Report from Canada: The sanctity of common (Anglican) words

June 4, 2004 By

o_canadaI found an interesting commentary out there online about a major victory for the Anglican left in the sexuality wars in Canada.

The piece is called “Parting thoughts from your American guest” and it’s written by a veteran reporer named Douglas LeBlanc. Fine writer, this guy.

First, here’s the start of an actual news report from the Anglican Journal about this rather tricky event, in which it seemed like action had been delayed. Then the Anglican establishment managed to arrange a last-minute action that some will call merely symbolic.

It’s much more than that, really, because of the presence of the word “sanctity.”

One day after delaying a decision on whether to bless gay relationships, Canadian Anglicans approved a statement that “affirms the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships.”

Delegates meeting here at the triennial General Synod governing convention said the statement was intended to send gay and lesbian Anglicans a message after yesterday’s vote.

“Our church has always had gay couples and they have been welcome. This would affirm we recognize them as children of God,” said delegate Cassandra McCollum of the Yukon, who identified herself as bisexual.

LeBlanc notes that this is one of those stories in which words have meaning and that it is hard to tear them away from their common definitions, especially when that context is common prayer. In this case, the use of the word “sanctity” will have a global impact.

Once again, journalists covering the story must face this reality — this is not a Canadian story or an American story. It is a global story, as also shown in the basic Associated Press report. LeBlanc continues:

Attempting to separate the word “sanctity” from its theological content may work in the hothouse environment of Synod. But it will cause moral and theological confusion among Christians who still think, with good biblical and logical bases, that specific words mean specific things, and that honoring those meanings is a matter of integrity and stewardship.

General Synod has, in its more self-effacing and civil way, chosen to join the Episcopal Church in pressuring global Anglicanism toward accepting the sexual standards of the prosperous West. As the Rev. Canon Gregory Cameron said on Saturday, this decision will cause distressing questions for Anglicans in other nations. These brothers and sisters in Christ will soon ask valid questions about whether being part of the Anglican Communion means anything more than welcoming the occasional Global South bishop to a diocesan synod, or sending a youth group out on a short missions trip.

The global conversation is just beginning. It almost certainly will grow more tense in the months ahead, and still more strained as Anglicans look at gathering for Lambeth 2008 in South Africa.

Note, for example, that South Africa is not in Great Britain. Things will get even more interesting if that turns into southern Africa instead of South Africa. Stay tuned.

Filed Under: Anglicanism

Hitting a nerve: Politics, class, morality, social issues, religion, news

June 3, 2004 By

AAACrossOriginalWhen Doug and I started GetReligion.org, I decided early on I would not post my Scripps Howard News Service columns week after week. If anyone wants to see them, they can go to tmatt.net or even get on the listserv. But I am posting some info on this week’s column for a simple reason: It continues a discussion we have already been having on this site about the recent survey of journalists released by the Pew Research Center and the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

This data hit a nerve, and not just because Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post connected the dots between liberal attitudes on social issues and celebratory coverage of same-sex marriage. I tried to get past that issue in my column, with the help of Tom Rosenstiel, director of the project.

Once again, the Pew survey has raised a divisive question about media bias: Is the wide gap between journalists and their readers on social issues the result of (a) politics, (b) social class, (c) religious practice or (d) all of the above?

Rosenstiel said journalists are used to having their political beliefs criticized and most — on left and right — believe they can achieve accurate, balanced coverage. But this is where survey questions about religion and morality are important. For most journalists, these highly personal issues may be hidden in the blind spots of their professional training.

“If you are truly trying to be fair, it’s probably easier to overcome your most obvious political biases. You’re used to thinking about them,” he said. “But the cultural and religious values that we hold are much harder to recognize. They are just a part of us. They are part of how we view the world and we may have trouble seeing that.”

In my background reading for the column, I was also fascinated by an emerging theme in this debate — social class. As the saying goes, journalists are working stiffs who really view themselves as public intellectuals. It is also interesting to note that, after a decade of seeking diversity in newsrooms, many media executives seem unaware that they have created environments dominated by people (whatever their race and gender) of highly similar backgrounds and ideologies.

In future research, Rosenstiel said it would be crucial to focus on these issues of class, just as much as on the issues of morality and faith. There is clearly a connection, one linked to the fact that there are more religious believers of various stripes in local newsrooms than in elite newsrooms.

Conservative scribe John Leo dug into this reality in one of his columns for U.S. News & World Report.

Why does the news business keep hiring more and more people who disagree sharply with the customers, many of whom are already stampeding out the door for a variety of reasons? One explanation is that national journalism is now an elite profession, staffed by people — black and white, female and male — who went to elite colleges and who share the conventional social views of their class. This was not true a generation ago. When I was at the New York Times, the leadership was full of people who had gone to the wrong schools and fought their way up with brains and talent. Two desks away from mine was McCandlish Phillips, a born-again Christian who read the Bible during every break, no matter how brief. Phillips was a legendary reporter, rightly treated with awe by the staff, but I doubt he would be hired by most news organizations today. He prayed a lot and had no college degree.

PERSONAL NOTE: Doug is still on the road, chasing Canadian Anglicans. Meanwhile, I am headed home for a few days — taking a short break from my teaching duties in Washington, D.C. It’s going to be a very busy summer, but Doug and I will do our best to stay active on the blog. We also continue to hunt a foreign-news specialist. Oh, and anyone who wants to know more about that amazing McCandlish Phillips guy can click here.

Filed Under: Godbeat

Sex & the Ghost II: Cells, IM, hookups and something strange called guilt

June 1, 2004 By

teensWhat teen-agers need today is an “international base system.”

At least, that’s what reporter Benoit Denizet-Lewis concludes in a truly stunning — on several levels — cover story in last weekend’s Sunday magazine in the New York Times. The title is “Friends, Friends With Benefits and the Benefits of the Local Mall,” but here at GetReligion.org we can simply think of it as Sex & the Ghost II (The Next Generation). The story is all about sex in the era of cell telephones and the Net, with parents nowhere to be seen.

No one has really defined what relationships are and are not. In this world, a “conservative” is someone who believes that sex should at least involve emotion or enough of a commitment that teens may end up dating. Maybe. Then again, no one has really defined what sex is. This is the post-Bill Clinton era, after all, and there are diseases out there. So where is second base? Where is third base? Is it safe to steal home? Who knows? Who does a young person ask?

And while we are at it, why are the girls — starting at age 13 or thereabouts — having to compete with each other for the attention of the guys? Why is sex, whatever sex is, all about the pleasure of the boys? Why is “romance” a forbidden word?

So “hooking up” sexually with your friends is fine, year after year, and then, someday, that perfect person will come along and then — when you are no longer “hot” enough to compete in the digital marketplace — it will be time to get married. Then everyone will be faithful. Like their parents. Not.

It’s all innocent fun, if the word “innocent” means anything. There are no consequences.

Then again, young people keep saying that they feel dirty. So what does the word “dirty” mean? A kid named David really doesn’t know, except in his gut.

David isn’t the only teenager who used the word “dirty” to describe hookups. Inherent in the thinking of many teenagers is the belief that hooking up, while definitely a mainstream activity, is still one that’s best kept quiet. And underneath the teenage bravado I heard so often are mixed feelings about an activity that can leave them feeling depressed, confused and guilty.

As much as teenagers like to talk a good game, hooking up isn’t nearly as seamless as they’d like it to be, and there are many ways it can go wrong. At the Valentine’s Day gathering, Irene and her friends laid out the unwritten etiquette of teenage hookups: if you want it to be a hookup relationship, then you don’t call the person for anything except plans to hook up. You don’t invite them out with you. You don’t call just to say hi. You don’t confuse the matter. You just keep it purely sexual, and that way people don’t have mixed expectations, and no one gets hurt.

But, invariably, people do.

Eventually a few authorities and experts show up — voices like Dr. Drew Pinsky of “Loveline,” a nationally syndicated radio program. He’s real. He’s been on MTV. Hooking up is not what it seems, he tells the Times.

“It’s all bravado,” he says. “Teens are unwittingly swept up in the social mores of the moment, and it’s certainly not some alternative they’re choosing to keep from getting hurt emotionally. The fact is, girls don’t enjoy hookups nearly as much as boys, no matter what they say at the time. They’re only doing it because that’s what the boys want.”

And a conservative, religious Jewish voice shows up — although she is not identified as such. This is Wendy Shalit, author of the radical volume “A Return to Modesty.” Girls are being manipulated, she argues, and told that true freedom means acting out the worst of male behavior. Dreaming of intimacy and fidelity are now the ultimate sins. However, Shalit is not interviewed. A quote from the distant world of the printed page is stuck into this waterfall of popular media and digital life. Shalit writes: “In the age of the hookup, young women confess their romantic hopes in hushed tones, as if harboring some terrible secret.”

This article is somewhat shocking, but it is must reading for religious leaders and for journalists who want to cover moral issues in modern youth culture. Where are the religious voices? Do they even know this is happening?

Filed Under: Social Issues

Life after Pentecost: The Catholic Communion story marches on

May 31, 2004 By

JesuitSlurpCitySen. John “Call me JFK” Kerry must be so relieved. Then again, maybe not. Another front has opened up in the Catholic Communion war and, once again, the lifestyle left wing of the Democratic Party is likely to be (a) stuck taking a stand that will fire up moral traditionalists or (b) firming up its lock on every voter who has enjoyed the Da Vinci Code.

I refer to the Rainbow Sash story, which focused on events in Chicago over the weekend. The basic issue: Would homosexuals protesting ancient Catholic teachings on sexual ethics — by wearing colorful rainbow sashes — be allowed to take Holy Communion and, thus, declare their sacramental union with the very church they were protesting? This added a new layer to the Kerry crisis. The candidate has rejected his church in word. The protesters wished to do so in deed while standing at altars. As the Chicago Tribune reported:

The bright sashes have appeared since 2000 in the Chicago cathedral on Pentecost Sunday, a day celebrating the inclusiveness of Christianity, said Joe Murray, local spokesman for the Rainbow Sash Movement. … Each year, members of the movement have gone up to receive Communion and been turned away. …

Before leaving for a weeklong trip to the Vatican last week, Cardinal Francis George told priests in the Archdiocese of Chicago to deny Communion to anyone wearing the sashes. He said the order, which is in line with national policy, wasn’t a condemnation of homosexuality, but rather a declaration of the Eucharist’s sanctity.

Buried in this story was a symbolic detail that shows the degree to which the American Catholic establishment is struggling these days. Cardinal George had to know that his action would be opposed by many of his priests and the leadership of major parishes. At some point in the future, if gay-rights groups continue to push with this photo-op strategy, there is sure to be a breakdown. Why? The church’s leaders do not agree on the fundamental, sacramental questions involved.

How would reporters know that? Read this:

But for Dennis Kluge, 51, of Chicago the decision of who should and should not receive the sacrament should be left to a higher power.

Kluge, who has participated in the sash movement since 2000, serves as a Eucharistic minister in Immaculate Conception. He said he has never denied a person Communion. “It’s never my place to do that,” he said. “That is between the person requesting Communion and God. No human has the right to deny Communion.”

In other words, one of the leaders in the protest movement is doing more than receiving Communion — he has been chosen as a parish leader to distribute the sacrament. What can the cardinal say to that?

This issue may fade, since the chosen day of the protests has passed. But there is always a chance that the political implications may boil up again in some unlikely spot — especially if journalists decide that this is another case of Catholic bishops breaching the wall between church and state by trying to enforce their own doctrines at their own altars with their own parishioners.

Consider, if you will, this exchange in a recent White House press conference. The following is not a parody.

REPORTER: In Chicago, a militant homosexual group called Rainbow Sash, which has demonstrated during mass of Catholic bishops here in Washington, they’re planning to demonstrate during masses in Chicago on Pentecost. So that Archbishop Frances Cardinal George has ordered his clergy to deny them communion.

And my question: Since the First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, of which these demonstrations are a disruption, the President has no criticism of Cardinal George, does he?

MR. SCOTT McCLELLAN: Les, I’m not familiar at all with the specifics of what you’re bringing up. But, obviously, those are issues — those are issues that our religious leaders will address.

Filed Under: Catholicism

On cat worship and another hot Catholic political issue

May 29, 2004 By

catmosaicThe following is a letter to the GetReligion.org editor from one of our readers, an old-fashioned Catholic peace activist named Juli Loesch Wiley.

Now, please understand that this woman is the kind of Catholic who is plagued by fits of linear thinking and, thus, gets in lots of trouble. One person’s radical peacenik is another’s anti-abortion fanatic.

Me thinks that this letter is a commentary on the issue of Sen. John Kerry and Communion. Here it is, as submitted. Argue with her, folks, not me.

Once upon a time, in a land quite different from our own, there were those who followed an ancient “spiritual way.” Among other things, they considered cats to be sacred. The “Cattadocians,” convinced that cats have a spirit nature transcending mere physical existence, sincerely held that every feline has a right to care and nurture. The believers were very kind to all of them: manx, calico, siamese. They brought strays in and gave them an honored position in their households. They taught their children to treat them in an affectionate and cherishing way. And they truly grieved whenever a cat, in the course of things, died a natural death.

One day a person arrived on the scene who had no “sacred” regard for felines at all. Even worse, he supported a scheme to snuff out cats — and not just a few: he wanted to authorize the crushing of huge numbers of kittens, effective immediately.

Yet this cat-disdainer wanted to join the devout Cattadocians! Why? In order to gain — he imagined — some sort of religious benefit. With no real devotion to the tenets of their faith, he demanded to participate in the most sacred rites of the believers. Some of them, sincerely shocked, began to object, seeing his participation as “sacrilegious.”

But he acted affronted. He loudly insisted that he had a right to insert himself into the deepest rituals of the temple. And when the believers begged him, with tears, to renounce cat-killing, he called them a bunch of stuck-up meanies.

The infamy of his cat-killing spread. Soon everyone knew that he considered it OK to slice off their fur, dismember them, cut off their heads. At the same time, he frequented the ceremonies of the Cattadocian faith, blowing a trumpet before him, helping himself to their sacred meals, ignoring the suffering of the cats and the pain and anguish of the devoted Cattadocians.

A fable. A tale for children, nothing more. But even so, ask your children, for even they would know: who’s the stuck-up meanie?

By the way, the latest wrinkle in this highly emotional case comes in a story by Denver Post religion writer Eric Gorski. This concerns the bishop who stated he would deny Communion to supporters of Sen. John Kerry. Here is how the story opens:

A church-state separation group on Thursday asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the Colorado Springs Roman Catholic diocese, saying Bishop Michael Sheridan may have crossed the line into unlawful partisan politicking.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State contends Sheridan’s May 1 pastoral letter on voting and politics is a command that Catholics vote Republican. The Washington, D.C.-based group argues Sheridan may have violated federal tax law and jeopardized the diocese’s tax-exempt status. The Colorado Springs diocese countered that the group distorted Sheridan’s teaching and his role as bishop.

Now stop and think about this for a second. It is a violation of church-state separation for a bishop — taking actions that affect only the voluntary members of his own church — to enforce a Vatican document on the Sacrament of Holy Communion? So tax officials of the United States government get to dictate what religious leaders can and cannot do to enforce their own doctrines?

Clearly, it’s fair game to debate with the handful of Catholic bishops that are threatening drastic action against Catholic politicians who publicly oppose the most sacred teachings of their own church, as stated by the Vatican. For example, when was the last time these bishops stressed the theological link between frequent cofession and Holy Communion? Why not strive to enforce other parts of the Church’s teachings?

But that is almost beside the point. Try to imagine a government law or tax regulation that could affect this kind of internal, doctrinal dispute. Holy constitutional entanglement! I would also imagine that most bishops would lead marches on behalf of pro-life Democrats, if offered the chance to do so.

Meanwhile, we await a new parable from Loesch Wiley on the subject of rainbow liturgical vestments.

Filed Under: Politics

Sex & the Ghost: Searching for values in a numbers game

May 28, 2004 By

single_lifeOne of the things I love the most about being back in Washington, D.C., once a year is the joy of reading a great newspaper — on dead tree pulp. There is nothing like reading an old-fashioned analog newspaper to help you see the ghosts drifting through the lines of inky type.

Which brings us to a ghost I have been thinking about all week. The excellent Style section of the Washington Post recently ran a haunting article about the state of sexual ethics among some young women on university campuses and in the jobs that come right afterwards. Clearly, this was some kind of post-Sex & the City meditation.

The main focus is on “The Number.” What is that? This refers to a debate among young women about the meaning — the moral significance even — of the number of men with whom they have had sexual intercourse. What is too few? What is too many? Should one be able to remember all their names?

Perhaps it is best to keep a diary or even a computerized, annotated list. And, in the end, what does this “numbers game” say about love and life? Are there limits of any kind? At some point, is the soul damaged? Actually, the Post did not ask that last one. I did.

It is interesting to note that this article was written by Laura Sessions Stepp, a reporter with experience at religion coverage. But tricky issues of faith, the Bible and centuries of Judeo-Christian values never appear, even if traces of the past seem to haunt some of the voices who tell their stories. Listen to this:

Jennifer Broussard, who graduated from the University of Pennsylvania a year ago, used to tally up her companions on a sheet in her organizer, attaching dates and footnotes. She’d dial up a girlfriend to ask things like, “What counts? What doesn’t? I’m about to pass my benchmark. Is this guy worth it?” …

These women analyze their numbers as if they were comparison shopping for the right size and color of shoes. They tell each other that sex is separate from love. And few adults tell them any different. Sex education teachers lecture on body parts and disease, and we know that parents would rather throw themselves in front of a truck than talk in depth about sex and romance.

Is sex the same as “hooking up”? Does it add a new number to the list to double up and sleep with an old, discarded boyfriend? What if a young women sleeps with a few too many men and then meets Mr. Right and, gasp, he is the kind of man who might care if his fiance has, well, worked her way past a certain number? Who can see into the future and see if any particular moral standard will be required? Does using the right “protection” for your body also protect your heart?

So maybe 10 is a good number and number 11 needs to be the husband, the real thing. How does that sound? Or is 10 too high? Who can tell? And, oh, is honesty a requirement? Back to the Post story:

By the time the third or fourth year of college rolls around, a little creative accounting may be required.

Julia Baugher, who graduated this month from Georgetown, wrote about numbers in her sex column for the student newspaper. “If x = Number [that women] say they’ve slept with,” she wrote, “then the Actual Number is x + Number she wishes she hadn’t slept with.”

“I used to be really [picky] about my number,” says Baugher, who keeps a running total on a computerized spreadsheet with side comments such as “weird teeth” and “future med student.”

“I said everything counted,” she continues. “I was approaching double digits and I didn’t like it, but I didn’t think there was anything I could do about it.”

Then she read “The Catholic Girl’s Guide to Sex,” which offered advice on clever accounting tricks. It doesn’t count if you are drunk. You were on vacation. It was an accident.

It seems that this is the only kind of advice that is available these days, even at on a modern Catholic campus. The wisdom of the past remains safely out of sight, even if it is not totally out of the minds of these young women. This story did leave me curious about one thing. Are there any priests at Georgetown?

A personal note: Doug is traveling and I am on the road, as well. So we are both away from computers much more than normal. This will affect our ability to post every day, which is our goal. I am reading your comments and doing what I can to respond. And I keep reading the God-beat news. I simply takes me longer to get from the reading to the blogging.

Filed Under: Academia

Dancing to the gods beat: Madonna poses as mystic

May 26, 2004 By

madonna_vogueOhmygod, Madonna is on tour again (Or is it Ohmigod or Ohmagod? Google isn’t sure) and the pop press is treating it like the 12th coming.

I was reading the massive New York Times feature reviewing the first show on the left coast when several questions hit me at the same time.

* Have we really reached the point where we need to send trained religion writers to cover Madonna shows?

* If a teen-ager wore a T-shirt from this show at her public school, would it violate the separation of church and state?

* What does Dr. James Dobson think of the fact that one of Madonna’s jobs right now is writing books for children? Turn, turn, turn.

* I realize that Madonna is a major artist, so to speak. But can anyone imagine anyone else getting away with this kind of religious content in a show without being attacked for it? Imagine if POD went this far with Christian content.

* How can anyone on the cultural right continue to believe that they are caught up in a debate with secularism?

I gave up trying to count the religious references in the New York Times review. It starts slow, on the gods angle, but then gets rolling. Here is the first wave:

The night began with an ominous recitation from the Book of Revelation, and then Madonna emerged in a sparkly bustier for “Vogue,” a tribute to New York night life that now sounds more like the soundtrack to an instructional Pilates video. “Strike a pose,” Madonna sang, and then she did, supporting herself on her forearms while her booted and stockinged feet kicked the sky.

Madonna’s old infatuation with decadence has largely given way to an obsession with physical and mental health: her Web site, Madonna.com, reports that she requires “25 cases of kabbalah water provided backstage nightly,” and she paid cheerful but earnest tribute to her new favorite spiritual beliefs throughout the show: near the end she sang “Papa Don’t Preach” while wearing a T-shirt that read “Kabbalists Do It Better.”

There was post-disco gospel music, kabbalah, mini-burkas, more kabbalah and a dancing Catholic Cardinal.
Anyone else want to try to count them all? How many doses of religious language or symbolism do you see in here?

Filed Under: Pop Culture

Giddy in newsrooms: Is gay-marriage coverage slanted?

May 25, 2004 By

TWOBridesSilverLGMedia-beat scribe Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post is getting knocked around a bit these days in the kingdom of Romenesko at Poynter.

The hook is a Kurtz column about new research — a joint project of the Pew Research Center and the Project for Excellence in Journalism — into the mindset of American journalists. The headline, of course, is that journalists think the media is being too soft on President Bush. Then there were these statistics: At the national level, 34 percent of the journalists described themselves as “liberal,” 54 percent as “moderate” and 7 percent as “conservative.” Kurtz noted that the local split was 23-61-12. This raises all kinds of questions, like: What does the word “moderate” mean?

However, the religion ghosts in the report were — surprise, surprise — so obvious that they showed up in the executive summary. This led to the Kurtz paragraph that is causing offense in some quarters:

The survey confirmed that national journalists are to the left of the public on social issues. Nine in 10 say it is not necessary to believe in God to be moral (40 percent of the public thinks this way). As might have been inferred from the upbeat coverage of gay marriage in Massachusetts, 88 percent of national journalists say society should accept homosexuality; only about half the public agrees.

This ticked off some lifestyle left people in the blogosphere. The crucial question seems to be this: Are there two sides to the gay-marriage story? Is this a case in which mainstream journalists — as opposed to reporters at places such as Salon.com, Out and some sections of the New York Times — should attempt to find some kind of balance between those in favor and those opposed? Or, in the view of the press, is this officially a battle between the enlightened and the bigots?

The key letter at Poynter.org came from Ron Kampeas, who is concerned that Kurtz is concerned that waves of celebratory news coverage in Massachusetts might be a sign of liberal bias. Here is the money paragraph:

How do you avoid upbeat wedding coverage? The May 17 spot story was essentially that these people who could not previously get married were getting married. It was an event story, and demanded on the scene color. Was there a bias in the political story in the weeks and months that preceded it? I’m not sure, that’s best left to the people who pick through the miles of newsprint. But as last Monday’s story was not the conceptual, political for-and-against story. Everyone interviewed at the events — the couple, the licensed marrier, the guests, the family — are naturally going to be happy. Does the “Vows” column in the New York Times have a bias toward weddings? Should a wedding be covered like a campaign rally, with every second graf a reminder of “why this might be wrong.” How do you fact check a wedding? How many people, even among the opponents of gay marriage, could be counted on for pertinent nay-saying quotes in wedding coverage? Who, aside from the God Hates F**s guy, is going to say Bob and Steve or Millie and Joan should NOT have had fun today?

That’s one perspective. The key, however, is whether newsrooms contain journalists with the skills and the commitment to cover both sides of this highly complex and highly divisive moral, political, legal and even theological story. Can anyone find articulate voices on both sides? This may even be an issue that requires what I call a “visual fairness” strategy, with newspaper editors assigning reporters to cover developments on both sides of the debate and write stories that are played side by side.

It could happen. But would there be journalists in U.S. newsrooms who could even imagine what this story looks like from a morally conservative point of view? Would they be attacked by co-workers if they raised questions about balance and fairness? The Kurtz column includes this quotation on these questions:

Tom Rosenstiel, the project’s director, says the growing proportion of self-identified liberals in the national media — and the fact that “conservatives are not very well represented” — is having an impact. “This is something journalists should worry about,” he says. “Maybe diversity in the newsroom needs to mean more than ethnic and gender diversity.”

Amen.

Filed Under: Journalism, Social Issues