Before reaching Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger put modern Europe in the rear-view mirror

Before reaching Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger put modern Europe in the rear-view mirror

In a rite before the funeral of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Vatican officials placed unique symbols of his pontificate inside his cypress casket, along with a scroll in Latin describing his ascent to the Chair of St. Peter.

"His faith and family upbringing prepared him for the harsh experience of the problems connected with the Nazi regime, aware of the climate of strong hostility towards the Catholic Church," said the English translation of this "rogito," or deed. "In this complex situation, he discovered the beauty and truth of faith in Christ."

After deserting the German army without firing a shot, Josef Ratzinger began his theology studies and, in 1951, was ordained a priest. He emerged as an intellectual voice preaching hope, as opposed to mere optimism. The future pope's sobering views on modern Europe would affect his entire career -- as well as debates about his legacy when he died.

"This so-called Christian Europe … has become the birthplace of a new paganism, which is growing steadily in the heart of the Church, and threatens to undermine her from within," said Ratzinger, in a 1958 lecture. This modern church "is no longer, as she once was, a Church composed of pagans who have become Christians, but a Church of pagans, who still call themselves Christians."

Four years later, the 35-year-old priest advised Cardinal Joseph Frings of Cologne during the historic Second Vatican Council, emerging as a "progressive" on reform issues, yet one who saw painful challenges ahead.

"From the crisis of today the church of tomorrow will emerge – a church that has lost much," he warned, on German radio in 1969. "As the number of her adherents diminishes, so it will lose many of her social privileges. In contrast to an earlier age, it will be seen much more as a voluntary society, entered only by free decision. As a small society, it will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members."

Ratzinger envisioned a "more spiritual church" with no political mandate, "flirting as little with the left as with the right. … It will make her poor and cause her to become the church of the meek."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Why do 21st Century Christians favor, or oppose, same-sex marriage? (Clue: doctrine)

Why do 21st Century Christians favor, or oppose, same-sex marriage? (Clue: doctrine)

THE QUESTION:

Why do 21st Century Christians favor, or oppose, same-sex marriage?

THE GUY’S ANSWER:

Just before Christmas, a top Donald Trump-loving conservative on New York City talk radio professed disbelief that some Americans persist in opposing same-sex marriage because of some book (unnamed) written ages ago.

Obviously, The Guy again realizes that journalism has important work to do explaining the basics of centuries of Christian thinking, both con and pro.

The teaching against gay and lesbian sexual relationships stood essentially unquestioned for 2,000 years but now that’s changing.

Still, on the global level some 2 billion people belong to Catholic, Orthodox, conservative Protestant, and Independent indigenous churches where there’s no prospect of any major change, though individual members dissent. (The same for a billion Muslims.)

In the U.S., the traditionalists are on defense with gay and lesbian marriage legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court and now Congress. They seek recognition by courts and government agencies of their conscience claims, hope to avoid penalties, and worry that ostracism from polite society may lie ahead.

Many “mainline” Protestant churches in North America and Western Europe recently enacted historic breaks with tradition, approving same-sex marriages for clergy and parishioners. U.S. landmarks: Change was first formally proposed to Presbyterians in 1968 and the United Methodist Church in 1972. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Lutherans published four major books advocating change between 1983 and 1999. The Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop in 2003, deepening an international divide among Anglicans.

Among resulting walkouts, the biggest may be the United Methodist one that is finally erupting.

Protestant disputes always center on the Bible


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Prayers and NFL life? That's old news -- but the Damar Hamlin drama was on live TV

Podcast: Prayers and NFL life? That's old news -- but the Damar Hamlin drama was on live TV

Hello, old folks who are National Football League fans.

If you are a young reader and podcast listener, hang in there with me. I am going to work my way into a discussion of the fascinating and poignant explosion of public prayer and mass-media Godtalk that surrounded the stunning injury and recovery of defensive back Damar Hamlin of the Buffalo Bills. This was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

The Big Idea? The “Pray For Damar” story got “out of control” because it happened on live TV. Hold that thought, as we begin a newsy flashback.

Back in the 1980s, NFL fans regularly saw something symbolic at the end of games, something so obvious that it even appeared in the background of sideline interviews on telecasts. What was happening? Players from both teams formed circles — often at the midfield logo — on their knees. Mostly, they offered prayers of thanksgiving for a safe game or prayers for anyone who was injured.

I remember that because I tried to write about this phenomenon during my Rocky Mountain News (#RIP) days. Team chaplains and parachurch leaders linked to this movement asked me, quite candidly, not to write about this subject — because it was so controversial with NFL officials.

Soon, TV images of the kneeling players vanished, although I believe that these rites continue to this day. But NFL fans no longer see them, unless they have tickets to the actual games.

In 1988, this topic broke into headlines during the media circus surrounding the Super Bowl. That was the year when I — prophetically, if I say so myself — wrote a memo to my editors detailing why I should be included in the Super Bowl coverage team. To be blunt, I argued that devotion to the Denver Broncos was so intense that it functioned as an organized religion.

Lo and behold, that was the year when the head coaches for the two teams, both outspoken Christians, unleashed a media storm by planning a two-team prayer meeting the day before the contest. I ended up assisting in the coverage — long distance, of course. The New York Times shock headline: “SUPER BOWL XXII; Rivals Will Pray Before They Play.

Oh. My. God. Here’s the overture:

Most of the Denver Broncos and the Washington Redskins will join Saturday in a prayer meeting that is believed to be the first to bring together National Football League players from opposing teams on the eve of any game — much less a Super Bowl.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Thinking about those sad, old Vatican II 'fundamentalists' -- such as Pope Benedict XVI?

Thinking about those sad, old Vatican II 'fundamentalists' -- such as Pope Benedict XVI?

If religion-beat journalists looked carefully enough, they could see an interesting question lurking inside the rhetoric of the current Latin Mass wars.

That question: What does it mean to be “pro-Vatican II”? If reporters flip that question around it turns into this: What does one need to do to be “anti-Vatican II”?

For example, see this language at the top of a Catholic News Agency report this past summer with this headline: “Pope Francis: There are many ‘restorers’ in the US who do not accept Vatican II.

There are many “restorers” in the United States who do not accept the Second Vatican Council, Pope Francis said. …

Speaking to the editors of Jesuit journals, he criticized what he called “restorationism” in the Church, which he defined as the failure to accept Vatican II, the ecumenical council held from 1962 to 1965. He said: “Restorationism has come to gag the Council. …”

Note the tension between “accept the Council” and “gag the Council.” What, precisely, does it mean to “gag” the Second Vatican Council? Let’s keep reading:

“The problem is precisely this: in some contexts, the Council has not yet been accepted. It is also true that it takes a century for a Council to take root. We still have 40 years to make it take root, then!”

Pope Francis cited opposition to Vatican II when he issued the motu proprio Traditionis custodes in July 2021, limiting celebrations of the Traditional Latin Mass.

This leads to a logical question: What ARE the teachings of Vatican II? Are they the actual contents of the Council documents or are these teachings an evolving body of work with current and future Catholic leaders deciding what the Council meant to say? Yes, note how these questions echo decades of academic warfare about, well, everything from the U.S. Constitution to the New Testament.

This is a timely subject, in light of the recent death of Pope Benedict XVI — one of few remaining Vatican intellectuals who, as an advisor to a cardinal in the Vatican II sessions, had direct exposure to the debates that led to its final documents. Benedict stressed a strict reading of the contents of Council’s teachings on a host of subjects — such as liturgy and the future role of Catholic tradition.

That leads us to a Religion News Service think piece written before shortly before the death of Benedict XVI. The author, Jesuit Thomas Reese, is a priest who for decades has been one of the most powerful voices (think “usual suspects”) shaping news coverage of American Catholicism.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Here we go again: Hollywood doesn't 'get' America, so maybe religion is part of that?

Here we go again: Hollywood doesn't 'get' America, so maybe religion is part of that?

Every decade or so, power players in Hollywood discover that there are millions of Americans who do not mind buying tickets to see movies that contain overtly religious symbols, themes and even characters.

I’ve been covering this story since the 1980s. It’s fascinating how new generations of reporters manage to work up a sense of culture shock about this.

For example, consider that much-discussed Atlantic feature back in 2005 that ran with this headline: “Can Jesus Save Hollywood?

Another five or six years later, the discussion of niche-Christian entertainment was still creating buzz. The conservative interfaith journal First Things ran a provocative piece with this headline: “Is ‘Christian’ the new ‘Gay’?” Sociologist D. Michael Lindsay, at that time the president of Gordon College, responded to a question about that equation:

This comes from a quote that one woman who I interviewed in Hollywood recounted to me a story that she had where the conversation basically was a Hollywood producer telling her that it had become new and interesting for committed Christians to “come out” in Hollywood. And they actually used that language of “coming out” where one publicly identifies in this way. I think what it really reflects is although historically Christianity has been a very powerful force in this country, within the pockets of elite cultural life — in Hollywood, at universities like Harvard and Yale and the rarefied heights of arts and entertainment — being a deeply committed person of faith, whatever that faith tradition may be, is seen as unusual or odd. There’s pressure when you’re in those high positions not to be too public about your faith and certainly not a faith that is evangelistic in approach because that’s seen as overbearing or narrow-minded.

Like I said, this is “old” news. This trend will go on and on — because America is basically a red v. blue puzzle these days and it’s hard to ignore the evidence that “pew gap” statistics play some role in that.

That David French guy — much hated by Trumpian conservatives and lots of illiberal progressives — had a provocative summary of the situation in his must-read book “Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation.” Here is a summary of that French thesis from a new essay I wrote for the journal Religion & Liberty about the death of the old-school American Model of the Press:

The bottom line: Americans are divided by their choices in news and popular culture, choosing to live in protective silos of digital content. America remains the developing world’s most religious nation, yet its secularized elites occupy one set of zip codes, while most religious believers live in another. These armies share no common standards about "facts," "accuracy" or "fairness." 

 “It's time for Americans to wake up to a fundamental reality: the continued unity of the United States cannot be guaranteed,” wrote French. At this moment, “there is not a single important cultural, religious, political, or social force that is pulling Americans together more than it is pulling us apart.”

This brings me to a new City Journal piece with this headline: “Can Capitalism Save Hollywood? The gulf between elites and audiences is eroding profits throughout entertainment and news media — but signs of correction are emerging.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Benedict XVI's death ushers in media speculation on what Pope Francis can (or will) do next

Benedict XVI's death ushers in media speculation on what Pope Francis can (or will) do next

One of my five things to watch for in 2023 included media speculation over Pope Francis’ health and speculation over his possible retirement.

Within three days of that post — and prompted by the death on Dec. 31 of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI at the age of 95 — speculation increased once again.

This is what I wrote in that Dec. 28 post:

The pope has often praised the decision of his predecessor, now Pope-Emeritus Benedict XVI, to resign because he felt unable to carry the duties of the papacy due to his advanced age.

In 2013, Benedict, who currently lives in a monastery at the Vatican and is seldom seen, became the first pontiff to resign in 600 years, paving the way for Francis’ election. Now his health appears to be failing.

Will there be a new conclave in 2023? There’s no way to know that now. One thing, however, is certain. Speculation will only mount with each passing day. Pope Francis isn’t getting younger.

The election of a new pope is a story journalists love to report. It’s something like a cross between a presidential election and a royal wedding. The bottom line: Journalists see it as a political horse race.

Speculation will certainly mount. Journalists love elections.

Much of the speculation over what Benedict’s death means for Francis, however, cast a shadow over what should have been stories around the legacy of former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Instead, the news coverage quickly shifted to “what happens next” — not an unusual journalism strategy in order to have political-style coverage that looks ahead rather than at the past — and whether Francis would someday step down.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Correction? Washington Post on the 'religious event' that marked passing of Benedict XVI

Correction? Washington Post on the 'religious event' that marked passing of Benedict XVI

Once upon a time, it was relatively clear when a news organization did or did not need to publish a correction about an error in one of its reports.

But then the World Wide Web came along and reporters at major organizations began writing what were, in effect, news reports that evolved during or just after an important event — rather like the “write-thru” story updates that wire services had for decades sent to newsrooms.

In the old days, however, there was a definitive moment when ink hit paper and readers and journalists could consider a news report “published.” If there was an error of fact in that published story, then everyone (within reason) knew that there needed to be an ink-on-paper correction.

What is supposed to happen when a news report is merely published online? Is a story in digital bytes as “real” as the old ink-on-paper version? That’s the kind of issue journalists have been debating ever since professionals began “breaking” stories online or producing early versions of news reports that, eventually, merged into final reports that were “published.”

This brings me to an interesting sentence that ran, sort of, in a Washington Post foreign-desk (as opposed to the religion desk) story about the funeral Mass for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Here is that sentence, which has circulated in screen shots taken of the Post website:

At the religious event, sometimes called the Eucharist, the faithful receive the sacrament, normally consecrated bread like wafers and wine, symbolizing the body and blood of Jesus.

I have done quite a bit of searching for that material online — especially the “symbolizing the body and blood of Jesus” reference — and I can only find fragments of digital material that show that it once existed. Maybe I have missed it, somehow. If so, I would welcome a correction and a working URL.

Meanwhile, check out, this wispy reference found in this online search file.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Plug-In: After the death of Benedict XVI -- questions about his legacy and his funeral

Plug-In: After the death of Benedict XVI -- questions about his legacy and his funeral

I’m your Weekend Plug-in columnist, and I’m excited to launch the fourth year of this newsletter.

Plug-in aims to highlight the best reads and top headlines in the world of faith. In 2023, we’re tweaking our format to make it even smarter and more concise.

Let’s jump right in!

What To Know: The Big Story

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI died Saturday at age 95. Clementi Lisi recounts the life of the first pope in 600 years to resign.

Pope Francis presided over the funeral Mass for his predecessor, as Lisi reports. But some found fault with Francis’ brief homily for Benedict, according to The New York Times’ Jason Horowitz and Ruth Graham.

For more coverage from the Vatican, follow The Associated Press’ Nicole Winfield, the National Catholic Reporter’s Christopher White, Religion News Service’s Claire Giangravé and the Wall Street Journal’s Francis X. Rocca.

Looking ahead: Francis may have a freer hand after Benedict’s death, Rocca reports. But U.S. bishops’ rift with Francis is unlikely to ease, according to AP’s David Crary. At Crux, Elise Ann Allen explores whether Benedict’s death might open the door to new rules for retired popes.

More: Lisi presents “5 Catholic storylines you need to follow closely in 2023.”

Power Up: The Week’s Best Reads

1. Football and prayer: In America, the phrase “thoughts and prayers” is uttered frequently at painful times, as Poynter.org’s Al Tompkins notes.

But what happens when people actually pray?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Flashback: The late, great Walter Cronkite did some thinking about religion news

Flashback: The late, great Walter Cronkite did some thinking about religion news

Did you know that the late, great CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite, one of the most important news icons of all kind, once worked as a “church editor” for a mainstream newspaper in Houston (apparently the old Houston Press)?

That was a detail from his life that I missed. I had read, long ago, that he was a “cub reporter” after his college years, yet before he broke into broadcasting. But time as a “church editor”? That’s a journalism title from the old, old days, one that is even more condescending than the more common and inaccurate label “religious editor (as opposed to “religion” editor.

Anyway, a religion-beat friend recently send me a photocopy of a 1994 interview with Cronkite that ran in The Christian Century, the influential mainline Protestant journal. I can’t find it online, although it was quoted by Religion News Service in an a short obit — “And that’s the way he was” — in 2009.

Encountering that “church editor” label reminded me of the old “Lou Grant” show episode that I used as the opening for my graduate project at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, which ran — in a much condensed form — on the cover of The Quill in 1983. The headline on that journal essay was: “The religion beat: Out of the ghetto, into the mainsheets.

The “ghetto”? That was the “church page.” The overture of that Quill piece is long, but it will provide some context for the Cronkite remarks that I will share here:

As was often the case, Lou Grant was working on two problems at once. At first the problems seemed unrelated.

The Los Angeles Tribune had lost its religion editor. City editor Grant had searched far and wide and, of course, no one was interested in the position. After all, what self-respecting journalist would want to be stuck with the religion beat?

Problem number two was how to get rid of lazy, often-drunk, no-good reporter Mal Cavanaugh. All through this episode of Lou Grant the management of the Trib had been trying to find a way to get Cavanaugh to resign.

Then, a spark of inspiration. The script is simple:

LOU: Congratulations, Mal. You're the Trib's new religion editor.


Please respect our Commenting Policy