, , , , , , , , , ,

Was the life of Dorothy Day too Catholic for the New York Times to grasp?

, , , , , , , , , ,
Was the life of Dorothy Day too Catholic for the New York Times to grasp?

The New York Times veers close to self-parody in publishing “Was Dorothy Day Too Left-Wing to Be a Catholic Saint?”

The very deck beneath the headline undercuts it: “The Archdiocese of New York has asked the Vatican to consider the social activist for sainthood. But church leaders are not entirely comfortable with her politics.”

Actually, Day has always made Catholics on the right and left uncomfortable. The key is making sure that readers know why this is true.

What Liam Stack has to report is pretty straightforward.

Martha Hennessy was upset with what Cardinal Timothy Dolan preached during a Mass in Day’s honor:

“He has reduced her to ‘she lived a life of sexual promiscuity and she dabbled in communism,’” she said. “What worse enemy could we have, saying those things about her?” Ms. Hennessy is active in the [canonization] movement and did a reading at the Mass. “We have got to focus on her policies, we have got to focus on her practices.”

Stack’s report does not link to the cardinal’s homily, which is available on YouTube and embedded in this post (the homily begins at one hour and 15 minutes).

Viewers will note that there is no indication in Cardinal Dolan’s remarks that he is anything other than an admirer. He calls Day “one of our greats,” and mentions that he asked Pope Francis to declare her venerable: one major step toward becoming a saint.

While Dolan’s brief homily did not dwell on Day’s political life, he referred to the significant detail of her being on assignment by a Catholic magazine to report on a Hunger March in 1932 in the nation’s capital. Dolan added a detail omitted by the Times: after observing this march, Day prayed in the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception and took another step toward integrating her politics and her emerging faith.


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

Texas synagogue attack highlights press failure to consistently cover attacks against sanctuaries

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Texas synagogue attack highlights press failure to consistently cover attacks against sanctuaries

The many cases of anti-Catholic vandalism have been documented by me here at GetReligion in recent years. Also well-documented have been how many professionals in the mainstream media keep overlooking such criminal activities.

These incidents — even as 2021 came to an end and now weeks into 2022 — just keep happening, yet they continue to be given little to no mainstream news coverage. It seems, at times, as if violence against religious groups — be they Catholics or otherwise — is a subject that isn’t worthy of coverage. This trend is also a lesson on how the press uses language, what terms journalists use to describe crimes and whether the story lasts just a day or for weeks and months.

Journalists also need to start asking: What are the motivations for these kinds of attacks?

A Catholic priest, parishioners and Catholic schoolchildren were among the dozens injured on Nov. 21 when authorities said Darrell E. Brook, driving an SUV, allegedly plowed into marchers during a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisc. Six people were killed.

The incident would get additional attention for its inability to get widespread national media coverage. Accusations quickly emerged that key facts didn’t fit the dominant media narrative.

Truth is, not all hate crimes are created equal. Crimes against Catholic churches are routinely ignored by national news outlets. We can also see a troubling journalism trend at work in coverage of the recent anti-Semitic attack against a Texas house of worship.

The gun-wielding suspect in that Jan. 15 synagogue attack, British citizen Malik Faisal Akram, took Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker and three other congregants hostage at the Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas.

The standoff with FBI agents was an act of terrorism and resulted in Akram’s death. National news coverage was intense during the standoff — but soon evaporated.


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

'Final solution' logic: Was there more to the Wannsee Conference than mere bureaucracy?

, , , , , , ,
'Final solution' logic: Was there more to the Wannsee Conference than mere bureaucracy?

It’s a blunt New York Times headline about a story that — here is the horror of it all — focused on German bureaucrats doing what governments pay bureaucrats to do, which is plan things.

Read this headline without shuddering: “80 Years Ago the Nazis Planned the ‘Final Solution.’ It Took 90 Minutes.”

Actually, the death squads of the Third Reich were already at work. The following summary material makes that clear:

The host on that January day in 1942 was Reinhard Heydrich, the powerful chief of the security service and the SS, who had been put in charge by Hermann Göring, Hitler’s right-hand man, of a “final solution” and coordinating it with other government departments and ministries.

The men Heydrich invited were senior civil servants and party officials. Most of them were in their 30s, nine of them had law degrees, more than half had Ph.D.s.

When they convened around a table overlooking Lake Wannsee, the genocide was already underway. The deportations of Jews and mass killings in eastern territories had begun the previous fall but the meeting that day laid the groundwork for a machinery of mass murder that would involve the entire state apparatus and ultimately millions of Germans in different roles.

Here is my question and, I will admit, that there is more to it than mere journalism. Is it possible to write about this subject in a way that does not discuss evil with a Big E?

I’ve been thinking about that question ever since I read historian John Toland’s “Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography.” That’s a 1,000-page classic that will earn you some stares as you read it, day after day, on mass transit. The key was that Toland interviewed many, many people who knew Hitler at different stages of his life. Thus, as the 1976Times review put it, the author allowed readers to “draw their own conclusions about what made Hitler as he was, ‘a warped archangel, a hybrid of Prometheus and Lucifer.’ “

In the end, however, Toland was forced to contemplate how a symbolic element of the Holocaust rulebook — “the choice” — was an offense to German efficiency.


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

Plug-In: Five key story angles linked to Texas synagogue where hostages were taken

, , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Five key story angles linked to Texas synagogue where hostages were taken

When I first saw news on social media of a ranting man taking hostages at a Texas synagogue Saturday, I immediately clicked the link to an Associated Press report.

To my shock, I discovered that the standoff involved Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas.

I first wrote about that suburban congregation nearly two decades ago when I covered religion for AP in Dallas.

In 2004, I did a national feature on “frequent-flier rabbis” filling a need at then-fledgling Congregation Beth Israel and other small Jewish congregations across the nation. That same year, I wrote about Anna Salton Eisen, one of the congregation’s founders, and her Holocaust survivor father, George Lucius Salton.

Just this past October — 17 years later — Eisen trusted me to tell her family’s story again. I wrote a follow-up piece for AP on a surprising “reunion” between Eisen and the children of several Holocaust survivors who were in concentration camps together.

“I started this synagogue with two other families and am heartbroken and fearful,” Eisen wrote on Facebook on Saturday. “What has become of the world?”

I shared her status on my page and asked my friends to pray for a peaceful end. I was so relieved when Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker and two other hostages escaped unharmed Saturday night. A fourth hostage was released earlier. The FBI hostage rescue team shot the gunman.


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

Anglicans are wrestling with 'climate change' in their pews: Will they adapt and survive?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Anglicans are wrestling with 'climate change' in their pews: Will they adapt and survive?

Journalist Michael Kinsley famously added a twist to American politics when he redefined a "gaffe" as when "a politician tells the truth -- some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say."

As the Rev. Neil Elliot of the Anglican Church of Canada discovered, this term also applies to religious leaders.

After seeing 2018 General Synod reports, the denomination's research and statistics expert produced an analysis that included this: "Projections from our data indicate that there will be no members, attenders or givers in the Anglican Church of Canada by approximately 2040."

Reactions to his candor varied, to say the least.

"I think of it very much like … people's responses to climate change," said Elliot, updating his earlier remarks in a video posted by Global News in Canada.

Signs of church "climate" change? In the early 1960s, Anglican parishes in Canada had nearly 1.4 million members. But that 2018 report found 357,123 members, with an average Sunday attendance of 97,421. The church had 1,997 new members that year, while holding 9,074 burials or funerals.

Canada's national statistics agency reported that 10.4% of all Canadians were Anglicans in 1996, but that number fell to 3.8% in 2019.

People have one of three reactions when faced with these kinds of numbers. The first "is denial. People are saying, 'We're, we're … It's not happening,' " said Elliot, while counting the options on one hand. "Then there's people who say, 'We can stop it.' And then there's people who say, 'We can adapt.'

"The adapt language is much more rare and I'm only starting to hear it on the media in the last few months. … That's what I'm trying to get us to do within the Anglican church. It's, 'How do we adapt to it?' not, 'How do we stop it?' or … people burying their heads in the sand."


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

New podcast: Sex, marriage and babies are now topics too hot for preachers to handle?

, , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Sex, marriage and babies are now topics too hot for preachers to handle?

Hey religion-beat reporters (and even pros who cover politics): Want to find some really interesting stories?

Ask this question: What are the subjects that clergy are afraid to address in the pulpit? This was the big idea looming in the background during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

For example, lots of people interpreted the silence of many super-preachers on the ethics and affairs of Donald Trump as evidence of support for him. It is much more likely (see some of the info in this “On Religion” column) that they knew the people in their pews were divided on this topic.

Thus, they were afraid to discuss it. They didn’t want to start a war.

Here’s another case study, one so old that my reporting on it predates the Internet. But I addressed the topic in this 2016 post here at GetReligion. Remember the “True Love Waits” phenomenon?

Anyway, I realize that for many people the whole "True Love Waits" thing was either a joke or an idealistic attempt to ask young people to do the impossible in modern American culture. …

What fascinated me was that, according to key "True Love Waits" leaders, they didn't struggle to find young people who wanted to take vows and join the program. What surprised them was that many church leaders were hesitating to get on board because of behind-the-scenes opposition from ADULTS in their congregations.

The problem was that pastors were afraid to offend a few, or even many, adults in their churches — even deacons — because of the sexual complications in many lives and marriages, including sins that shattered marriages and homes. Key parents didn't want to stand beside their teens and take the program's vows.

This brings me to some amazing Gallup Poll data that —as far as I can tell — didn’t receive any news coverage when it came out in 2020. There was a Twitter flurry about it the other day, which led to some people re-upping this “story” that wasn’t a “news story.”

The headline on the feature at Gallup: “Is Marriage Becoming Irrelevant?” Here is a chunk of the information that should have raised eyebrows, for reporters and preachers — including clergy who face people sitting in “red,” “conservative” pews.


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

Do athletes have a moral duty to protest Chinese authoritarianism? How about Elon Musk?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Do athletes have a moral duty to protest Chinese authoritarianism? How about Elon Musk?

Do elite international athletes have a moral responsibility to publicly comment or act in a way that acknowledges their awareness of oppressive — or worse — political conditions in nations in which they compete?

Do societal moral standards require them to speak up, even when criticism and confrontation jeopardize their ability to compete and may threaten to derail an entire career?

The Beijing Winter Olympics — scheduled to begin in early February in and around China’s capital city — makes this a timely question.

Several democratic nations have announced “diplomatic” boycotts of the Beijing competition. They include the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, and Japan. (To be clear: democratic claims alone do not necessarily stifle a nation’s darker impulses and render it “moral.”)

That means that no political office holders from the the boycotting nations will attend these Games, but qualifying athletes are free to make their own choices about competing.

The following paragraphs from the above linked Washington Post article explain the limits on free speech China is demanding (with International Olympic Committee acquiescence).

The IOC has said athletes will be free to express themselves during the Games as long as they abide by IOC rules barring any demonstrations during sporting events or medal ceremonies.

Athletes could raise any number of issues, including allegations of cultural genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the erasure of civil freedoms in Hong Kong, and the arrests of human rights lawyers, activists and outspoken Chinese citizens. [Note that the Post left Tibetan issues, a major international sticking point for the West, off this list.]

But Chinese authorities are extremely sensitive to criticism about the country’s human rights record, its role in the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic, and even the country’s efforts during the Korean War.


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

Ask this: Why did many flocks survive or thrive in pandemic, while others were hit hard?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ask this: Why did many flocks survive or thrive in pandemic, while others were hit hard?

Does anyone remember typewriters?

Long ago, I took my very first reporting class at Baylor University. The legendary Jprof David McHam ran this lab as a mini-newsroom. McHam would sit in the “slot” of a U-shaped desk, working with students as we turned in our rough drafts.

I heard him say this many times: “The story is all here, but you wrote it in the wrong order,” or words to that effect. McHam would take his copy-desk pica pole (the birthday cake cutter of choice in newsrooms) and rip our typewriter copy into multiple horizontal pieces, before putting them in a new order, secured with a long strip of clear tape. Then he would say: “Go write the story in that order.”

More often than not, the wise Jprof found crucial information and pulled it higher in the story — if not into the lede itself. In many cases, this was information that created a tension with a simple version of the “news” in the lede. In other words, he was pushing us to acknowledge that many stories were more complex than we wanted to think they were.

With that in mind, let’s look at an important COVID-tide story from the Associated Press: “At many churches, pandemic hits collection plates, budgets.”

Note the word “many” in that headline. I think many readers would assume that the coronavirus pandemic has caused disasters in pews and pulpits and that is that. The evidence, in this story, is more complex than that — especially with a little bit of cutting and pasting. Here is the overture:

Biltmore United Methodist Church of Asheville, North Carolina, is for sale.

Already financially strapped because of shrinking membership and a struggling preschool, the congregation was dealt a crushing blow by the coronavirus. Attendance plummeted, with many staying home or switching to other churches that stayed open the whole time. Gone, too, is the revenue the church formerly got from renting its space for events and meetings.


Please respect our Commenting Policy