Justice Samuel Alito

, , , , , , , , , ,

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: A growing post-Roe divide between 'Jesusland' and the 'United States of Canada'?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: A growing post-Roe divide between 'Jesusland' and the 'United States of Canada'?

Over the past week or so, I have received several emails — while noticing similar messages on Twitter — from people asking: “Why is The Atlantic publishing the same story over and over?” Some people ask the same question about The New York Times.

It’s not the same SPECIFIC story over and over, of course. But we are talking about stories with the same basic Big Idea, usually framed in the same way. In other words, it’s kind of a cookie-cutter approach.

The key word is “division,” as in America is getting more and more divided or American evangelicalism is getting more and more divided. A new Ronald Brownstein essay of this kind at The Atlantic — “America’s Blue-Red Divide Is About to Get Starker” — provided the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

The villains in these dramas are, of course, White evangelicals or, in more nuanced reporting, a radical wing of the White evangelicals. Just this week, I praised the New York Times for running a feature that offered a variation on one of these templates: “Bravo! The New York Times reports that evangelicals are divided, not united on politics.” That piece showed progress, in part, because it undercut the myth of the evangelical political monolith on issues such as Donald Trump, COVID vaccines, QAnon, etc.

Let me make this personal. There is a reason that all of these stories written by journalists and blue-checkmark Twitter stars sound a big familiar to me. You see, people who have been paying attention know that the great “Jesusland” v. the “United States of Canada” divide is actually at least three decades old. It’s getting more obvious, methinks, because of the flamethrower social-media culture that shapes everything,

So let’s take a journey and connect a few themes in this drama, including summary statements by some important scribes. The goal is to collect the dots and the, at the end, we’ll look at how some of these ideas show up in that new leaning-left analysis at The Atlantic.

First, there is the column I wrote in 1998, when marking the 10th anniversary of “On Religion” being syndicated (as opposed to the 33rd anniversary the other day). Here’s the key chunk of that:

… In 1986, a sociologist of religion had an epiphany while serving as a witness in a church-state case in Mobile, Ala.


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

Ordinary protests at doxxed SCOTUS homes, Masses and a generic firebomb, as well

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ordinary protests at doxxed SCOTUS homes, Masses and a generic firebomb, as well

The Roe v. Wade related events of the past three or four days have created a very obvious case study that can be stashed into that ongoing “mirror image” case file here at GetReligion.

Start here. Let’s say that, during the days of the Donald Trump White House, something important happened related to LGBTQ rights — something like a U.S. Supreme Court decision that delivered a major victory to the trans community. At that point, some wild people on the far cultural right published the home addresses of the justices that backed the decision and, maybe, even any hospital that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg might be visiting for cancer treatments.

Another group, let’s call it “Bork Sent Us,” announces plans for protests at Episcopal Church parishes because of that denomination’s outspoken support for LGBTQ causes. Some protestors promise to invade sanctuaries and violate the bread and wine used in the Holy Eucharist. Along the way, what if someone firebombed a Planned Parenthood facility?

Obviously, Trump’s press secretary would be asked to condemn this madness, including violations of a federal law against intimidating protests at the homes of judges.

Let’s set that aside for a moment. I want to ask a “mirror image” journalism question: Would this be treated as a major news story in elite media on both sides of our divided nation and, thus, divided media? Would this, at the very least, deserve a story or two that made it into the basic Associated Press summary of the major news stories of the weekend?

Let me say that these events would have deserved waves of digital ink, with good cause.

This brings us, of course, to the leaked copy of a draft of a majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that points to a potential 5-3-1 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Twitter users may know many of the details of the anger this has unleashed in mass media and among Sexual Revolution clergy, both secular and sacred. There has been some coverage, including (#DUH) at Fox News. A sample on the church angle:

The White House on Sunday defended people's "fundamental right to protest" but warned against efforts to "intimidate" others during pro-abortion protests planned at Catholic churches across the country.

Multiple activist groups are planning protests defending abortion rights outside Catholic churches on Mother's Day and the following Sunday after a draft opinion from the Supreme Court threatened to overturn Roe v. Wade.


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

No way around it: Bombshell Roe v. Wade leak was the religion story of the week

, , , , , , , , , ,
No way around it: Bombshell Roe v. Wade leak was the religion story of the week

News that the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority might overturn Roe v. Wade is not overly shocking. We’ve known that for months.

But the timing — and manner — of this week’s leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion that would strike down the landmark 1973 decision, which legalized abortion nationwide? That counts as a bombshell.

To discuss the big scoop by Politico’s Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward, ReligionUnplugged.com convened a panel of top religion journalists who have written extensively about the abortion debate. Click here to watch the discussion.

Clemente Lisi and I moderated the panel. Lisi, who teaches journalism at The King’s College in New York, is a ReligionUnplugged.com senior editor and a veteran GetReligion writer who focuses on Catholic news for both websites. The panelists were:

• Adelle Banks, Religion News Service production editor and national reporter (see “If Roe goes, Black church leaders expect renewed energy for elections”).

• Kelsey Dallas, Deseret News religion reporter and associate national editor (see “As some rallied over Roe v. Wade, these Christians prayed”).

• BeLynn Hollers, Dallas Morning News reporter who covers women’s health, politics and religion (see her coverage of Texas’ restrictive abortion law).

• And Kate Shellnutt, Christianity Today senior news editor (see “This is and isn’t the moment pro-life evangelicals have waited for”).

Among the tantalizing questions the panel explored: Is the abortion debate a religion story?

Yes and no, Hollers said.

Yes, Dallas said. “But maybe not for the reasons people might assume,” she quickly added.


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

New podcast: Are some SCOTUS justices asking, 'Are all religious schools equal in Maine?'

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Are some SCOTUS justices asking, 'Are all religious schools equal in Maine?'

Let’s say that, in the state of Maine, there are two very different “Lutheran” schools. You could, in this hypothetical case, also say “Episcopal,” or “Presbyterian” or “Congregational.”

Leaders at one of these schools insist that their school is in “the Lutheran tradition,” and it may retain ties to a doctrinally liberal flock. The school has a chapel, but attendance is optional since its students (it may be an elite boarding school) come from all kinds of religious faiths or have no stated faith at all. Classes on hot-button moral issues — sexuality, for example — stress this church’s progressive doctrines.

Academic life is very different at the other Lutheran school, which draws most of its students and financial support from a conservative Lutheran body. Chapel attendance is required and classes linked to moral theology are quite countercultural — defending 2,000 years of Christian tradition.

The question, in the latest church-state case at the U.S. Supreme Court, is whether the state of Maine has the power to say that the first school is eligible for tuition support — using tax dollars — because it’s policies do not clash with those in public schools. Students at the conservative school are not eligible, because its beliefs are “sectarian.”

This is tricky territory and church-state experts on the Religious Right would certainly disagree with experts from the Religious Left and secular think tanks. The question discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) is whether journalists covering this case allowed readers a chance to understand the views of activists on both sides.

Let me state, right up front, that my dueling Lutherans illustration is based on “equal access” church-state principles that emerged from a left-right coalition during the Bill Clinton administration. The big idea: If state officials create policies that affect nonprofits, they cannot back secular groups while discriminating against religious organizations. States could, however, deny aid to both. In other words, religious faith is not a uniquely dangerous form of speech or activity.

Let me state this another way. Under the separation of church and state, officials are not supposed to use tax dollars to back state-approved forms of religion. Ah! But what if some religious groups have doctrines that are consistent with state policies, while others clash with the doctrines of the state?


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

Newsy thinking about SCOTUS, sports images, religious liberty and the Sexual Revolution

, , , , , , , , , ,
Newsy thinking about SCOTUS, sports images, religious liberty and the Sexual Revolution

Wait, you mean there was another important religion story during the traffic jam of stories about the right vs. further right showdown at the Southern Baptist Convention and America’s Catholic bishops arguing about Holy Communion, the Catechism and liberal Catholic politicos?

Obviously, I noticed headlines such as this one in the Washington Post: “Supreme Court unanimously rules for Catholic group in Philadelphia foster-care dispute.”

The word “unanimous” is certainly important, in the fractured age in which we live. But look for the other crucial word in the overture on that story:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously … that Philadelphia was wrong to end a Catholic group’s contract to provide foster-care services because the organization refused to work with same-sex couples.

It was the latest victory for religious organizations at the increasingly conservative court, and the second time it has ruled against governments trying to enforce an anti-discrimination law protecting LGBTQ rights against those claiming religious liberty.

But the opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was narrow enough to draw the support of the court’s three liberals — and the consternation of its three most conservative members for not going further.

Obviously, the crucial word is “but.” This ruling encouraged some church-state conservatives, but also provided some hope for those who believe that the Sexual Revolution will, more often than not, trump the free exercise of religion.

So, it’s time for two think pieces that explore the degree to which this ruling was a win for religious liberty.

No surprise here: Religious liberty pro David French, of The Dispatch, was encouraged: “Four Things You Need to Know After a Huge Day at SCOTUS — ‘Good night, Employment Division v. Smith. Good work. Sleep well. I’ll most likely kill you in the morning​.’ “ Here is his reaction, at the level of SCOTUS personalities:


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

Supreme Court justices are not singing the same religious liberty tune during pandemic

, , , , , , , , ,
Supreme Court justices are not singing the same religious liberty tune during pandemic

Legal battles over pandemic-era worship gatherings rage on.

Last October’s confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett flipped the U.S. Supreme Court’s script on such questions.

The latest ruling came last Friday night: A 6-3 order stopped California’s ban on indoor worship in most of the nation’s most populous state. But the justices allowed a 25 percent capacity limit to remain.

Perhaps most interestingly, the majority said California can keep prohibiting singing and chanting. For now.

On the singing issue, the justices sang several different tunes:

• Chief Justice John Roberts: “The State has concluded … that singing indoors poses a heightened risk of transmitting COVID–19. I see no basis in this record for overriding that aspect of the state public health framework.”

• Barrett, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh: “Of course, if a chorister can sing in a Hollywood studio but not in her church, California’s regulations cannot be viewed as neutral. But the record is uncertain. … (H)owever, the applicants remain free to show that the singing ban is not generally applicable and to advance their claim accordingly.”

• Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito: “California has sensibly expressed concern that singing may be a particularly potent way to transmit the disease. … But, on further inspection, the singing ban may not be what it first appears. It seems California’s powerful entertainment industry has won an exemption. So, once more, we appear to have a State playing favorites … expending considerable effort to protect lucrative industries (casinos in Nevada; movie studios in California) while denying similar largesse to its faithful.”


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

Justice Alito warns: To spot religious-liberty trends in USA, listen to voices on campuses

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Justice Alito warns: To spot religious-liberty trends in USA, listen to voices on campuses

Almost a half century ago, comedian George Carlin recorded his controversial "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" monologue.

That was then.

"Today, it would be easy to create a new list entitled, 'Things you can't say if you are a student or a professor at a college of university or an employee of many big corporations.' And there wouldn't be just seven items on that list -- 70 times seven would be closer to the mark," said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, via Zoom, addressing the recent Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention.

Discussing religious beliefs, he argued, has become especially dangerous.

"You can't say that marriage is the union between one man and one woman," he noted. "Until very recently, that's what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now it's considered bigotry."

Consider, for example, the case of Jack Denton, a Florida State University political science major whose long-range plans include law school.

In June, he participated in a Catholic Student Union online chat in which, after the death of George Floyd, someone promoted a fundraising project supporting BlackLivesMatter.com, the American Civil Liberties Union and similar groups. Denton criticized ACLU support for wider access to abortion and the BLM group's "What We Believe" website page that, at that time, pledged support for LGBTQ rights and efforts to disrupt "nuclear family" traditions.

"As a Catholic speaking to other Catholics," he said, "I felt compelled to point out the discrepancy between what these groups stand for and what the Catholic Church teaches. So, I did."

Denton didn't expect this private discussion to affect his work as president of the FSU Student Senate. However, an outraged student took screenshots of his texts and sent them to the Student Senate. That led to petitions claiming that he was unfit to serve, a painful six-hour special meeting and his forced exit.


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

Today's Associated Press: Why cover both sides of an important Amy Coney Barrett story?

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

Dear editors at the Associated Press:

Let’s discuss a few issues behind your recent feature that was sent to newspapers everywhere with this headline: “Barrett was trustee at private school with anti-gay policies.”

The key, of course, is “policies” — a vague term that way too many mainstream journalists consistently use in place of the simple word “doctrines.”

Yes, of course, traditional Catholic schools have “policies” that affect students, faculty and staff. However, these policies are almost always attempts to teach and defend the doctrines of the church. It’s significant that the word “doctrine” does not appear anywhere in this long AP piece and the same goes for the word “catechism.” Also, “scripture” is used once — by a progressive Catholic stressing that conservative Catholics are “literalists” when reading the Bible.

Anyone who has covered Catholic education for a decade or two knows what is going on here. Yes, Democrats are furious about Amy Coney Barrett’s arrival on the high court. But this Associated Press story is built on divisions inside the American Catholic church, both on moral theology linked to LGBTQ issues and fights over the goals of Catholic education in colleges, universities, seminaries and private schools such as the ones linked to Barrett and People of Praise.

With that in mind, let’s add two other factors to this case that are ignored (or all but ignored) by AP.

First of all, once upon a time there was a man named St. Pope John Paul II. In 1990, this pope issued a document entitled “Ex Corde Ecclesiae (From the Heart of the Church)” focusing on issues in Catholic education. You could tell that it was a controversial document (a) because it said Catholic doctrines should be taught and defended in Catholic schools, (b) progressive Catholics, speaking through the press, went ballistic and (c) it took almost a decade of fighting for American Catholic church leaders to act (sort of) on the pope’s guidelines.

This fight was primarily about colleges and universities, but the principals in Ex Corde are relevant to fights, these days, about classroom and student-life issues in Catholic schools at all levels. So what was John Paul II saying?


Please respect our Commenting Policy