ideology

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

Podcast: Is Cardinal Burke being 'political' by asking the pope questions about 'doctrine'?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Is Cardinal Burke being 'political' by asking the pope questions about 'doctrine'?

Let’s start with some basic facts about a hot, hot story on the religion-news beat — the escalating clashes between Pope Francis and doctrinal conservatives in his church.

We know that Pope Francis and the wider Synod on Synodality camp wants to bring a wave of “reform” to the Roman Catholic Church, with some openly stating that this includes the modernization of doctrines as well as the pastoral-care practices linked to traditional doctrines.

We know that Cardinal Raymond Burke and others — mostly leaders from the era of Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI — insist that their primary goals are to defend the church’s doctrines, primarily on moral issues, as stated in the Catechism and centuries of church tradition.

Thus, journalists need to thinking about the meaning of several words that they are using, over and over, in coverage of this clash inside the Church of Rome. These three words were at the heart of this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

What three words?

The first word is “reform.” In a previous post, I turned to online dictionaries and found this useful set of definitions for that loaded term:

Reform …. * make changes for improvement in order to remove abuse and injustices; "reform a political system" * bring, lead, or force to abandon a wrong or evil course of life, conduct, and adopt a right one; "The Church reformed me"; "reform your conduct" ... * a change for the better as a result of correcting abuses; "justice was for sale before the reform of the law courts" ... * improve by alteration or correction of errors or defects and put into a better condition; "reform the health system in this country" * a campaign aimed to correct abuses or malpractices. ...

What doctrines and pastoral traditions are we talking about?

The Associated Press report focusing on the pope’s latest actions against Cardinal Burke — the loss of his apartment in Rome and, most likely, his stipend — offers the following:

Burke, a 75-year-old canon lawyer whom Francis had fired as the Vatican’s high court justice in 2014, has become one of the most outspoken critics of the pope, his outreach to LGBTQ+ Catholics and his reform project to make the church more responsive to the needs of ordinary faithful.

Twice, Burke has joined other conservative cardinals in issuing formal questions to the pontiff, known as “dubia,” asking him to clarify questions of doctrine that upset conservatives and traditionalists.


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

Thinking about Hamas and its doctrines? It helps to have a document to quote

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about Hamas and its doctrines? It helps to have a document to quote

One of my journalism mentors once said something that turned out to be very wise.

That gem: The more controversial the story, the more a reporter should search for a document (on letterhead, even) that backs you up.

This is especially important, in my experience, when selling a controversial story to an editor.

At the moment, I cannot think of a topic that is more controversial than Hamas — specifically, whether Hamas is, at its heart, a terrorist group.

Thus, I would like to offer a rather unusual “think piece” this week. This is an actual document that, I believe, should be in the news, as in a source for questions and content in stories linked to the hellish Oct. 7 Hamas raid into Israel.

The document in question is the 1988 Hamas covenant explaining the organization’s doctrines and goals. As I will mention later, there is a revised 2017 Hamas charter that is more political and, frankly, less doctrinal. The key is that the 1988 covenant has never been disavowed. Thus, it remains must reading.

Will it be controversial to quote this covenant? Probably. But it’s real, it’s important and it is a valid launching point for questions about present realities. If you want a journalism report linked to this covenant, then check out this new piece at The Atlantic: “Understanding Hamas’s Genocidal Ideology — A close read of Hamas’s founding documents clearly shows its intentions.”

Once again, note that this headline uses “ideology,” when the accurate term for the most controversial passages in this covenant would be “theology.” You know the drill: Politics is real. Religion? Not so much.

You can find the 1988 Hamas covenant in quite a few places, often with commentary. But let’s seek a basic academic source for the document itself, care of Yale Law School.

I have chosen, for this post, a few quotations that are directly linked to questions I have seen addressed in some of the mainstream news coverage of the Oct. 7 blitz. For starters, this is from the preamble:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).


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

Journalists need to ask: Are emerging Catholic synod fights about 'ideology' or 'doctrine'?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Journalists need to ask: Are emerging Catholic synod fights about 'ideology' or 'doctrine'?

The Synod on Synodality is here and there are many, many angles for journalists to pursue.

Let’s put it this way (with much, much more to come), I don’t think Clemente Lisi will have lots of time for soccer (he is an internationally known reporter on all things futbol) in the days ahead. For starters, readers can dig into these Lisi features at Religion Unplugged, where he is editor: “Everything You Need To Know About The Synod On Synodality” and “Pope Francis Open To Church Blessing Of Same-Sex Unions.”

The same-sex blessing story is huge and, frankly, leaders in some mainstream newsrooms (scan this Google News search file) seem to be waiting for a clear signal from their usual Catholic sources on the degree to which it is appropriate to celebrate.

I would like to back off and examine an important word in recent statements by Pope Francis and, thus, the elite press. That word is “ideology.” You can see what is going on in the Associated Press report with this headline: “Ideological rifts among U.S. bishops are in the spotlight ahead of momentous Vatican meeting.”

The subject, of course, is the Synod on Synodality. Read this carefully:

The synod is intended to be a collegial, collaborative event, though the agenda includes divisive issues such as the role of women in the church and the inclusion of LGBTQ Catholics.

If there’s Exhibit A for how elusive consensus might be, it’s the United States’ participation. In effect, there are two high-level U.S. delegations widely viewed as ideological rivals — six clerics appointed by Pope Francis who support his aspirations for a more inclusive, welcoming church; five clerics chosen by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who reflect a more conservative outlook and more skepticism of Francis’ priorities.

The assumption, of course, is that the divisions among U.S. representatives and, one can assume others around the world, are essentially political.

As always: Politics is real. Religion? Not so much.

Let’s keep reading, before we return to that loaded word — “ideological.”


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

Associated Press: Today's Supreme Court contains too many pro-Catechism Catholics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Associated Press: Today's Supreme Court contains too many pro-Catechism Catholics

A long time ago, in Internet years, I got tired of trying to define “liberal” and “conservative” during discussions of Catholic life.

Truth is, the teachings of ancient Christianity (I am Eastern Orthodox) don’t fit neatly into the templates of American politics. If you believe, for example, that human life begins at conception and continues through natural death the you are going to be frustrated reading the Republican and Democratic party platforms.

At one point, I started using this term — pro-Catechism Catholics. I soon heard from readers who were upset that I was linking Catholic identity with the idea that Catholics were supposed to believe and even attempt to practice the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

This brings me to a new Associated Press story with a very familiar, in recent years, theme. The headline: “Anti-Roe justices a part of Catholicism’s conservative wing.” Here is the overture, which includes — #SHOCKING — a reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade at a time when it has an unprecedented Catholic supermajority.

That’s not a coincidence. Nor is it the whole story.

The justices who voted to overturn Roe have been shaped by a church whose catechism affirms “the moral evil of every procured abortion” and whose U.S. bishops have declared opposition to abortion their “preeminent priority” in public policy.

But that alone doesn’t explain the justices’ votes.

U.S. Catholics as a whole are far more ambivalent on abortion than their church leaders, with more than half believing it should be legal in all or most circumstances, according to the Pew Research Center.

The problem, you see, is that there are justices who appear to embrace the Catechism, on issues linked to the Sexual Revolution, of course. They are clashing with generic “U.S. Catholics,” who are not defined, as usual, in terms of Mass attendance or other references to belief and practice (such as choosing to go to Confession).

What we have here is yet another clash between American Catholics and dangerous Catholics.


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

Washington Post reports: Hey, not all parents with lots of kids are fundamentalist wackos!

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

Oh my. Folks at The Washington Post have just published an interesting story about non-religious large families that raises all kinds of questions. If you thought journalists had run out of valid new angles for coverage of the whole Pew Forum "none" phenomenon, this piece will convince you otherwise.

Nevertheless, there is a religion-angle problem -- maybe two -- in this story, which ran under the headline, "Stop assuming that families with lots of children are religious."

For starters, the Post team did a pretty good job of telling readers what parents such as Timothy and Kyla Buller do NOT believe. However, the story makes little or no attempt to describing what they DO believe. Hold that thought.

The story also managed, creating an LOL moment for this GetReligionista, to combine two of this blog's least favorite nasty and shallow labels into one all-purpose journalistic insult. Here is what that looks like:

As younger adults elect “none” as their religious preference more and more often, the number of large “none” families in the country may well rise.
But if large non-religious families are getting more common, Tracey Stoner hasn’t noticed it yet. “It’s hard to find support as a large family that’s not religious,” she said.
Raising seven children who range in age from 6 months to 16 years old, Stoner has sought advice in Facebook groups for large families. But the members seem to be “95 percent Christians,” she said, often with fundamentalist ideologies.

You got it! The Post managed to use both the journalism F-word and an ISIS-era application of the word "ideology" at the same time!


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Ideology or theology? Is it time for Western journalists to start taking ISIS at its word?

Ideology or theology? Is it time for Western journalists to start taking ISIS at its word?

So here is an important question facing journalists, diplomats and presidential candidates as they ponder the mysteries of the Middle East, at this moment in time. This is the question that "Crossroads" host Todd Wilken and I explored in this week's podcast. Click here to check that out.

That question: Is ISIS a political state defined by a political system, by an ideology, in the same sense as the United States, France or Germany? Or, is the Islamic State best understood as a theocracy in which its political and religious institutions are wedded together, while operating according to laws and logic based on its leaders own understanding of Islamic theology and tradition?

Yes, ISIS leaders want land, oil, money, weapons and prisoners. But they also want converts -- other Muslims, for sure -- to their cause and their version of Islam, both in the regions they conquer as well as in the lands they threaten.

So ponder the opening lines of the recent ISIS statement (as printed in The Washington Post) in which its leaders claimed responsibility for the massacres in Paris:

In a blessed battle whose causes of success were enabled by Allah, a group of believers from the soldiers of the Caliphate (may Allah strengthen and support it) set out targeting the capital of prostitution and vice, the lead carrier of the cross in Europe -- Paris. This group of believers were youth who divorced the worldly life and advanced towards their enemy hoping to be killed for Allah's sake, doing so in support of His religion, His Prophet (blessing and peace be upon him), and His allies. They did so in spite of His enemies. Thus, they were truthful with Allah -- we consider them so -- and Allah granted victory upon their hands and cast terror into the hearts of the crusaders in their very own homeland.

The bottom line: Does this sound like political language?

The question, for journalists (and I assume statesmen as well) has become rather obvious: To what degree should the words of the ISIS leadership be taken seriously? When they say they are dedicated to building a caliphate -- an Islamic state for all of the world's Muslims -- to what degree should outsiders take that apocalyptic claim seriously?

Want to ponder a possible end-game here? Do the ISIS leaders plan to take Mecca from Saudi Arabia?


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

Washington Post digs into ISIS 'ideology' -- not theology -- and the lives of women

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

No matter what else is going on in the world, the Islamic State is still out there attacking cities and seizing territory, constantly striving to create its new version of a heaven on earth, which in this case is called a "caliphate."

By definition, a caliphate is an Islamic state led by a "caliph." So what precisely is a "caliph"?

A typical definition offered by a Western dictionary defines this term as:

* an important Muslim political and religious leader
* a successor of Muhammad as temporal and spiritual head of Islam -- used as a title

So a caliph is both a political and religious leader, quite literally a man who is claiming to be a "successor of Muhammad."

Now, with that in mind let's look at a key passage in a new Washington Post story -- " 'Till Martyrdom Do Us Part" -- about the lives of woman inside the territory controlled by ISIS. This includes women who have volunteered to be part of the Islamic State, as well as those who have been kidnapped. This story is part of an ongoing Post series about life inside the caliphate.

Let me stress that this feature is quite well reported, which is amazing in light of the restraints under which reporters are working when attempting to cover the Islamic State. Much of the attributed information is based on ISIS social media and, I found this amazing, Skype conversations with people living inside the caliphate.

Then there is this summary material that serves as a kind of thesis statement:

In the Islamic State’s ideology, a woman’s place is in the home, tending to her husband and producing children.


Please respect our Commenting Policy