knowledge or consent. That friend then called the tip line, allegedly telling authorities she was acting on the sitter’s behalf.

The women, according to reports from the San Juan County Sheriff’s Office and U.S. Homeland Security, worried that the girl had undergone female genital mutilation, or FGM, an ancient ritual defined by the United Nations as the removal of external female genitalia for nonmedical reasons. FGM is a federal crime, and women’s advocates across the globe are campaigning to end the practice, which causes trauma and health complications.

I think I would use other words to describe FGM other than “ancient ritual.”


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

Podcast: Strategic cardinal floats trial balloon, saying Catholic LGBTQ doctrines are wrong

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Strategic cardinal floats trial balloon, saying Catholic LGBTQ doctrines are wrong

If you follow political news, you’re probably familiar with the concept of a “trial balloon.”

One online dictionary definition states: “A trial balloon is a proposal that you mention or an action that you try in order to find out other people's reactions to it, especially if you think they are likely to oppose it.”

Here’s a famous example. Let’s say that the Obama White House wants to shift its stance on gay marriage, once the president has reached a point — in 2012 — where he may or may not need strong support from social-conservative Black church leaders. Thus, it was a surprise, kind of, when Vice President Joe Biden, went on “Meet the Press” and said that he was “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriages.

The White House needed to know (1) how other Democrats would respond, (2) how Black-church leaders would respond and (3) how potential conservative critics would respond, including Catholic leaders in America. Central to all of this, of course, is how this “trial balloon” is framed in the coverage by elite media. It took very little time for Barack Obama to get on board.

During this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), we looked at a complex drama unfolding in the European leadership of the Catholic church. The key player is Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, archbishop of Luxembourg, and a leader — the term is “relator general” — in the Pope Francis team leading the Synod on Synodality on the future of the Catholic faith. Depending on who one talks to, this synod is either a chance to listen to Catholics around the world or the front door to Vatican III.

But here is the key quote from Hollerich, drawn from an interview with the German Catholic news agency KNA.) This is part of a collection of blunt, verbatim statements from Hollerich collected at L’Espresso:

“The Church’s positions on homosexual relationships as sinful are wrong. I believe that the sociological and scientific foundation of this doctrine is no longer correct. It is time for a fundamental revision of Church teaching, and the way in which Pope Francis has spoken of homosexuality could lead to a change in doctrine.


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

Pope Benedict's blunder and ensuing media coverage have put his legacy on the line

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Pope Benedict's blunder and ensuing media coverage have put his legacy on the line

It has been 20 years since The Boston Globe broke open the decades of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, dragging into the light a hellish story that had lingered on the edge of elite media coverage since the 1980s (see this GetReligion post: “That gap between 1985 and 2002”).

Two decades later, this is a story that continues in the form of questions about who in the Catholic hierarchy knew what and when in a variety of dioceses around the world.

The issue wasn’t limited to Boston. Predator priests were everywhere — a scandal that may have been unearthed in the United States, but one that continues to plague other parts of the world.

The focus the past few weeks has been on Germany and the involvement of Benedict XVI in the handling of some abuse cases, decades before he became a key church official in Rome and, eventually, pope. This was also long before the church — in part due to his leadership — adopted stricter policies on how to handle cases of clergy sexual abuse.

This is a complex subject for journalists to cover, in part when events in the past are viewed through the lens of present church policies and standards. How is the press doing?

Here’s a timeline of these fast-moving developments. This latest chapter in the decades-long clergy sex abuse saga began on Jan. 20 when a law firm released a report, commissioned by the German church, to look into how cases of sexual abuse were handled in Munich between 1945 and 2019. Benedict, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, headed that archdiocese from 1977 to 1982, when he was named to head the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The report’s authors found that Ratzinger failed to stop the abuse in four cases. The report also faulted his predecessors and, this is crucial, his successors for their own misconduct in allowing clergy accused of sex abuse to stay in ministry.

The 2,000-page report also criticized Cardinal Reinhard Marx, currently the archbishop of Munich and Freising, for his role in two cases dating back to 2008. Marx offered his resignation to Pope Francis last year, saying he was willing to take responsibility for his part in the sexual abuse crisis. Francis did not accept the resignation, which says something about what this pontiff thinks of the German prelate.


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

And now, in other Pope Francis news: Is having kids a moral duty for married couples?

, , , , , , , , , ,
And now, in other Pope Francis news: Is having kids a moral duty for married couples?

THE QUESTION:

Is having children a moral duty for married couples?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

Pope Francis provoked a fuss at his first general audience of 2022 by remarking that "many, many couples do not have children because they do not want to, or they have just one -- but they have two dogs, two cats. … Dogs and cats take the place of children." He continued, "This denial of fatherhood or motherhood diminishes us; it takes away our humanity" and "civilization becomes aged."

So, do married couples have a moral duty to bear children, and preferably more than one?

Birth rates have emerged as a pressing secular issue of this era. The Religion Guy is old enough to remember progressives' alarm over an impending "population bomb" and enthusiasm for "zero population growth."

While those ideas persist, all the buzz these days is about the globe's great Birth Dearth.

The lead article on page one of the January 18 New York Times was headlined "Worries in China that Population May Soon Shrink." The trend in that nation's official demographic report, issued the day before, suggested that 2021 may be the last year when births outnumber deaths as the population begins decreasing. The birth shortage is even bigger than in 1961 during Mao Zedong's infamous "Great Leap Forward" economic scheme, which produced unaccountably vast famine and death.

The Times stated as objective fact that this is a "crisis" for the vast nation that "could undermine its economy and even its political stability."


Please respect our Commenting Policy