GetReligion
Sunday, March 30, 2025

Catholic Catechism

Axios looks at the hot political (of course) trend of Latinos becoming evangelical voters

Axios looks at the hot political (of course) trend of Latinos becoming evangelical voters

It’s the question that I get all the time from frustrated, fair-minded people when I speak to civic or church groups: “Where can I go, these days, for unbiased news?”

There is, of course, no easy answer. We live in an age in which pretty much every news organization — even the Associated Press on moral and cultural issues — is preaching to choirs of believers huddled in digital bunkers on the left and the right.

I recommend that people get on Twitter and follow about 10-20 journalists and public intellectuals who consistently tick off people on both sides of the political spectrum. The goal is follow their tweets and retweets and see who THEY are reading and what articles they have found helpful or horrible. You know, people like David French, Bari Weiss and Andrew Sullivan (and, I would hope, moi).

I also advise listeners to look for newsletters and websites, even if they lean left or right, that provide lots and lots of direct links to other sources of information. This list includes, of course, Axios. This brings me to one of that websites quick-hit pieces with this headline: “Mapped: Power of Latino Protestants.”

One of the stories that everyone missed in 2016 — but we discussed it here at GetReligion (and CNN, for a fleeting moment, on election night) — was that Donald Trump never would have reached the White House without the support of a surprisingly high number of Latino voters in Florida. Many of them were in the Orlando suburbs, an area dotted with evangelical and Pentecostal megachurches popular. Here is the lede on this Axios piece (with its own must-see map):

The Latino exodus from Catholicism and toward more politically conservative evangelical faiths is one important reason for the rightward shift that could shape the future of the electorate.

Pause for a moment. Look at the phrase “politically conservative evangelical faiths.”

Now, name a moral or cultural issue on which the STATED doctrines of evangelicalism are more conservative than the PRINTED contents of the Catholic Catechism.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Catholic doctrine has always rejected abortion: But what about Catholics in pews today?

Catholic doctrine has always rejected abortion: But what about Catholics in pews today?

It may be the most important U.S. Supreme Court decision of the last fifty years.

A leaked draft of a majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, would effectively dismantle the legal framework around abortion that was established in the 1973 decision Roe v. Wade. In its wake, states would have almost complete freedom to regulate abortion however they saw fit, including enacting a total prohibition.

Among those who study American religion and politics, it’s long been established that the earliest political voices seeking to restrict access to an abortion were members of the Catholic Church. For centuries, the catechism has taught that life should be protected at all stages — from conception to natural death. Thus, the tens of millions of American Catholics should be the standard bearers for the pro-life movement in the United States.

But here is an important question for journalists: Will most Catholics applaud the end of Roe? The data tells a nuanced story about how the average Catholic thinks about the issue of abortion access. As always, it’s important to note if polls pay any attention to how often Catholics attend Mass.

Looking back to the time period immediately after the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, it’s clear that the vast majority of Catholics were not comfortable with the concept of a woman obtaining an abortion for any reason, which not was out of step with how the average American felt.

For instance, in 1985 about 35% of Catholics were in favor of abortion demand. It was 39% of the general public. In the 1990s and 2000s, abortion opinion was relatively stable, but then things began to shift in 2010. From that point forward, the share of Catholics who supported abortion began to rise, which paralleled a shift in the overall opinion of the American public.

By 2021, fifty-three percent of Americans supported abortion on demand along with forty-five percent of Catholics. But, it’s worth noting that the contours of the two lines run in almost perfect unison. As the country moved left on abortion, so did the average Catholic.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: About post-Roe politics and Biden's evolving doctrines on choosing to 'abort a child'

Podcast: About post-Roe politics and Biden's evolving doctrines on choosing to 'abort a child'

Once upon a time, Sen. Joe Biden was almost a pro-life Catholic Democrat.

This may be the reason — as journalists frequently note — that he seems uncomfortable saying “abortion” in public remarks. Then again, he may also have private polling numbers on the muddled state of public opinion in which millions of Americans, including lots of Democrats, (a) oppose the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade, yet (b) are also in favor of European-style restrictions on abortion that have been blocked by U.S. courts because of legal logic built on Roe.

As is so often the case, Americans want it both ways and it’s rare for the mainstream press to note the tensions in that stance, since that would require balanced coverage of debates about Roe.

Back to Biden and a must-read Washington Post political feature that served as the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). After spending much of his career somewhere in the middle on abortion, Biden now leads a Democratic Party that has veered so far to the cultural left that it champions third-trimester abortion (and even efforts to save the life of a baby born during a botched abortion).

That stance is hard to square with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as lots of opinion polls, especially in states that will — if what appears to be a 5-3-1 SCOTUS verdict against Roe survives a blitz of elite media scorn — face debates about centrist laws to restrict, but not ban, abortion on demand.

Here is the top of the Post report, and readers are urged to spot a major abortion-talk stumble from Biden:

Joe Biden became a senator in 1973, just 17 days before the Supreme Court decided the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade. Soon after, the young senator, a practicing Catholic, told an interviewer that he disagreed with the decision and that he had views on such matters that made him “about as liberal as your grandmother.”

“I don’t like the Supreme Court decision on abortion. I think it went too far,” he concluded in 1974. “I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

Nearly a half-century later, with Biden evolving along with his party on the issue of abortion rights, he again declared the court was moving too far — this time, he argued, in the opposite direction.

“The idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child, based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think, goes way overboard,” Biden said on Tuesday in reaction to a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion proposing to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Note that the Post editors, as opposed to some other elite media sources, used that quote in which Biden spoke words — “abort a child,” as opposed to a “fetus” — long banned in public-relations efforts for a pro-abortion-rights stance. I took that as a sign to keep reading.


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

Washington Post still thinks sin and repentance have nothing to do with Holy Communion

Washington Post still thinks sin and repentance have nothing to do with Holy Communion

For years now, quite a few mainstream journalists have made it pretty obvious that they think the bishops of the Catholic church have a moral and perhaps even legal obligation to let Catholics do whatever they want to do in public life while continuing to take Holy Communion.

All that matters, according this newsroom version of the evolving spirit of Vatican II, is that these Catholic individuals believe — as a matter of conscience — that they are good to go. Catholics who are on the right side of history even have the right to openly state, in word and deed, that they believe Catholic doctrine is wrong and should be changed. This used to be called Protestantism, but nevermind.

This brings us to yet another Washington Post report about the life and times of a Michigan judge named Sara Smolenski, her same-sex wife Linda and the East Grand Rapids parish in which she is not allowed to take Holy Communion. (For a flashback to earlier coverage, please see this Julia Duin post: “Press doesn't get why a Catholic priest would withhold Communion from outspoken gay judge.”)

This story does a great job of proving that progressive Catholics have strong views on this issue. The story also offers small bites of material from Catholics stating the church’s doctrinal stance on this matter. If you are looking for any sense of fairness and balance — such as Catholics explaining or defending church doctrine — then you are not going to find it in the Post coverage. Again.

One other key point: This story contains zero references to the role that Confession — the Sacrament of Penance — plays in Catholic teachings on sin, repentance, forgiveness, salvation and, thus, Holy Communion. Hold that thought, because we will return to that point.

The Post headline, this time around, states: “Bishops’ debate over Communion sparked by Biden seeps into holiest sacrament for Catholics.” Here’s the overture:

St. Stephen Catholic Church is the parish and school where Sara Smolenski grew up with her nine siblings, where her parents were married, where she worshiped on Sundays and served as a volunteer distributing Communion. It was also the place where the priest called in late 2019 to tell her she should no longer come up during Mass to receive the holy sacrament.

“He says: ‘I’m going to have to ask you not to take Communion because you’re married to Linda in the state of Michigan. He just kept saying: ‘Respect the church,’” said Smolenski, 63, a longtime District Court judge.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

No vacation at Vatican? Thinking about an 'August surprise' from Pope Francis

No vacation at Vatican? Thinking about an 'August surprise' from Pope Francis

If you have lived and worked in Washington, D.C., you know that Beltway-land has its own unique media traditions.

For example, no one is surprised when politicos issue somewhat embarrassing statements and proposals late on Friday afternoons, especially during the seasons in which half of the city’s journalists and chattering-class superstars are parked in traffic on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in Annapolis on their way to the beach. After all, who pays attention to the news on Saturdays and it’s too late to do a major feature for the Sunday newspaper.

Then there is the “October surprise,” which is when a presidential candidate who is trailing — especially an incumbent president — makes a wild domestic policy proposal, foreign policy gesture or accusation against his enemies in an attempt to jump-start the race and gain ground in the polls.

With that in mind, it’s interesting to pause and think about an interesting Crux analysis piece by editor and super-insider John L. Allen, Jr., that just ran with this headline: “Pope’s ‘August surprise’ could be most counter-cultural stand of all.” Allen didn’t make a specific proposal for an upcoming bombshell, but did say that this pope has a history of making news during a month when Italians — it's almost a sacred tradition — are on vacation.

I asked Clemente Lisi, our resident Italian and Catholic-media pro, what he thought of this thesis. He quickly answered — even though (irony alert) he is on vacation this week. His email said:

I know the feeling well. I spent every August in Italy as a child visiting relatives and being on vacation. And yes, everything was closed!

This papal August surprise could very well be a symptom of the media’s lack of attention during this month. In the pre-Donald Trump years, August was typically considered a “slow month” — at least in the United States — and also a time when many editors took time off after a long year. The same thing happens in Italy, probably on a grander scale.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: What are the future news hooks as U.S. bishops wrestle with Holy Communion?

New podcast: What are the future news hooks as U.S. bishops wrestle with Holy Communion?

Let’s say that, at some point in the future, multimedia crews manage to discover where President Joe Biden was attending Mass on a given Sunday.

As the president attempts to leave, journalists shout an obvious question, something like: "Mr. President! The U.S. bishops are almost done with the final draft of their document on abortion, politics and Holy Communion. Are you concerned about this?”

Recently, Biden responded to a similar question by saying: "That's a private matter and I don't think that's going to happen."

This kind of language, that specific doctrinal issues are “personal” or “private,” has been part of American Catholic code ever since the famous 1984 address at the University of Notre Dame by the late New York Gov. Mario Cuomo. But let’s say — as I suggested in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in) — that Biden decides to tweek this reply at some point in the future.

What would happen if he said this: “That’s between me and my father confessor, so I will have no response at this time.”

This response would have several implications. First of all, it would mean that Biden is saying that he (a) has a father confessor, (b) that he has gone to confession, (c) that he has confessed his sins, (d) that his confessor has assigned him some for of penance and (e) absolved him of his sins. That last part, of course, could be assumed if Biden is receiving Holy Communion.

Oh, and there’s one implication here: That this is happening with a blessing, to one degree or another, from the bishop in authority over Biden’s father confessor. Ah, there is the main news hook.

The bishop and the priest would not, of course, discuss the contents of the president’s confessions. The bishop, however, could say that Biden’s ongoing actions clashing with church doctrines — linked to abortion, same-sex marriage, trans advocacy or some other issue — require the denial of Holy Communion since these actions are, under Catholic doctrines, a threat to the president’s eternal soul.

After all, as the journalists (and canon lawyers) at The Pillar recently noted:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Was Jesus truly without sin? Did he have doubts? Do these questions matter to anyone?

Was Jesus truly without sin? Did he have doubts? Do these questions matter to anyone?

THE QUESTIONS:

Was Jesus Christ totally without sin? Does it matter?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

Christian tradition says yes, and yes.

This month, related discussions with weighty implications popped up online, so The Religion Guy takes a look at this belief, which dates from the very earliest days of church history. But we begin with the fact, perhaps surprising to Christians, that Jesus' sinlessness is also taught by Islam. These two faiths combined engage upwards of 4 billion people.

In the Quran's account of Jesus' birth, older English translations of verse 19:19 say the child is "holy," but modern versions by Majid Fakhry (endorsed by the authoritative Al-Azhar University), A.S. Abdel Haleem, and Seyyed Hossein Nasr's team understand the Arabic adjective to mean the somewhat stronger "pure."

The Muslim belief is reinforced by a standard hadith saying of the Prophet Muhammad that "no child is born but that Satan touches, but when it is born it starts crying loudly because of being touched by Satan, except Mary and her Son.: (Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.65.4550). Muslim commentators explain that Jesus, Muhammad and the other prophets may have made simple human mistakes but never sinned, that is, consciously violated the will of God.

Muhammad's mention of Mary befits Catholicism's Immaculate Conception, made mandatory dogma by Pope Pius IX in 1854. The Catholic Catechism states that "from the instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life."

Protestants dissent. But all Christians unite on Jesus' sinlessness, which is taught in four of the New Testament books:

-- "For our sake he [God] made him [Jesus Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

-- "We have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15).

-- "He committed no sin" (1 Peter 2:22).


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Big question linked to Easter: Does Christianity believe in 'the immortality of the soul'?

Big question linked to Easter: Does Christianity believe in 'the immortality of the soul'?

THE QUESTION:

Does Christianity believe in the “immortality of the soul”?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

No.

Not exactly. And before anyone has a heart attack reading that, The Guy hastens to explain that Christianity has always vigorously affirmed the Easter message that earthly death is followed by everlasting life. But the oft-used phrase about a mere “immortality of the soul,” which stems from ancient Greek philosophy, could suggest bodily life is problematic and mistakenly suppose that our soul exists through all eternity as only a disembodied spirit.

Instead, Christianity teaches that just as Jesus arose bodily from the grave, so the promise of everlasting life involves a person’s eventual resurrection that unites the soul with the body in a newly glorified state. As with the central belief that Jesus was God incarnate in full human and bodily reality, this Christian affirmation about the afterlife proclaims that, as in Judaism, our bodies are God’s good creation and fundamental to each person’s human identity.

This understanding of New Testament teaching was defined orthodoxy as early as A.D. 180 in Against Heresies by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons, an authority and saint for Catholic and Orthodox Christians:

“… It is manifest that the souls of his disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose” (from book 5, chapter 31).

A precise Protestant formulation appears in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Presbyterian credo from 1647 (here “men” refers to both genders):


Please respect our Commenting Policy