Holy matrimony from Cana to California

June 16, 2008 By

marriage cana xlOf the many stories dealing with same-sex marriage in California, one San Francisco Chronicle story in particular deserves a look. Headlined “Bay Area churches opened door to same-sex vows,” the reporter skims the surface of the history of same-sex rites in Christian churches and managed to get the attention of more than a few GetReligion readers in the process:

The Bay Area has had a number of seminal moments in the history of gays and lesbians in organized religion. The first ordination of an openly gay minister, William Johnson, took place in San Carlos. One of two openly gay bishops in the Anglican Communion, Otis Charles, is a Bay Area resident.

But even so, the vast majority of churches in the region limit the role of gays and lesbians. Only one mainline Protestant denomination – the United Church of Christ, which ordained Johnson – marries homosexual couples with the same rite used for heterosexual couples. And the number of churches friendly to gays and lesbians is much lower than the number of Catholic, evangelical or other conservative Christian churches in the region.

So while liberal churches helped change the state, the state now has a far more liberal view of same-sex marriage. Flat-out opposition has come from evangelicals and the state’s Catholic leaders – including San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer and Oakland Bishop Allen Vigneron. Joint support for a November ballot initiative seeking a constitutional amendment that will codify marriage as between one man and one woman will probably come from them.

In case the language wasn’t clear enough, the bad people “limit,” “flat-out oppose” and aren’t “friendly” to gays. The good churches “help change” the state’s views on same-sex marriage, ordain and marry homosexuals and condone homosexuality. And that bizarre last sentence is conditional and passive why?

Reporter Matthai Kuravila goes on to say that “churches supportive of gay and lesbian rights” are in the difficult position of being in denominations with stricter rules on same-sex marriage than they might prefer:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Episcopal Church, for example, now prohibit using the marriage rite reserved for straight couples for same-sex marriages. Separate – and, some say, unequal – rites are set aside for gays and lesbians. (That’s not true for all churches in those denominations, including some in the Bay Area, where evangelical members insist that marriage should only be between a man and woman.)

I sort of have no idea what he means by this paragraph but love that it’s “evangelicals” in these mainline churches who oppose same-sex marriage. What does that word mean in this context? That middle sentence is also fascinating. It should really form the basis for its own article. In fact, I think an article on Christian marriage rites for same-sex partners is desperately needed.

The Christian model of marriage is based on the relationship between Christ and the church. The husband is to sacrifice for his wife as Christ gave himself to the church. The wife is to respect the husband as the church obeys Christ. You can read all about it Ephesians 5. When my husband and I got married, this was the understanding of marriage that we were instructed in. This was included in our marriage rite. Such clear roles for husband and wife wouldn’t make sense for same-sex partners. Or, if the same rite is used, who represents Christ and who represents the church? Is the same model of Christ and church used for same-sex partners? How is this understood? I would love to learn more about liturgies for same-sex marriage — or just other marriage liturgies in general — rather than some throwaway line about how some people say the rites are “unequal.” I mean, really.

Anyway, the article ends with a discussion of how Bay area Episcopalians have been at the forefront of gay rights issues. Bishop Marc Andrus says that gay couples should have a purely civil ceremony at county clerks’ offices and then return to the church for a blessing. And all couples — straight and gay — should use one of the three rites approved for same-sex blessings. The article fails to mention that these “approved” rites have not been approved by the Episcopal Church itself but, rather, the local California Diocese.

This Religion News Service report appearing in the Washington Post on Saturday notes that even in California, Episcopal bishops hold different views on same-sex marriage rites.

Here’s how the article ends:

Andrus said it is part of a natural order that churches might lead the state, and that the state might lead the church.

“We seek to intently follow Christ, but we don’t contain Christ,” Andrus said. “Christ transcends the boundaries of the church. . . . It’s not a surprise to me that the culture is going to manifest Christ in a way that summons the church to new realities. I really welcome that. I think that’s the way it’s meant to be.”

I feel like this quote needs more explanation, context or a response — but maybe it’s that I moved from California so long ago that I have forgotten the language. Anyway, all that to say that the graphic that accompanies the article is in error.

The chart looks at the Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to see whether celibacy is required for gays and lesbians and whether they bless same-sex unions, perform same-sex marriages or ordain partnered gay clergy.

According to the chart, the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) do not require celibacy, do bless same-sex unions and do ordain partnered gay clery. Except that that’s not true. Practices may and do vary in both church bodies but the PCUSA does say that unmarried clergy must remain chaste and that people are not free to disobey that rule. And I think they also forbid same-sex marriage blessings. As for The Episcopal Church, 10 dioceses bless same-sex unions but the national church body has not condoned that. And the international Anglican Communion has been pressuring the Episcopal Church to crack down on those dioceses that conduct same-sex union liturgies.

It just seems that if you’re going to write a light and airy piece like this, the least you can do is get the facts right.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Anglicanism, Catholicism, Evangelicals, Godbeat, Journalism, Mainline, Politics, Pop Culture, Religion, Sex, Social Issues, Worship

I’m not Catholic, I just go to church here

June 13, 2008 By

100So the Rev. Michael Pfleger, last seen mocking Sen. Hillary Clinton from the pulpit of Barack Obama’s church, will be back at his parish by June 16. He was told to take a couple of weeks off from St. Sabina’s to reflect on Catholic rules regarding priests and politics. Those couple of weeks up, he’s been told he can go back.

Chicago Sun-Times reporter Mary Wisniewski reports on his impending return. The problems start with the headline and subhead:

Rev. Pfleger to return to St. Sabina with ‘no restrictions’
He’ll be back at St. Sabina, but he has to stay out of presidential politics

So which is it? Does he have “no restrictions” or does he have to stay out of presidential politics? Something tells me that headline won’t be winning any awards for clarity. Anyway, the story also raised more questions than it answered. At least for me:

At a three-hour Sunday mass filled with songs and dancing, pastoral associate Kimberly Lymore read a letter from Pfleger in which the priest wrote, “This has been a very painful time for me personally and for our church family.” . . .

Lymore said parish leaders were told by Cardinal George that Pfleger will continue as pastor of the church he has led for 30 years with “no restrictions” — other than not being able to mention publicly the names of presidential candidates or campaign for them. On hearing this, several parishioners called out “That’s all right.”

No priests are allowed to be involved in politics, that’s standard. Still, it is a restriction and one that was obviously emphasized for Pfleger. What other restrictions would even be discussed?

I would say that it should be explained what “pastoral associate” means for the female holding the position, but it looks like Chicago media, including Sun-Times religion columnist Cathleen Falsani, have discussed the issue before. Perhaps it’s old news there.

These two paragraphs were interesting:

Asked if it was fair that Pfleger was restricted from talking about the candidates, longtime parishioner Michelle Wong Scott said, “a lot of times, when you’re a member, you have to follow your leadership and do what your leaders tell you to do.” She said if Cardinal George had removed Pfleger permanently, the parish would have continued the work he started.

Two other parishioners, Rhonda Williams and Leslie Ross, who are not Catholic, said they would have left St. Sabina’s and followed Pfleger to a new church if he had been removed.

It’s the second paragraph that I didn’t quite understand. What does it mean to be a parishioner of a Catholic parish but not be Catholic? It would be much easier to understand in non-sacramental churches. But parishioners can’t take communion unless they’re Catholic and communion is central to the life of the parish, right? So what does it mean exactly? It would be good to have a bit more explanation.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Catholicism, Godbeat, Journalism, People, Politics, Social Issues, Worship

Alt-weekly goes church hopping

June 11, 2008 By

church hoppingGetReligion tends to focus on mainstream coverage of religion, but I wanted to take a little break from that to highlight a intriguing article out of an alternative newsweekly The Louisville Eccentric Observer on the community’s church services. Apparently this is the start of a 10-part monthly series of Christian church reviews.

The opinions of the reporters, George Halitzka and Zach Nord, shine brightly, but you know that going into the piece. Halitzka and Nord also provide some personal background so you know where they are coming from.

Here’s the article’s mission statement, so to speak:

Religion here on the border of the Bible Belt is a fascinating mix. Half of Louisville is CatholiBaptist. The other half’s hoping if they ignore the Jesus Freaks long enough, they’ll go away.

But we figure there are probably a few folks in the middle, too. Curious souls who wonder what really happens in church on Sunday, but fear they might burst into flames if they cross a sacred threshold. Just for you, LEO is launching a new series called “The Church Hoppers.”

Each week, I (George Halitzka) and my partner-in-holiness, Zach Nord, will visit a different Louisville church. We’ll report what happened in the worship service, and try to draw some conclusions about what the church might believe.

That way, if you ever decide to visit, you’ll know in advance if they’re stockpiling rifles for Armageddon.

I would hope this style of reporting wouldn’t make it onto the news pages of a mainstream news organization, but it works well in an alt-weekly.

The big question I had going into the piece is whether the journalists simply reported what happened in the worship services or merely express opinions. It turns out that it’s a mix of both. Clearly the journalists were not concerned with leaving their personal opinions, biases and past experiences at the door with the ushers, but as long as they were straightforward with where they were coming from and reported the details, one cannot fuss too much.

Snarky comments, such as “if you ever decide to visit [the churches], you’ll know in advance if they’re stockpiling rifles for Armageddon” may upset a few, but hey, they are reporting in Kentucky [This Hoosier ducks and runs].

The fact that one of the reporters is a self-described evangelical and the other was raised Catholic, but is now trying to figure out what he believes, balances the story and should broaden the number of people interested in their experiences.

Neither reporter enjoyed an Interstate megachurch so much. They both walked away feeling as if they had attended a pep rally. Attending a Catholic mass was a joy for the evangelical reporter, but the reporter who was raised Catholic found the passionate style of the service discomforting.

The article gets in a jab at “social-action Jesus” loving “liberals” for being uncomfortable with the concept of sin, but generally gives a straightforward account of their experience at an African-American church. Both reporters were sadly reminded that Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in the United States.

The only thing missing from the series is an account of the community life at these churches. An account of a single service is a good start, but so much of what makes up a church happens outside that hour. The fact is that no one can experience that through church hopping.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Catholicism, Evangelicals, Journalism, Religion, Worship

Sleepy local religion news

June 10, 2008 By

sleepy pandaCould The Topeka Capital-Journal do better than the following story on how local families balance church and sports? Check out the introduction:

Involvement in team sports requires hours of regular practice, games and tournaments.

Balancing schedules when a child’s team’s schedule conflicts with the family’s worship and church fellowship becomes a juggling act for some.

Daren and Debbie Nigus, of Topeka, have made special arrangements to permit their two sons, Seth, 11, and Jesse, 14, to play Ken Berry baseball.

A reader who kindly brought the story to our attention thought the story was “lousy” and “dull.” (See Mark’s fine post here on another “unedifying” story). Here is more from our reader on heartland religion news:

So the headline caught my eye. But the article is a disappointment. It is a story without a plot: “Some families balance faith and sports by not playing the Sunday games, which is fine.”

I agree that this is not the most interesting work of journalism and likely won’t win awards, but let us consider the options the reporter had in deciding how to spice the piece up.

There is always the controversial angle. Instead of focusing on the fact that everyone generally seems to be getting along, why not focus on the fact that these sports organizations dare to schedule activities on the Sabbath Day! Doesn’t that potentially discriminate against those who take the Lord’s Day seriously?

Not exactly, at least how this story was reported. However, this rather non-controversial story is an example of how a journalist could have taken a seemingly mundane topic and work everyone up into a fit of steam. Perhaps it’s better that the reporter told what seems to be a rather straight-up story?

What happens when an athlete is not allowed to participate in a tournament or a league because of his or her personal or family commitment to attending church? That type of story seems to end up on page A1 in The Washington Post when it involves a high school athlete being disqualified from a track meet for wearing clothing intended to be modest for religious reasons.

In general, I hope this is not the Capital-Journal‘s one religion news story of the week. I should note that the article seems to have appeared in the “Life & Leisure” section on a Saturday. A brief exploration of the Web site shows that the newspaper published on the same day a column on a Muslim physician, a religion calendar and religion briefs. There is even a searchable devotional directory.

A July 2000 article notes that the newspaper launched a weekly news section (in color!) that was intended to cover “the wide variety of faith groups active in and around the Topeka area, focusing on how faith and spirituality affect people’s lives” and stories featuring “ethics and values.”

Eight years is a long time in the newspaper business. Here is hoping that these articles represent a vibrant religion section that gets into the heart of the community’s religious issues.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Evangelicals, Journalism, People, Religion, Sports, Worship

More theology, please

June 3, 2008 By

eucharistWhen my wonderful wife first told me about the mother fighting a church’s legal ban on her autistic son attendance at Catholic Mass, I worried the news coverage would be rather shallow. On Sunday, Dave Kolpack of the Associated Press was able to publish a longish well developed update of this ongoing story that has important Catholic theology at its heart.

A reader had the following to say:

It’s a decent story, but I noticed that it has quotes only from the mother about Sunday Mass obligations — the reporter apparently did not ask the diocesan spokesperson about this theological question that is one of the issues at the heart of this dispute.

As is often unfortunately the case, the church official requesting the restraining order, Father Daniel Walz, did not respond to requests for comment. A church spokesman is briefly quoted about how the church’s board tried to work with the family to find an accommodation to this difficult issue, such as a live video feed of Mass that could be watched in the church basement, but the family was not too thrilled with the idea to say the least:

Carol Race dismissed the church’s suggestion that Adam watch a video feed in the church basement, saying that “does not have the same status as attending Mass. Otherwise we could all just sit home and watch it on TV and not bother to come in.”

“It’s considered a sin in the Catholic church not to attend Mass on Sundays and every holy day of obligation,” she said. “And that’s what this is about. I’m just trying to fulfill my obligations.”

Adam is one of five children. The family’s home in nearby Eagle Bend has separate study rooms so the other children can read books and use crayons that Adam could otherwise destroy.

I am no expert in Catholic theology, but even a life-long Presbyterian like myself will understand that attendance at Catholic Mass is quite significant. According to fellow-blogger Mark Stricherz, the mother quoted in the story is largely correct according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

A Catholic must “take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season.” (1389)

I understand what reporters go through when key sources won’t talk, such as the case in this story. But there are ways around those barriers, such as seeking out official documents that are readily available. There is also an endless range of experts that would be more than willing to expound on the mother’s comment regarding Mass attendance.

As one who has worked with autistic children in a church setting, I know this is a touchy issue for everyone involved. As much as this is a touchy private issue, when a family is willing to speak about it reporters ought to do their best to cover all the bases thoroughly.

Print Friendly

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

How to cover the Womenpriests

June 2, 2008 By

Womenpriest ordinationOne of the biggest problems that your GetReligionistas face week after week can be stated this way: We know that many problems on the religion beat would vanish if reporters had more time to write and were given longer story lengths.

Trust me, as a columnist who has for 20 years written to a plus-or-minus 10 words assigned length, I know that having room for one or two extra paragraphs of background information would really help.

That’s why it’s important to note when reporters — even with short, short stories — manage to avoid words that are wrong and use words that are as right as possible, given the realities of daily journalism.

So how does that apply to the whole issue of covering the Womenpriests movement and its fight with the Roman Catholic Church?

Once again, here is the kind of inaccurate language that we are trying to avoid, drawn from the Vancouver Sun:

The Roman Catholic Church should change the “unjust, discriminatory” law denying women the right to be priests, says a Catholic group pushing for reform.

Without the church’s approval, the Roman Catholic Womenpriests Movement ordained two people, James Lauder of Victoria and Monica Kilburn-Smith of Calgary, as Roman Catholic priests Thursday at St. Aidan’s United Church in Victoria.

Note again, that this is a “Catholic” group and that the women are becoming “Roman Catholic priests,” although “without the church’s approval.” Enough said.

Is there any other way to write this story, one that is accurate to people on both sides? Consider this language, used by veteran Godbeat scribe Ann Rodgers of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

In a decree intended to close loopholes in canon law, the Vatican has said that any attempt to ordain a woman will bring automatic excommunications that can be lifted only by Rome.

It is aimed at a number of rituals worldwide, including one in Pittsburgh in 2006, that claim to have ordained women as Catholic priests. Experts say that because canon law is designed to be flexible and to favor the accused, and because no law previously dealt explicitly with penalties for attempting to ordain a woman, this decree is intended to eliminate all wiggle room.

It was signed by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

“Remaining firm on what has been established by … canon law, both the one who has attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, and the woman who has attempted to receive the said sacrament, incur latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See,” it said.

Now, was that so hard? This language takes seriously the movement’s claim that it is doing what the Vatican says it cannot do. It does not state, as a given, that the action has been successful — since that would require settling the theological issue.

Short, punchy news writing does require — repeat, require — reporters to write paragraphs that make them want to pound their heads on a marble sanctuary wall. Consider what a veteran, highly informed reporter like Rodgers must have felt like after writing this:

The Catholic Church teaches that only males can be ordained because Jesus chose only male apostles. Advocates for women’s ordination cite a reference to a female apostle named Junia in the New Testament.

Oh there is so, so much more to it than that and, if you follow the national religion-writing scene, you know that Rodgers knows it. But, there is nothing in that paragraph that is wrong.

That’s the rule: First, do no harm.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Catholicism, Godbeat, Mainline, Sex, Social Issues, Worship

Obama’s latest pastor problems

June 1, 2008 By

wrightpflegerobamafoxWhat do you think of the media coverage of the latest religious news being made by and around Sen. Barack Obama?

I suspect that I am not alone in thinking that the coverage of Obama’s church, pastors, and religious advisors isn’t going to win any awards. But what do you think could be done to improve it?

I’ll admit I was totally obsessed with the Scripps National Spelling Bee yesterday (go Sameer!) but my survey of mainstream media over the last few days didn’t turn up much about the incendiary sermon preached from the pulpit of Obama’s church last Sunday. Obama’s long-time friend and fellow community activist Rev. Michael Pfleger preached a sermon there that you can watch a portion of for yourself. It’s been all over the political blogs and opinion media but solid mainstream stories have been harder to come by. Of course, now that the Obamas have resigned their membership from Trinity United Church of Christ, coverage is definitely picking up.

Here’s how MSNBC reported the original story:

Saying he was seeking to “expose white entitlement and supremacy wherever it raises its head,” Pfleger mocked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York for appearing to weep at a campaign appearance before the New Hampshire primary in January, saying she was crying because “there’s a black man stealing my show.”

“She always thought, ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s wife, I’m white and this is mine,’” Pfleger said in his fiery sermon.

As the racially mixed congregation responded “Amen!” and “Yes, sir!” Pfleger pretended to cry and shouted: “And then out of nowhere came him, Barack Obama. And she said: ‘Damn! Where did you come from?! I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’

“She wasn’t the only one crying!” he said. “There was a whole a lot of white people crying!” . . .

After conservative commentators and Fox News Channel latched onto Pfleger’s remarks, which received wide circulation on YouTube and conservative political blogs, Obama released a statement late Thursday repudiating the priest, who resigned from the campaign’s pastoral advisory committee several months ago.

That last paragraph forced me to emit a groan. If it’s true that only conservative commentators and the Fox News Channel care about remarks such as these, I’m not sure I would be highlighting that fact. It seems to me that the media are in the bag for Obama and as a result willfully avoid reporting some negative news surrounding him. I was one of the folks calling for the media to put Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s remarks in context (I didn’t know how overboard the media would eventually go in context-providing) but that doesn’t mean that the remarks weren’t newsworthy. Same here. This reporter’s attempts to downplay the significance of Pfleger’s relationship to Obama seems a bit much. Particularly since it was only Friday that Pfleger’s testimony was scrubbed from the’s web page on Obama’s web site describing the support he’s received from religious leaders. And brutally mocking Obama’s opponent for the Democratic nomination and calling her a racist from the pulpit of Obama’s church? Surely it’s not just conservatives who care about such things.

One of my favorite political reporters is ABC News’ Jake Tapper. Sometimes I think he’s the only mainstream-based reporter who won’t look back on his performance this year as embarrassingly uncritical of Obama. Not that he’s unfair to Obama, he’s just tenacious with all of the candidates he covers. He’s also done a good job covering the religious angles to the various horse races (perhaps related to his self-description as a “person of faith” here?).

Rather than unnecessarily downplay Obama’s relationship with Pfleger, he explained in his first post on the matter that the Obama campaign brought Pfleger to Iowa in September to host an interfaith forum, and:

Their relationship spans decades. Pfleger has given money to Obama’s campaigns and Obama as a state legislator directed at least $225,000 towards social programs at St. Sabina’s, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Tapper paints a picture of a complex priest, beloved for his social work and criticized for inviting Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to speak at St. Sabina’s. It’s certainly much better than this puffy Washington Post video report of Pfleger.

Lynn Sweet, who blogs for the Chicago Sun-Times wrote up the controversy. I found it noteworthy on two fronts. Describing Pfleger as a headline-making household name in Chicago, she provides context for how the controversial priest’s 20-year association with Obama has been underreported:

Pfleger’s crusades against guns, prostitution, porn and tobacco have made good copy for years for a fairly admiring local press corps hooked on cheering for the underdog, the poor and the powerless.

She also nails the largely religious impact of the remarks with a remarkable efficiency of words.

farr and pflePfleger’s comments, she reports, come at a time Obama has been trying to reach out to working-class white voters, he spoke from the pulpit of Trinity, show a troubling connection with Obama, they drive a wedge between women and Obama and they forced Chicago Cardinal Francis George to reprimand Pfleger at a time when Obama is trying to win Catholics over. It would be nice to see a bit of context and analysis of the story — that doesn’t shy away from the religious impact — in more straight news accounts.

This connects to the even bigger — and related — news that the Obamas just resigned their membership at Trinity United Church of Christ. It occurs to me that if Pfleger’s remarks were enough to get the Obamas to quit their church, perhaps that might signal to the MSNBC reporter that they were newsworthy? Who knows.

This Washington Post story covers the Aberdeen, South Dakota, press conference Obama held to announce his resignation from the church. It’s fine, but I think it’s much better to read the full transcript. It’s noteworthy both for the less-than-stellar questions posed by the reporters and the religious content of Obama’s answers:

Q: We talk about some of the sacrifices running for president. Are you surprised how deep this has cut into your personal life and family? Obviously it’s under a lot of scrutiny now you are giving up a church.

BO: I have to say this was one I didn’t see coming. We knew there were going to be some things we didn’t see coming. This was one. I didn’t anticipate my fairly conventional Christian faith being subject to such challenge and such scrutiny. Initially with e-mails suggesting I was a Muslim, later with the controversy that Trinity generated, and the interesting aspect of this is that as some of you know I have been somebody who really has insisted that the democratic party reach out to people of faith and to take issues of faith more seriously and have written and spoken about this in fairly extensive terms. It is something that I still believe that faith is a powerful force in our lives and should be part of our public conversation. This also indicates the difficulties at least in a presidential campaign around these issues. This isn’t the first time this has happened. Obviously colleagues of mine who are catholic for example have had to deal with their public positions on issues verses the decisions the Holy C (sic) has taken predominantly on abortion and contraception. We work these through.

Not all of the questions were that poor but what I really found missing was any discussion of what changed between Obama’s defense of Trinity in his Speech Heard Round the World and now. It’s not like Pfleger’s comments were different in substance or style from what’s he’s delivered over the years. The parishioners at Trinity clearly approved of the comments and they didn’t strike me as different from other comments we’ve heard from that pulpit. If Rev.s Wright, Pfleger and Moss haven’t changed over the years, I’d ask Obama what has changed.

So how do we improve coverage of religious news around Obama? Jacques Berlinerblau of the Newsweek/Washington Post On Faith experiment has a few questions he’d like answered.

One of the minor stories I’d be interested in is an exploration of Cardinal George’s relationship with Pfleger. This weekend wasn’t the first time he’s publicly criticized him. I know people are really focused on the political ramifications of Pfleger’s sermons but what about the theological questions? A discussion of Pfleger’s Catholicism is just as interesting as his use of the pulpit for politicking. But that’s probably a minor story line here. What do you think? Do you like the coverage? Do you think it’s bad? What questions would you like answered?

As always, keep your comments focused on the media coverage of the religious angles, not your personal support for or opposition to Barack Obama.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Catholicism, Godbeat, Journalism, Mainline, People, Politics, Worship

Slamming door on bad journalism

May 30, 2008 By

womenpriests2 03We have covered more than a few of the mainstream media stories declaring that female priests are being ordained in the Roman Catholic Church. Since the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t ordain females, we usually have a few nits to pick with the coverage.

Earlier this month, Graeme Morton began a story for the Calgary Herald, horribly headlined “Calgary woman becoming priest: Campaign for reform feels ‘prophetic’,” this way:

On May 29, Monica Kilburn Smith of Calgary will be welcomed into the small worldwide community of female Roman Catholic priests.

Her ordination ceremony will take place in a United Church in Victoria and, of course, will not be recognized by the global Roman Catholic Church. However, Kilburn Smith and local supporters of major reform within the world’s largest Christian church say it will be one more small step in a campaign to bring up questions, start discussion, open eyes and, eventually, win hearts.

“Many Catholics, both women and men, have been working for change within the church for centuries,” says Kilburn Smith, a chaplain with the Calgary Health Region.

“But the Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement is doing something tangible about it. It seems prophetic and courageous, something I feel called to be a part of.”

The first ordinations of Catholic women as priests were held in 2002 in Europe. More than 50 women, including two other Canadians, have taken the bold step since then.

The lengthy article continues in such uncritical fashion. It does mention that “some women” who have been ordained priests have been excommunicated. But it doesn’t manage to quote anyone explaining why the church does not ordain females. Instead, readers learn about “gender apartheid” The article gives readers the impression that these “bold” women are reforming the church and that the change is inevitable.

Perhaps the story wouldn’t have been so laughably bad — as these female priest stories so frequently are — if the reporter had managed to consult Catholic doctrine or someone familiar with the same.

In fact, it was only this week that the Vatican restated a decree that people who are involved with illicit ordinations are excommunicated by their actions. Coverage thus far leaves a bit to be desired. For instance, the first Associated Press story I read, published on the Fox News and Washington Post sites and also in the New York Daily News reads:

The Vatican is slamming the door on attempts by women to become priests in the Roman Catholic Church.

It has strongly reiterated in a decree that anyone involved in ordination ceremonies is automatically excommunicated.

Is the door being slammed? Or was the doorway never even built? The metaphor is horribly inapt and misleading. A later Associated Press story by Victor Simpson was much better and had a much more interesting beginning. This CNN story, headlined “Vatican sends threat over women priests” was weak:

The Vatican announced Thursday in a general decree that it will excommunicate anyone who would attempt to ordain a woman as a priest and the woman herself.

According to the decree, the excommunications would take place with immediate effect.

The problem with these ledes is that they act like the decree is something altogether new. In fact, the decree was a reiteration — and a clearer statement — of long-held doctrine.
doorway
The best article I saw on the matter was by Reuters’ Phil Stewart. The headline — “Vatican says will excommunicate women priests” — suffers from the same problem I just mentioned. But the story gets the facts down quite well:

The Vatican issued its most explicit decree so far against the ordination of women priests on Thursday, punishing them and the bishops who try to ordain them with automatic excommunication. . . .

A Vatican spokesman said the decree made the Church’s existing ban on women priests more explicit by clarifying that excommunication would follow all such ordinations.

Excommunication forbids those affected from receiving the sacraments or sharing in acts of public worship.

The article puts the decree in context and summarizes the theological arguments of the church. The article even digs down into different types of excommunication to explain how the renegade priests and bishops essentially excommunicate themselves:

Excommunication is usually “ferendae sententiae”, imposed as punishment.

But some offences, including heresy, schism, and laying violent hands on the Pope, are considered so disruptive of ecclesiastical life that they trigger automatic excommunication, or “latae sententiae”.

The decree says that women priests and the bishops who ordain them would be excommunicated “latae sententiae”.

If only we could so easily excommunicate journalists who report this issue sloppily!

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Catholicism, Godbeat, Journalism, People, Religion, Social Issues, World, Worship