Christine O’Donnell, Catholic?

October 18, 2010 By

As your GetReligionistas have noted many times, it’s pretty obvious that many people — including more than a few mainstream reporters — are confused about the meaning of the word “evangelical.” Heck, I’m not sure that I know what that word means anymore and I used to be one. The Rev. Billy Graham once told me that he wasn’t sure how to define “evangelical.” Honest.

For the most part, many journalists seem to think that “fundamentalist” means people (we don’t like) who believe that some truths are absolute and eternal (especially if the doctrines in question are linked to the Sexual Revolution). So what about “evangelical”? It seems that “evangelical” has simply become a political term for religious conservatives. Somewhere, I imagine, there is an Orthodox Jewish leader who will soon be hailed as a powerful “evangelical.”

Anyway, please note the USA Today headline and key references in the actual text of the following Associated Press report (drawn from the Wilmington, Del., News Journal) about the every colorful Christine O’Donnell of Delaware:

The headline: “Christine O’Donnell reins in evangelical talk.”

And here’s a look at the top of the story:

When the energy and conservative fervor of the Tea Party swept into Delaware this year, it found Christine O’Donnell.

She had long been an outspoken crusader for chastity, against abortion and for prayer in schools.

O’Donnell didn’t merely join groups that shared her moral certitude, she founded an advocacy group and became a leading voice in others, staking out positions against sex education, urging that biblical creationism be taught in schools, and professing that homosexuality is a sickness. She seamlessly turned that enthusiasm toward politics.

Just four years ago, she told The (Wilmington, Del.) News Journal that during the primary she “heard the audible voice of God. He said, ‘Credibility.’ It wasn’t a thought in my head. I thought it meant I was going to win. But after the primary, I got credibility.”

These days, she talks more about the Constitution than the Bible. After knocking off longstanding U.S. Rep. Mike Castle, a moderate Republican attacked by the Tea Party Express for occasionally voting with Democrats, O’Donnell recast her campaign. She steered clear of the talking points that made her popular with talk-show hosts and conservative commentators. …

“My faith has influenced my personal life,” O’Donnell said Wednesday night at a Republican speaking engagement. “My faith hasn’t really influenced my politics.”

This report, of course, describes her infamous 1997 visit to Bill Maher’s show Politically Incorrect in which she confessed that she “dabbled into witchcraft.” It mentions that she attended Fairleigh Dickinson University and majored in theater. It notes that she converted to evangelical Protestantism in college. It mentions that she opposes abortion, believes that homosexual behavior is sinful, that masturbation is sinful, etc., etc. These are all “evangelical” stances, apparently. It is especially bad, of course, that she believes that some people — attention devotees of the Kinsey Scale — change their sexual behaviors during their lifetimes in ways that suggest sexual orientation is often not a matter of black and white certainty.

Wait, she converted to evangelicalism? Converted from what, you ask? From Catholicism, of course.

However, it is interesting to note that this AP report never mentions her Catholic upbringing and, most importantly, it does not mention that, as an adult, O’Donnell returned to the Catholic faith.

In fact, unless my search engine is broken and I am blind, it does not appear that this news story contains the word “Catholic.” This candidate is, apparently, still an “evangelical.” Search the text for yourself.

Meanwhile, the candidate is not hiding her church affiliation, as she demonstrated in the most quoted clip from that Delaware debate. The New York Times political team noted:

As she did throughout the first half of the debate, Ms. O’Donnell quickly tried to return the focus to Mr. Coons, saying, “I would argue there are more people who support my Catholic faith than his Marxist belief.”

Now, if you write for The Huffington Post, this is how you can deal with O’Donnell’s return to the Catholic fold:

Delaware is 29 percent Catholic. Mike Castle, Christine O’Donnell’s opponent for the senate nomination, is Catholic. Christine O’Donnell was born Catholic but renounced the church when she was in college, and became whatever backwoods claptrap was going. When she started running for office all the time, she converted back. Which sounds pretty convenient, but then, the prodigal son came home when he ran out of money, too.

Apparently, if one is an editor at the Associated Press, it is also possible to simply call her an “evangelical” — whatever that means — and be done with it.

Catholic? Apparently not. Silence is golden and, in this case, politically important.

PS: Oh, it goes without saying that comments should deal with the journalism issues in this news report — not with one’s views of either of the candidates in this race. This is not the place to debate whether one agrees or disagrees with O’Donnell’s religious beliefs.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Catholicism, Evangelicals, Politics, Social Issues
About tmatt

Terry Mattingly directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. He writes a weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

  • http://www.redletterbelievers.com David Rupert

    Fascinating candidate and interesting how you noticed how her faith was being treated.

    Of course, like all people who’s faith is important to them, she’s an extremist.

    Look at the Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck last night on meet the press, who dared suggest that Gays might have had a choice in their gay-ness. Fur’s a flyin!
    David

  • Martha

    “(U)rging that biblical creationism be taught in schools”

    My antennae always start twitching when I see this. Did she really advocate that Six-Day Creationism (where the days are 24 hours each) be taught instead of the theory of evolution and geology, or did she say that some kind of religious basis for belief in creation by a deity be taught alongside the science curriculum?

    I’m curious on this one, because either she really did hold a very Young Earth Creationist view which – as a revert to Catholicism – she will now have had to tone down or even abandon, or else she didn’t advocate that position, did push for permitting religious education classes in schools, but it sounds good to paint her as one of those kooks.

  • Julia

    born Catholic

    Nobody is born Catholic. It’s not an ethnicity.

    She was baptized in a Catholic Church an infant. She was not “born Catholic”.

    I don’t think people are “born Methodist” either.

  • Julia

    I probably should add that many parents baptized and raised in the Catholic Church, who leave as adults, don’t have their children baptized in the Catholic Church.

    It’s not in the genes.

  • Jerry

    The Rev. Billy Graham once told me that he wasn’t sure how to define “evangelical.” Honest.

    I admit you’ve managed to shock and surprise me. I would never have expected that. So perhaps if he was not sure, we can forgive others who misuse the word, whatever it might mean?

    At least for my own personal definitional perspective, I found the story of Anne Hutchinson in the PBS documentary God in America spoke to one aspect of evangelicalism: direct experience of God.

    And about the difference, wikipedia has this quote:

    In the first half of the 20th century, evangelicalism in America was largely synonymous with fundamentalism. George Marsden in Reforming Fundamentalism says, “There was not a practical distinction between fundamentalist and evangelical: the words were interchangeable” (p. 48). When the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was formed in 1942, for example, participants included such fundamentalist leaders as Bob Jones, Sr., John R. Rice, Charles Woodbridge, Harry Ironside, and David Otis Fuller

    Maybe the word has become a test for a person’s point of view just the way “computer hacker” either means a criminal or someone who enjoys and is good at working with computers?

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Journalists use “Creationist” to describe everyone from literal six-day folks to those who take a stance that embraces non-random, non-meaningless approach to common descent.

    In other word, the latter is precisely what Pope John Paul II said — and was hailed by the press for embracing Darwin.

    See: http://www.tmatt.net/1996/11/06/john-paul-vs-darwinian-orthodoxy/

    This is an AP Stylebook tragedy and simply must be addressed at some point.

  • liberty

    There is an interesting comparison to be made here. If a woman calls herself a ‘Roman Catholic Priest’ journalists seem to immediately take them at their word. However, if a conservative politician states that they are Catholic it is ignored and even denied (by claiming she is ‘Evengelical’).

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    “became whatever backwoods claptrap was going..”– Huffington Post. Rather a nasty way to pigeonhole evangelical Christians. Liberals like them often also seem to like to put derogatory spins on us Catholics who take our faith seriously. Are they purposely trying to drive people of strong faith from their political point of view??? It frequently almost seems that way.

  • HollyAnn

    By now, I hope you’ve all realized that the Huffington Post has no credibility. I’ve known Christine since 2003, and she was a Catholic again by then — we used to go to Mass together. Her first campaign was in 2006.

  • http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com Jonathon Moseley

    TO Martha’s question about teaching creationism in the schools….

    I was Christine O’Donnell’s 2008 primary campaign manager in her run for the US Senate seat against Joe Biden, and a long-time friend since 2002.

    As a commentator on issues in the news, Christine O’Donnell commented on the then-current controversy about EXCLUDING creationism in the schools.

    Christine argued that there should not be any censorship in the public schools, but that students should be exposed to all ideas on the subject.

    To answer your question, Christine did not take any position on any particular content that should be taught.

    She made her own views very clear that she personally did not believe in evolution.

    But in terms of the schools, she argued that there should be equal treatment in the shcools so that students should be aware of all sides of the issue.

    So your specific question was about teaching a particular brand of creationism.

    I think that Christine’s comments would clearly NOT mean teaching any particular idea about creationism, but instead would mean letting students be fully informed about various views on the subject.

    Meanwhile, in her run for the US Senate, she has been adamant that Congress does not get involved in setting the curriculum for public schools. It is a long-standing tradition and a taboo in US politics that local school boards must not be interfered with in deciding local curriculum. So Christine has stressed that her role in the Senate will have nothing to do with what public schools teach.

    NOTE: That does not mean that the Federal govt does not care about the quality of education or our schools. It only means that the curriculum itself is decided by local school boards and the Federal Government is supposed to stay out of that area.

  • Jerry

    But in terms of the schools, she argued that there should be equal treatment in the shcools so that students should be aware of all sides of the issue.

    “All sides of the issue” is a code phrase for putting theology on an equal basis as science and thus violating the Constitution. After all, I can also say that we should give equal treatment to the proposition she’s a wingnut as her campaign is giving to promoting her as a reasonable person. This argument can be continued ad nausium. “Equal treatment” is not what we need in school but rather the best possible secular education.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    JERRY:

    Which, of course, even silences secular teachers who want to teach about the clashes inside the various schools of Darwinism.

    But ON JOURNALISM, you are again arguing that there is no need to accurately represent the views of various voices in the debate. So a Creationist is whatever newspapers want to say he or she is. Of course, the same person can be a Deistic or Theistic Evolutionist, should that suit journalists writing a particular take on the subject.

    The beliefs may not change, only the words do. The words, thus, have no meaning.

  • http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com Jonathon Moseley

    HollyAnn, thank you for reminding me of that.

    I joined Christine and a group of friends for a house party in 2003. The next morning, Christine dragged all of us to Catholic mass, even those (few) of us who were not Catholic.

    Later that afternoon when we were supposed to be having a grand gathering at a restaurant, Christine had to leave suddenly because her grandmother had suddenly taken a dramatic and unexpected turn for the worse. She died shortly thereafter.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Folks, please try to stay somewhere in the journalism ballpark or on information about the issue raised in the post — which is how O’Donnell’s Catholic faith has been ignored or oversimplified (in some news sources).

    Interesting article at the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., website on a issue linked to the press coverage of ONE issue mentioned in the AP article:

    http://blog.adw.org/2010/10/can-a-catholic-accept-evolutionary-theory-uncritically/

  • http://ingles.homeunix.net/ Ray Ingles

    Tmatt –

    Which, of course, even silences secular teachers who want to teach about the clashes inside the various schools of Darwinism.

    Oooh, ‘Darwinism’! Talk about code words!

    There are clashes within physics about brane theory, string theory, supersymmetry, etc. How many of these are appropriate for coverage in undergraduate physics classes?

    Yeah, I know, you want us to focus on journalism. If you do too, I promise I will. :)

  • http://www.seay.us Sandy O’Seay

    I recall Billy Graham saying that the difference between an evangelical and a fundamentalist — they both believe the same things, but a fundamentalist is mad about it.

  • Julia

    “All sides of the issue” is a code phrase for putting theology on an equal basis as science and thus violating the Constitution.

    How is that violating the Constitution?

    What does this discussion have to do with a potential member of the US Senate?

    Neither the US Senate nor the US House of Representatives gets into this kind of thing. The only possible connection with O’Donnell is voting for nominees to the Supreme Court which could be called upon to rule on school subjects.

    In any case, it’s a judgment call how wide the discussion in class will be. It depends on the age of the students, the syllabus, whether it’s a survey class or more particular, whether it’s a straight science class or a history of science class, etc.

    University classes often delve into particular beliefs of a particular people on many different subject. Even high schools will have offer comparative religion classes where this type of thing can be discussed with no problem at all.

    None of this is the business of the U.S. Senate.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    JULIA:

    I realize that you are responding to the comments of others. However, how does your latest comment relate to the media coverage of O’Donnell’s Catholic faith?

  • John Pack Lambert

    The Huffpo assesment of O’Donnell’s faith is the classic example of when you point at others four fingers are pointing back at you. It tells us nothing of her beliefs, but does tell us that Huffpo consists of people who value politics over religion. They are the type of people, like Henry IV who believe “Paris is worth the mass”.

    I am still trying to figure out why with 29% of its population being Catholic, Delaware would require you to become Catholic to advance politically. That means the vast majority of the state population, over 70%, are non-Catholics.

    Anyway, I can cite all sorts of senators who have represented states where their religion is an extreme minority. No state is anywhere close to being majority Jewish, but that does not stop there being a whole slew of Jewish senators.

  • Julia

    I realize that you are responding to the comments of others. However, how does your latest comment relate to the media coverage of O’Donnell’s Catholic faith?

    It relates to the questions she was asked in the debate that was the subject of the news articles.

  • http://facebook nezheres

    I don’t think the article’s author meant that one is literally born Catholic anymore than O’donnell meant that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” is literally in the First Amendment of the Constituiton–or that such a concept is in the First Amendment. One can’t even grant her the doubt of Socratic irony.

  • http://makingthingsvisible.blogspot.com/ Ronald Garcia

    Jerry,

    A little constitutional refresher for you.

    Amendment I
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Just like the secularists have the right to practice their irreligion and to speak about it and to stand in public running for office yelling about it and imposing it on public school kids. Which I would argue is the establishment of an”cult of worship” or a religion devoid of God, the cult of self worship if you prefer. They do not seem to have a problem imposing their ideology on every child in the country. Anyhow, they are free to take office and let their irreligious beliefs govern their decisions. They are free to speak about it. As long as the majority of people allow that to happen it will and they are free to co-mingle the two, public office and their beliefs. They do it everyday. What they cannot do is establish doctrine and force it down our throats, though again, I would argue that this is exactly what is happening. Science is the God of the irreligious. It is their “cult” so to speak of worship.

    Having said that, Christians are free to run for public office and to do so without jettisoning their faith. That is what the Constitution says. It does not say that there is a separation. It does say that a Christian cannot impose as the religion for all, Christianity. It does not say that they have to stop thinking like a Christian when they take office or hide it or lie about it. Do you really think that George Washington thought that the 1st Amendment meant “separation of Church and state” when he said at his farewell address….

    “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens…Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

    Well Jerry? Can you do more than call a founding Father a neanderthal? Can you do more than dismiss this as backward thinking? I do not see the words “separation of Church and state” in the constitution nor do the hearts an words of the founding fathers convey anything similiar. It is simply a rhetorical innovation of the irreligious, in an attempt to silence the Christians.

    Unfortunately, for you Jerry you should get used to Creation as an option, since it requires no less faith than say the “big bang theory.” I work with young people, I teach them the faith, and let me tell you they love it. There is just something about faith, hope, and Charity, blended together with every aspect of our lives, including politics, that makes everything more joyful. It’s like a little wildfire spreading in young hearts! I do not believe it will be slowed down anytime soon.

  • Aaron

    nezheres–Ms. O’Donnell clearly understood, if you watched the debate, that the “Establishment Clause” is in the Constitution. However, Congress establishing a religion (which means making a religion a public institution, its clergy chosen and supported by the state and its property likewise controlled by the state–like the Anglican Church in England, or the Lutheran Church in Sweden. The Framers of the First Amendent understood the phrase to forbid such an establishment in the United States.

    What Ms O’Donnell was reacting to was Mr. Coons’ statement that claimed that the “separation of church and state” was in the Constitution, which it is not. The media coverage used her quotes to paint her as some kind of “evangelical” wacko, the crackpot who, despite having the plague of religion clouding her judgement, somehow beat Mr. Castle. I don’t remember seeing any reference to the rest of the conversation.

    I am not wholly on board with O’Donnell, but it appears to me that in all the media coverage of her, only snippets of inflammatory stuff (like her views on masturbation and her views on teaching varying theories on human origins in schools) that make her look like crackpot. It is clear that many in the media are either not paying attention, or are simply trying to make her look bad.

    @Ronald Garcia: the “big bang theory” was actually formulated by a Catholic priest/physcist who used data from studies to determine that, contrary atheistic belief, the world indeed had a definitive starting point. The “big bang theory” thus supports the Creationist, or Theistic view of the origin of life, as opposed to the Darwinian view. This is why a current crop of phsycists, led by atheists like Stephen Hawking, are attempting to show that the Big Bang is a false theory. If the universe had to begining, then its creation by a Creator is false (which is what they maintain personally).