Where did this American Lent come from?

February 23, 2012 By

Anyone who has worked on the religion beat, or anyone who has read GetReligion for a year or so, knows that one of the biggest faith-based challenges that journalists face is the demand — year after year — to come up with valid, insightful stories about religious holidays.

It’s impossible to avoid the big days, of course. It’s almost as hard to avoid the other seasons that everyone talks about, even if they do not affect traffic or change the decorations at the local shopping mall.

Take, for example, Lent.

For me, one of the most fascinating aspects of Lent is that — like Advent and Nativity Lent — some people take the season very seriously and others all but ignore it. Lent is a big deal, of course, in the ancient churches of the East and West, but it also is taken seriously by some believers in Anglican, Lutheran and, yes, even by some Baptists (sort of).

However, when most American readers think of Lent they think of, well, one thing.

Over at “On Faith,” editor Elizabeth Tenety offered this short piece in an attempt to open up a Washington Post discussion of this topic. She begins here:

Christians mark Ash Wednesday February 22, a holy day that launches the liturgical season of Lent, the 40 days of prayer and repentance before Easter Sunday.

Traditionally during Lent, Christians fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, and abstain from eating meat on Fridays, out of reverence for Jesus’ death on Good Friday.

Actually, I would note that the second largest flock in global Christianity — the various Eastern Orthodox churches — do not observe Ash Wednesday. For us, Great Lent begins this coming Sunday night (the calendars of East and West are one week apart this year at Easter and Pascha) with a rite called Forgiveness Vespers, which asks each member of the parish to seek face-to-face forgiveness from every other member of the parish. For an explanation of how that works, please click here. During the entire Lenten season, and Holy Week, the Orthodox are asked to fast from all meat and all dairy products, and many strive to do so.

Meanwhile, all of this raises questions for me: Do the Eastern-Rite Catholic Churches observe Ash Wednesday and/or Forgiveness Vespers? One? Both? Also, are the Lenten fasting traditions of Eastern-Rite Catholics different than those of Catholics in Western Rites? I am sure that one or more GetReligion readers will know some answers.

Meanwhile, back to Tenety:

Many people also give up a vice during Lent as an attempt to remove barriers to God. Others use Lent as a time to buckle down on long-abandoned New Years resolutions, giving up favorite foods or swear words. …

Are you giving something up for Lent? Let us know in the comments below or on Twitter with #givingitup.

So here is my journalistic question. While it is true that “many people” give up “one thing” during Lent, this is not a fasting tradition that is — as far as I have been able to discover — found in the teachings of any particular church. In fact, I have been trying to trace this strange notion’s origins for several years. For example:

… Millions of Americans in a variety of churches follow an informal tradition in which they choose to fast from “one thing” — such as chocolate or soft drinks — during Lent. This practice may be linked to a passage in the sixth century monastic Rule of St. Benedict, which states:

“During these days, therefore, let us add something to the usual amount of our service, special prayers, abstinence from food and drink, that each one offer to God … something above his prescribed measure. Namely, let him withdraw from his body somewhat of food, drink, sleep, speech, merriment, and with the gladness of spiritual desire await holy Easter.”

However, note that this “add something” concept asks the believer to add one thing, at least, on top of the ordinary Lenten traditions. In other words, the “one thing” is not supposed to take the place of observing traditional Lenten disciplines. It’s a both-and situation.

A few years ago, I wrote an entire Scripps Howard News Service column on this issue, which involved talking to a number of Catholic apologists. Here is a slice of that:

“There are Catholics who don’t practice their faith and they may not be up on what it really means to observe Lent,” said Jimmy Akin, director of apologetics and evangelization for the Catholic Answers (Catholic.com) website. “But active Catholics know there is supposed to be real fasting and abstinence involved in Lent.

“The question is whether they want to do more, to add something extra. That is what the ‘one thing’ was supposed to be about.”

Lenten traditions have evolved through the ages. For centuries, Catholics kept a strict fast in which they ate only one true meal a day, with no meat or fish. Over time, regulations were eased to allow small meals at two other times during the day.

Today, Catholics are supposed to observe a strict fast and abstain from meat on Ash Wednesday at the start of Lent and Good Friday at the end. In most parishes they are urged to avoid meat on Fridays. However, Lenten guidelines have been eased so much in recent decades that even dedicated Catholics may become confused.

And then there is this “one thing” theory, which I have heard voiced by several priests:

It’s also possible … that the “give up one thing” tradition grew out of another understandable practice. Parents and Catholic teachers have long urged small children — who cannot keep a true fast for health reasons — to do what they can during Lent by surrendering something symbolic, such as candy or a favorite television show.

But if grownups stop practicing the true Lenten disciplines, then the “one thing” standard is what remains.

So here is my question for GetReligion readers. If you put together the logical search terms, it’s pretty obvious that this “give up” “one thing” for Lent concept is now what the season means to most journalists, as well as believers.

But did anyone out there see coverage that tried to make any sense out of this Tradition Lite? If you saw really good Lent stories, or really bad ones, please let us know in the comments pages. Go for it.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Anglicanism, Catholicism, First Person, Godbeat, Orthodoxy, Worship

How many woman priests?

February 20, 2012 By

The Vatican Insider section of La Stampa reports that there are now more women priests than men priests in the Church of England. This report in Italy’s largest circulation newspaper has been picked up by Catholic newspapers and blogs round the world. It has morphed into reports like that in CathNews New Zealand which states: “A first: Anglican women priests outnumber men in UK.”

The trouble is — the underlying claim is false.

However this surface error aside, the La Stampa article offers a very fine summary of the theological and historical issues at play — and reports that in the view of one Italian church historian, there were women priests and bishops in the early Catholic Church.

The La Stampa story entitled “Women outnumber men in the Anglican Church for the first time” begins:

There is a female majority for the first time in the Church of England, with more women priests joining than men. This certainly bodes well for a final “yes” vote in next July’s Synod that would allow women into the Episcopate. “Official figures show that 290 women were ordained in 2010, the most recent year for which figures are available,” says British newspaper The Telegraph. “By contrast, just 273 men entered the priesthood.”

Yes, I would say that there is a female majority among those in the pews in the Church of England — but I expect that this has been the case for several hundred years.

And yes, La Stampa accurately quotes news from the Telegraph that in 2009, 290 women were ordained as against 273 men. But the ordination of 17 more women than men in 2009 does not mean that a majority of priests are now women. The headline of the Telegraph article from 4 February 2012 could be misconstrued by someone for whom English is not their first language: “More new women priests than men for first time.”

But in the body of the article there is the statement that should remove any ambiguity:

Overall there were still more than twice as many ordained men (8,087) as women (3,535) in 2010.

In 2009 I ran a story in The Church of England Newspaper that reported that as of 2007 the number of women clergy who were incumbents — e.g., who actually were in charge of a congregation — was 15 per cent of the total number of clergy. And, in 2007 the Associated Press ran a story that reported in 2006 the Church of England added 213 women  and 210 men to the priesthood. So, the claim of more women than men in total is untrue, as is the claim that 2010 was the first year that the number of female ordinands exceeded the number of male ordinands.

Putting to one side this confusion of language, the article does offer a look at this issue from a Catholic perspective. The official church position, as summarized by Giorgio Otranto, Professor of Ancient Christian History in the University of Bari is:

Thus the Magisterium returned to the traditional theories that lie behind their opposition to the ordination of women: Christ did not choose any women to join the group of 12 apostles and the entire Church tradition has remained faithful to this fact, interpreting it as the Saviour’s explicit wish for men only to receive the priestly powers of governance, teaching and sanctifying. Only man, through his natural resemblance to Christ, can embody, sacramentally, the role of Christ himself in the Eucharist.

However, Prof. Otranto noted that the historical record shows that women had been ordained in the Catholic Church.

In a letter sent in 494 to bishops of certain regions of Southern Italy … Pope Gelasius I (492-496) stated he was highly displeased to hear that the contempt towards religion was such that women were being allowed to “sacris altaribus ministrare” and that they were carrying out tasks reserved for males, which did not fall under their competence.”

In Southern Italy, women had received the Sacrament of the Order of bishops, a decision which Gelasius I had firmly condemned. … “Even outside heretical contexts, ancient Christianity seems to have sometimes elevated women to the rank of priest solely and exclusively due to certain prerogatives within the Holy Order, Otranto pointed out.

I find this fascinating. What I also find fascinating is how an unclear lede about the sexes of new Church of England priests morphed into reports about the entire Church of England priesthood. And then was used as a symbol of Church of England’s incipient collapse by some caustic commentators.

What is the moral of the story? Read past the headline? What say you?

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Anglicanism, Journalism, Sex, World

So what sort of Anglican are you?

February 18, 2012 By

I think it is safe to say that until about 30 – 40 years ago very few people would know what an Anglican was.

Identifying yourself as an Episcopalian or a member of the Church of England in the mid-1970s would not generate the blank stare that a declaration of Anglican identity would elicit. There also was not the need to distinguish between the terms. Save for a few obscure groups here and there just about all Anglicans in the United States were members of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A.

Likely the question would never arise, for if you were an Anglican (an Episcopalian) you would not be talking about this anyway as religion was one of the three cardinal no’s of polite society — along with sex and money.

I raise these memories of my untroubled youth by way of introducing the question of how reporters should identify those who calls themselves Anglican.

Via the magic of Facebook, commentator Daniel Stoddart directed my attention to a DC-area newspaper, the Vienna Connection, which has a nice story about a new church. The article entitled “Vienna Resident ‘Plants’ a Church” chronicles its story.

The Rev. Johnny Kurcina has formed a congregation that meets on Sunday mornings at the Louise Archer Elementary School cafeteria. Since its start in November, the church appears to be doing well and the write up presents an attractive picture of a young minister with a bright future ahead.

The word “Anglican” is found in the sub-title and the story contains this line. Christ Church is:

… run by a Board of Directors, the “church council.” As Pastor of the church, Kurcina heads its future, guided by the deliberations of the church council. Kurcina would like to see more Anglican churches “planted” in the area.

What we are not told is what sort of Anglican Church this is, or if this church is an Anglican Church. And what exactly does it mean to be an Anglican church?

There are clues for the initiated.  His church has a “church council” not a vestry. He is its “pastor,” not a rector or vicar. The photo accompanying the story shows Mr. Kurcina in an open necked shirt — no clerical collar. And, we learn that:

In 2005, Kurcina spoke with the senior minister, a friend, of The Falls Church in Falls Church, about the feasibility of opening a church in Vienna. “They have the human resources, the financial resources and a real interest seeing new churches started,” said Kurcina. He became actively involved with The Falls Church, whose history goes back to the early 18th century, intending to “plant” a new church in Vienna.

The Falls Church is/was one of the major Episcopal Churches in Northern Virginia. A majority of its congregation quit the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and left to join the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). GetReligion has covered the reporting on this split as well. The clues then would lead a knowledgeable reader to believe this church plant was part of the ACNA — but then again, it may not be as the article is silent on this point.

There is an on-going fight over the Anglican brand in the U.S. between the Episcopal Church and the ACNA. The Episcopal Church is the “official” Anglican franchise in the U.S., but the ACNA is recognized by a majority of the world’s Anglicans too as being a bona fide Anglican church.

The New York Times recently published a correction to one of its stories that addressed this point.

An article on Jan. 2 about the Roman Catholic church’s formation of a new diocese-like entity for breakaway Episcopal priests and congregations misstated the role of the Episcopal Church within the Anglican Communion.  The Episcopal Church is the sole official branch of the Anglican Communion in the United States, not “the main American branch.”

This is true up — up to a point. The Episcopal Church is the sole American member of the Anglican Consultative Council — a pan-Anglican coordinating group whose powers and authority are subject to some debate. But there is no official definition of who is an Anglican so that the claim to be the “sole official branch” is not entirely straightforward.

Compare the Times’ certainty to the uncertainty of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York on this point. In a paper released on 20 January 2012 they noted that the:

the concept of membership of the Anglican Communion is not entirely straightforward. The Communion itself … has no legal personality. In addition (and unlike the Church of England) it does not have a set of canons which set out its core beliefs and regulate aspects of its internal governance.

In other words there is no hard and fast definition of who is an Anglican. The bottom line … the Vienna Connection should have identified what sort of Anglican church Christ Church Vienna was. But asking whether they are real or faux Anglicans is something that even the Archbishops of England have shied away from answering.

Should reporters define their terms? Does an individual’s self-identification take precedence over all? Should reporters question this self-identification? And if so, against what standard? How does the Anglican question compare to the issue of who is a Roman Catholic? What say you, Get Religion readers?

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Anglicanism, Journalism, Mainline, World

Falls Church, by the numbers

February 15, 2012 By

The years-long property battle between Virginia’s Episcopal Diocese and congregations that departed from it looks to be about settled. As anyone who has been following can attest, the Episcopal Church and the congregations that have departed from it have been engaged in some epic legal battles. I wrote about one angle in this fight a few months ago for the Wall Street Journal Houses of Worship column. That piece began:

When the Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton, N.Y., left the Episcopal Church over disagreements about what the Bible says about sexuality, the congregation offered to pay for the building in which it worshiped. In return the Episcopal Church sued to seize the building, then sold it for a fraction of the price to someone who turned it into a mosque.

While I was researching that piece, which was about how some congregations that are permitted to buy their buildings (even if they already payed for them once already) must promise to disaffiliate from the Anglican Church, I heard other stories about what happens to the buildings that are taken by the Episcopal Church and its dioceses, always in the name of the Episcopal members in the area. Many are sold or shuttered, unable to keep up with basic maintenance expenses. One was leased to a dog kennel, I was told. Keep that in mind.

The Washington Post reported on the local version of this legal battle. Here in Northern Virginia, some of the congregations had been around since before the Episcopal Church even existed. They thought they might have a better claim to the property than some of the hundreds of other congregations in the country that divided or left the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church has spent upwards of $22 million in these legal battles in recent years and this Virginia fight was also expensive. But the Episcopal Church prevailed and gets to keep the properties of local congregations that are now affiliated with mainstream Anglican churches in Africa.

The story is headlined “After prolonged legal battle, Virginia Episcopalians prepare to reclaim property.” Here’s how it begins:

For the past five years, the remaining members of several Episcopal congregations in Northern Virginia have been worshiping in borrowed basements and empty houses while praying to return to the prominent sanctuaries where they married, baptized their children and buried their parents.

Now, after a prolonged and bitter legal battle with former members who broke away and took with them more than $40 million worth of church property, the Episcopal Church and the members who stayed with the denomination are on the verge of taking back their buildings, which include some the faith’s largest, most prominent churches in the region.

The story is very well written and covers the basics of where things are in the legal dispute. Attorneys explain that everyone is operating under the assumption that the congregations need to be prepared to move. We learn a lot about the winning side — the Falls Church Episcopal folks are planning Easter services and St. Stephen’s Episcopal members are planning the prayers they’ll say as they march to reclaim their building. The bishop in the area says this is one of the most defining moments in the diocese’s 400-year-history. We get a summary of the nature of the dispute and where the departing Episcopalians went, albeit a summary laser-focused on homosexuality as opposed to larger disagreements on Scripture. The legal dispute is summarized with an economy of words (much more challenging than it looks, I assure you!). And we learn that the breakaway folks are now having to account for prayer books, robes, artwork in preparation for leaving their “sprawling complexes” and figuring out what to do with the schools the congregations run.

And while we learn that “the vast majority” went with the departing congregations, I’m kind of surprised how little of that comes through in the story. Take this snippet, for instance:

As the thousands of conservative members prepare to vacate churches where they also have strong ties, members said their relocation plan is taken from a Bible verse that commands: “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.”

Carol Jackson, a lay leader at the Falls Church congregation aligned with the Church of Nigeria, said she and her fellow members are trying to view the court loss through a divine lens.

“We’re all here because God wants us to be. In a secular world those aren’t very wise words, but that’s what we think is true,” she said.

Meanwhile, the Episcopal members who had left their old pews after the votes are eagerly anticipating their return to houses of worship that hold special meaning.

“All three of my children were baptized there,” said Deborah Miller, a 59-year-old nurse who joined the original Falls Church congregation in 1982 and stayed with the Episcopal group. “I buried my dad there. We’ve been to funerals of dear friends there. I have shed so many tears in that building, for joy and for sorrow. It’s within the fabric of who we are. It’s a holy place.”

Great quotes and a very nice job of talking to people about the moves they’re about to face.

But let’s just look at the numbers here. The Episcopal Church reports “Average Sunday Attendance” as a key figure for congregational health. The departing congregation, that has inhabited the large Falls Church complex, reports a church membership of just over 2,000 and probably features an average Sunday attendance of at least that figure. The congregation that will be moving back into Falls Church reports — after 61 transfers from other Episcopal congregations in the last three years — a membership of 178 with an average Sunday attendance of 74.

No way around it. That’s an attendance of less than 4 percent what the Anglican congregation sees.

Or look at the budgets of the respective congregations. The Falls Church Anglicans reported disbursements of about $6.1 million in 2009. Of that total, just under $800,000 (or 13%) was for building and maintenance alone. Another 13 percent was for general administrative costs, including fixed costs for utilities and salaries for staff and clergy. If you look at page 26 of the Falls Church Episcopal congregation’s report, total income was just $233,641. That’s less than 4 percent of the Anglican congregation’s disbursements. So to just pay for the physical plant they will be taking back over, they’ll have to triple their income. And that’s before they even begin to pay for clergy or other staff. And that doesn’t leave any money for the many activities that are currently being run out of the Falls Church plant.

So here are some journalistic questions. What’s the plan here? Are they really going to be able to keep the physical plant running? Is the Diocese going to help them out? How much? Are other congregations going to sponsor them?

And what is going to happen with the schools? The Falls Church Day School is run by the Anglican vestry and I’m assuming it can’t be run if separated from its parent congregation. But am I right? What’s the plan? Does the diocese have a plan to allow the day schools to keep operating in their current location or what? Are the children going to be kicked out mid-school year? And where will they go? Will the Anglicans be able to keep schools going as they scramble to worship in school gymnasiums?

And another thing I wonder is about another one of the “losing” congregations, Truro. It’s a sister congregation to the Falls Church and has a significant physical plant with a large “average Sunday attendance” to support it. When it left the Episcopal Church, I believe the entire congregation left. There is no Episcopal congregation with a competing claim. What will happen to that building? What is the diocese’s plan there? I don’t even think that’s the only one of the “losing” congregations without a competing claim. I believe that is also the situation for Church of the Apostles in Fairfax. So what happens to that building?

If this story were more about the theological battles in play, these questions might be less important. But the whole point of the story is that the remnant congregations with few members are about to take over these huge physical plants that currently serve large congregations and flourishing social ministries. Now, maybe I should just be patient and wait for the follow-up. Maybe this is just the first in a series of stories about what’s going to happen. But is Falls Church Episcopal about to be sold to the highest non-Anglican bidder? Will the diocese be in a position to subsidize it heavily?

I’m sure the Diocese thought about these questions when it waged its huge legal battle, but what are the answers? Did journalists ask these questions?

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Anglicanism, Journalism, Same-sex marriage, Social Issues, Worship

Who’s calling who an Anglican “sect”?

January 25, 2012 By

If you’ve been reading GetReligion for very long, you probably know that “cult” is the kind of word that is almost impossible to use in public media without causing riots. Are we talking about a dangerous sociological cult? A doctrinal cult? If so, which religious group’s doctrines are providing the frame of reference in this case?

Another word that causes trouble from time to time is “sect.” This is not a fightin’ word, per se. But it is horribly vague.

Consider the shades of meaning in the three definitions offered in one online dictionary:

sect (skt) n.

1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.

2. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.

3. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.

That third one is so vague that it’s useless and the second one isn’t much better.

The important thing to note, once again, is that the main definition contains an important theme — that the “sect” has left a larger body because it has made innovations or “refinements” in doctrine, belief and practice. That’s why the “sect” has chosen to leave the larger denomination or movement or, on occasion, has been forced to leave.

What kind of “refinement”? How central were the doctrines in question to the historic, mainstream form of this particular faith?

In the context of Christian history, making changes in a doctrine as central as the Holy Trinity gets you the “cult” label. Arguments about which gifts of the Holy Spirit are or are not active in the modern world may earn a breakaway body the “sect” label, in some cases.

Truth is, “sect” is a vague, yet a word with moderately nasty doctrinal implications. It’s best for journalists to avoid this term.

Which brings us to a recent story out of Cleveland, in which editors at the Plain Dealer put the following language into print. Here is the top of the story:

BAY VILLAGE, Ohio – A nationwide rift among Episcopalians has fractured St. Barnabas church, where the bulk of the congregation has broken away from the Episcopal Diocese of Ohio and is worshipping in an auditorium at Bay High School.

In recent years, a number of Episcopal congregations across the country have been at odds with church hierarchy over Christian teachings. Essentially, breakaway groups see the church drifting from orthodox Christianity to a more liberal creed, including allowing openly gay, partnered clerics to serve as bishops.

“When they talk about Jesus, it’s not the same Jesus I talk about,” said the Rev. Gene Sherman, pastor of the 250-member breakaway congregation from St. Barnabas. “They say Jesus is a way to salvation. I say Jesus is the way to salvation.”

As you can see, the conservatives think that the liberal Episcopal establishment has made major innovations when it comes to doctrines linked to salvation and sexual morality. The conservative priest, however, used pretty neutral language.

Later in the story, however, the newspaper itself gets theological — whether it meant to or not.

The breakaway groups joined the Anglican Church of North America, a dissident sect not officially affiliated with what is called the Anglican Communion, a worldwide denomination headed by the Church of England. The Episcopalians, however, are a part of the Anglican Communion, though its spiritual leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams of England, sometimes raises an eyebrow over the actions of his American flock.

Several comments must be made. First of all, I am sure that the leadership of The Episcopal Church would be rather miffed to learn that they are, in any legal way, the “American flock” of Rowan Williams. That implies some kind of formal control, which is certainly lacking in Anglicanism. Second, it’s true that the Anglican Church of North America is not “officially affiliated with what is called the Anglican Communion.” (By the way, that is the “what is called” language all about?) However, the American conservatives are in Communion — with a large “C” — with many of the largest branches of the global Anglican Communion. The biggest complication is, of course, the status of Communion with the Church of England, itself.

Third, what are we to make of the “dissident sect” reference? Under the vague definitions of the term, this language is accurate. However, this story is clearly about a set of doctrinal conflicts. Thus, one needs to ask: What were the doctrines of the global Anglican Communion that this conservative body twisted or redefined in order to earn the “sect” label?

I am sure that many on the doctrinal right would say that the Anglican Church of North America is a splinter from The Episcopal Church, but that The Episcopal Church is a “sect” in comparison to the faith and practice found in the larger, growing bodies within the Anglican Communion. The doctrinal left would disagree.

So how to handle this situation in print? Don’t use this label when talking about the right or the left. It causes way more trouble than it’s worth. “Sect” has become a word that contains very little useful content.

IMAGE: Back by popular demand.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Anglicanism, World, Worship

Womenpriests in the balance

January 20, 2012 By

I would love to stop covering Roman Catholic Womenpriest stories but in order to do that, they have to stop being written in such hacktastic manner. Take this one from the Fort Myers News-Press, headlined “Fort Myers woman defies church to become priest.”

The captions accompanying the story are my favorite. I’m not sure which one is the best. Perhaps:

Judy Beaumont, 74, will be ordained as a Roman Catholic priest Saturday.

Or perhaps:

Judy Beaumont risks the loss of her soul by being ordained, says Diocese of Venice Bishop Frank Dewane. Beaumont says she is following her conscience.

Except for the parts about how Beaumont will not be ordained as a Roman Catholic priest and the bishop never said what he’s accused of, these are excellent captions.

A commenter to the article writes “Journalists need to develop some critical judgement. She and the others can’t become ‘Catholic priests’ simply by calling themselves that. If I decided I wanted to become a supreme court justice and phoned up my local news station and announced that I was being sworn in as a judge at a local church hall at the weekend what would journalists do? They would laugh and throw the story in the bin – where this one should go.” Except that reporters could not love these stories more. And they’re somehow led into writing these stories up in the least evenhanded manner possible. Take the lede (please!):

Judy Beaumont plans to take a historic step Saturday, one that will jeopardize her immortal soul.

Beaumont, 74, of Fort Myers, is defying centuries-old doctrine in becoming the first woman in Southwest Florida to be ordained a Roman Catholic priest. The church decrees this role is reserved for men. Bishop Frank Dewane of the Diocese of Venice, which oversees the Catholic faithful in 10 counties, including all of Southwest Florida, has warned her not to cross that patriarchal line.

Historic in what sense? Is the reporter signaling to us that she thinks this is “important” or “likely to be famous”? And “patriarchal”? The bishop told her not to cross a patriarchal line? Because in his letter, mentioned below, it sounds like a “doctrinal” one. Perhaps that would be a better and more neutral word to use.

The story does quote from the letter before telling us that Beaumont “will follow her conscience and take the consequences.” And, further, that she thinks excommunication is a “man-made rule.” So let’s see, female going for ordination at a Lutheran-Episcopal hybrid congregation who doesn’t recognize any church’s authority to excommunicate. Hmm. It’s almost like the reporter could figure out from her own reporting that the language “will be ordained as a Roman Catholic priest” is in error.

Or maybe I’m expecting too much. Check out this choice line:

The movement has generated controversy and debate between traditional and progressive Catholics who favor the concept of “inclusion,” embracing women priests, married priests, gays and others not accepted by the church.

Ooft. The sentence construction on that one is rough, eh? And why the scare quotes around “inclusion”? Also, to which doctrine is the reporter referring when she writes that the gays are not accepted? That last line, by the way, is the final line to the story. There’s also a video accompanying the article featuring the subject of the story talking. You know, for balance.

Off-balance woman photo via Shutterstock.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Anglicanism, Catholicism, Journalism, Mainline, Social Issues

Dangerous wives of priests? Not going there folks …

January 19, 2012 By

So what we have here is precisely the kind of editorial, op-ed, slanted, European-style, advocacy New York Times piece that makes many GetReligion readers spew their coffee and exclaim, “What in the %#@$%^ *&^$ is going on here? This is terrible! I can’t wait to see what the GetReligion gang has to say about this!”

The problem, of course, is that it isn’t a news piece at all. It’s an opinion piece.

Thus, it’s precisely the kind of piece that your GetReligionistas avoid writing about unless it directly addresses religion in the news or is about journalistic attitudes about religion and or religious people (in other words a piece of interest to professionals on the so-called Godbeat).

There is no shock or scandal when op-ed writers and guest columnists spout their opinions. It’s important when they make mistakes, however.

But there are other journalistic issues involved in the publication of these kinds of pieces. For example, what if the newspaper dedicates a polemical, slanted, advocacy piece to a truly newsworthy subject that deserves serious, accurate, balanced coverage? What if — because it’s in the Times — many readers nationwide assume that this advocacy piece is a complete statement on this particular issue?

What we have here is one such story and, well, here I am writing about why we are not going to write about it. Which means that I still feel driven to write about this essay by Sara Ritchey, who is an assistant professor of medieval European history at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette (an interesting academic source for a piece in the nation’s most famous newspaper).

The headline on this highly editorial essay: “For Priests’ Wives, a Word of Caution.” The subject is the long-awaited Vatican Personal Ordinariate that allows Anglican parishes and their married male priests to enter the Catholic Church. The purpose of the Times essay is to warn priest’s wives that they are entering dangerous territory. Here’s a sample:

While the early Christian church praised priestly chastity, it did not promulgate decisive legislation mandating priestly celibacy until the reform movement of the 11th century. At that point, the foremost purpose of priestly celibacy was to clearly distinguish and separate the priests from the laity, to elevate the status of the clergy. In this scheme, the mere presence of the priest’s wife confounded that goal, and thus she incurred the suspicion, and quite often the loathing, of parishioners and church reformers. You can’t help wondering what feelings she will inspire today.

By the time of the First Lateran Council, the priest’s wife had become a symbol of wantonness and defilement. The reason was that during this period the nature of the host consecrated at Mass received greater theological scrutiny. Medieval theologians were in the process of determining that bread and wine, at the moment of consecration in the hands of an ordained priest at the altar, truly became the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The priest who handled the body and blood of Christ should therefore be uncontaminated lest he defile the sacred corpus.

The priest’s wife was an obvious danger.

OK, let’s stop right there — since I am determined not to write about this op-ed piece.

However, an academic who is a regular GetReligion reader wrote your GetReligionistas to note:

Here I thought this would be by a real priest’s wife (Orthodox, Protestant, Eastern Catholic) talking about how this was a difficult calling and no panacea.

In other words, he expected a Times op-ed written by someone who has been living — for years or even decades — in this allegedly dangerous liturgical territory. Also, there was this little problem in the text:

Here’s a good one: “Medieval theologians were in the process of determining that bread and wine, at the moment of consecration in the hands of an ordained priest at the altar, truly became the body and blood of Jesus Christ.”

Uh, maybe the precise Scholastic language of transubstantiation was evolving, but I’m pretty sure that small-o orthodox Christians were sold that the Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood. Look up “anaphora” — the ancient Liturgies were pretty emphatic.

Etc., etc. So what’s my point? My main one is that important, powerful news organizations Times should produce serious, accurate, balanced news stories on serious topics such as this before they serve up incomplete opinion columns that allegedly cover the same ground.

Why not write news about serious issues and events in the news?

Unless, of course, the ultimate goal is not to produce news, but to produce something else. After all, this is a topic best described as a matter of culture, morality and religion. Does that place this subject (paging Bill Keller, paging Bill Keller) outside the boundaries of Times journalism these days?

Just asking.

PHOTO: An Eastern-Rite Catholic priest celebrates the Divine Liturgy.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Anglicanism, Catholicism, Godbeat, Journalism, Worship

Gay rights vs. church rites

January 17, 2012 By

I’d like to call your attention to some great religion reporting in the British press this week concerning Dr. Jeffrey John, the Dean of St. Albans Cathedral. Attention to detail and context, lightness of touch, lucid prose and a high degree of intellectual and moral sophistication mark these stories.

However, there are also a few stinkers out there — the Guardian manages to mangle the facts and make unwarranted assumptions. But overall the reporting has been very good so far.

Let me focus on two of the best I have seen: the Independent and the Daily Mail.

Jonathan Petre of the Daily Mail broke the story of the week with his report that a senior cleric of the Church of England is threatening to sue the church on the grounds of employment discrimination for denying him preference because he is gay.

For those who have followed the Anglican wars of the past twenty-five years, Jeffrey John ranks with Gene Robinson and Jack Spong as being among the most newsworthy, admired or infamous (depending upon your perspective) liberal Anglican clerics. John figures prominently in Stephen Bates of the Guardian’s 2004 book A Church at War: Anglicans and Homosexuality, which I heartily recommend to those who wish to delve deeper into this issue.

Petre (pronounced Peter) and the Sunday Times broke the story — but as the Times is behind a paywall it will not come into consideration in this post. The next day the Guardian and Telegraph followed with stories of their own, along with the Huffington Post and other outlets. The Independent ran its story on the second day as did the BBC. 

Some thoughtful opinion pieces have appeared as well, notably in the Guardian by Andrew Brown, George Pitcher in the Daily Mail and from popular bloggers including Peter Ould and Cranmer.  Because this was handed to the majors for a Sunday splash the church press in England, The Church of England Newspaper and the Church Times, won’t have reports out until Friday.

I want to hold out the Daily Mail story as an example of a great breaking news report, and the Independent for providing superior analysis and detail. The Daily Mail opens with:

A controversial gay dean has threatened to take the Church of  England to court after he was blocked from becoming a bishop.

The Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, has instructed an eminent employment lawyer to complain to Church officials after being rejected for the role of Bishop of Southwark.

Sources say the dean, one of the most contentious figures in the Church, believes he could sue officials under the Equality Act 2010, which bans discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. Such a case could create a damaging new rift within the CoE.

Dr John was at the centre of a storm in 2003 when forced to step down as Bishop of Reading by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams after it became known that he was in a gay, though celibate, relationship. The furore fuelled a bitter civil war within the Anglican Church that has dominated Dr Williams’s decade in office.

The story offers details of John’s career, noting he had allegedly been blocked by Archbishop Rowan Williams from becoming Bishop of Southwark in 2010, and reports he has engaged a high powered employment law attorney to represent him — an attorney who won a high profile case against the Church of England when it refused to hire a gay man as a youth minister.

This is a great example of a finely written first day story. In the small space allowed him by the Mail, Jonathan Petre gives the pertinent facts and history that allow the casual reader to understand why this is a major issue for the Church of England. We know this story will have legs. Petre’s style is tight and his reporting neutral. While we can expect the Daily Mail to take a conservative position on this matter, Petre’s story does not push the party line but allows the facts to tell the story.

He also avoids speculation. It would have been very easy to have written this story with a spiteful tone — implying John was being presumptuous and was a fool for not knowing how this would look to others. But Petre does not go down that road, because, (I suspect) he knows that this is not the case and that it is more likely that the very press-shy John has chosen to make this an issue for the cause of equal treatment for gay and lesbian clergy. In any event Petre knows when to stop the story. He does a great job.

Of the second day stories, Jerome Taylor’s story in the Independent‘s is far and away the best I have seen. It also ran an leader and published a somewhat silly op-ed piece. But the Taylor article is the one worth reading. Here is an example of his analysis:

The Church long ago decided there was essentially nothing to stop a gay man who lived a life of celibacy from becoming a bishop. Even within the orthodox wings there was acceptance it would be difficult to exclude someone who was living in an entirely celibate civil partnership – for most traditionalists the line in the sand was engaging in a physical, same-sex relationship.

But a grey area remained concerning clergy who at one time or another had a same-sex relationship but had since abandoned it in favour of celibacy. Could someone who had been physically homosexual ever become a bishop?

The Church’s legal note provided a stark answer. Only those who had “repented” their physically homosexual past could be considered for a bishop. You could be a gay bishop, but only if you vocally shunned your sexual past, a condition which is not imposed on heterosexual applicants.

Within conservative wings the caveat quickly became gleefully nicknamed “The Jeffrey John clause” – after the openly gay Dean of St Albans who was humiliatingly made to relinquish his appointment to the Bishop of Reading in 2003 following traditionalist outrage over his promotion. Dr John lives in a celibate relationship but has always said refused to apologise for his past.

In effect, the decision meant those who remained in the closet could climb the ecclesiastical pole, but those who were honest about their sexuality were disbarred. To the liberals it was a slap in the face – another clear indication that senior leaders within the Church of England had no desire to rock the boat or confront an issue that has deeply divided the Anglican Communion for much of the past 15 years.

This is a thoughtful and succinct summary. I admire his prose, his detail and insight. I also admire Taylor’s moral sense. Though I do not share his sentiments, I applaud his pursuit of truth and his attack on cant (something the Church of England does very well).

To get a sense of how strong a story this is, compare it to the second day story in the Guardian. That story manages to mangle the history — making John a candidate for Bishop of Bedford when he was nominated to be Bishop of Reading — and also makes unwarranted assumptions. Here is but one example:

Conservatives have reacted with dismay to news of John’s apparent hiring of Alison Downie, an employment and discrimination law specialist, to fight his case over the Southwark post, which eventually went to Christopher Chessun.

How does the Guardian know this? With whom has it spoken? There is no shortage of conservative Church of England clergy who could give flesh to this assertion. I am also uncomfortable with the assumption the Guardian makes that John is driven by personal bitterness in challenging the church’s policies, when there is no evidence to substantiate this.

The issue of same-sex marriage is a contentious one in Britain. The Church of England, the Catholic Church and a number of civil society organizations have voiced their opposition to government proposals to broaden the gay civil unions law to marriage — the John affair adds another twist to what will be an interesting year for religion reporters.

The British press has taken a few hits of late, battered by the scandals surrounding the Murdoch tabloids. But as you can see from these stories, when they are good, they are great.

Wedding ring photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Anglicanism, Journalism, Same-sex marriage, Sex, World