GetReligion
Wednesday, April 02, 2025

The New Yorker

That murdered 'priest' and accusations of abuse: But this wasn't another Catholic case

That murdered 'priest' and accusations of abuse: But this wasn't another Catholic case

I have, since the 1980s, heard my share of complaints from Catholic readers about news coverage of sexual abuse by clergy.

There are readers who get angry about this coverage, period. They want the topic to go away and see anti-Catholic bias in any coverage of the subject, even when the coverage is accurate and fair-minded.

However, other Catholic readers get mad when they see valid coverage that leaves the impression that sexual abuse is only an issue in the Church of Rome. Many of these readers (on the Catholic left or right) want to see accurate, informed coverage on this hellish topic, which would include some mention of the many, many cases that take place in secular settings (think public schools) and in other religious groups.

That’s the broader context for complaints that I heard about a recent New York Times story that ran with this dramatic double-decker headline:

Scandal on a Wealthy Island: A Priest, a Murder and a Mystery

The Rev. Canon Paul Wancura led a quiet, privileged life. But after his shocking death, a sexual abuse allegation followed.

There were two problems with this tragic story — one obvious and one not so obvious.

The first problem was that readers didn’t find out, until quite a ways into this piece, that this was a story about an alleged abuser in the Episcopal Church. The word “priest” stood alone in the headline and in 300-plus words of text. It helps to read the lengthy overture:

Not much happens of note on Shelter Island, all 8,000 bucolic acres of it. Sandwiched between Long Island’s North and South Forks, it’s the kind of place where people seem to know one another, where car doors are often left unlocked and where, for some 20 years, the most bothersome problem has been Lyme disease-carrying blacklegged ticks.

But much of that changed in March 2018, when the Rev. Charles McCarron was asked to check in on another clergyman who had recently been commuting to a town on Long Island as a fill-in priest. He had failed to show up at church that day.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Is America really threatened by civil war? What is religion's role in these tensions?

Is America really threatened by civil war? What is religion's role in these tensions?

American Civil War talk is all the rage this New Year.

No, not that war, the one that cost 620,000 lives and was evoked by President Biden to castigate Senate Democrats and Republicans who are blocking passage of new election-ballot rules. Rather, The Guy refers to the drumbeat of warnings that the disunited United States may in the near future face an internal legal and economic cold war or some kind of hot war.

National Public Radio's Ron Elving reports that "not long ago the idea of another American Civil War seemed outlandish. These days, the notion has not only gone mainstream, it seems to suddenly be everywhere." He summarized anxiety-producing polls that show a polarized nation, and noted that 434,000,000 firearms are in civilian hands.

Then there's New Yorker Editor David Remnick's article "Is a Civil War Ahead?" New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg likewise wonders, "Are We Really Facing a Second Civil War?" A Times op-ed by former National Security Council staffers Jonathan Stevenson and Steven Simon offers "the worst case scenario" in which "the United States as we know it could come apart at the seams" with "insurrection, secession, insurgency and civil war."

New January books include "The Next Civil War: Dispatches From the American Future" by novelist Stephen Marche, who sees virtually inevitable doom, and the slightly more upbeat "How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them" by Barbara F. Walter of the University of California San Diego. (Is it mere coincidence that The Atlantic's London writer Tom McTague is just out with "How Britain Falls Apart"?)

One typical forecaster is all the more interesting because he's Canadian. Thomas Homer-Dixon of Royal Roads University issued a New Year's Eve alarm in the influential Globe and Mail. He believes that as soon as 2025 "American democracy could collapse, causing extreme domestic political instability, including widespread civil violence. By 2030, if not sooner, the country could be governed by a right-wing dictatorship."

Outlandish?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What's next in Afghanistan? Press will have to face issues of religion, culture and gender

What's next in Afghanistan? Press will have to face issues of religion, culture and gender

The headline on the National Catholic Register story is simple and timely: “Trapped by the Taliban, Praying for Escape from Afghanistan.

The reporting is simple, as well, as long as the journalists involved have established contacts with people inside Kabul who have smartphones and there are functioning cell towers and satellites. The story is built on people describing what they claim is going on around them, especially events affecting their families and friends.

These people are U.S. citizens, Afghans with U.S. “green cards” and others who cooperated with Western governments and agencies, including religious groups, during the 20 years of “nation building” in the war-torn land of Afghanistan.

The question is whether the contents of this story remain newsworthy, since Afghanistan has, for now, moved off the front burner in elite newsrooms. What happened? Clearly, Republicans and centrist Democrats had “pounced” on the topic while blasting President Joe Biden and his White House team.

But is this NCR piece news? Yes, it is. Also, this is a story journalists can study while looking for clues about realities, and news, at ground level in the Taliban’s new-old Afghanistan. Here is the overture:

For two decades, Sher Shah had worked alongside U.S. and Afghans to build a democratic country free from the Taliban and war. He had established a new life with his family in the U.S. with the help of Catholic Charities and a Catholic sponsor family, but briefly returned to Afghanistan this summer to attend his father’s funeral.

Now, he’s a man trying to escape the Taliban and get back home to the U.S.

More? Here is a claim — let me stress this is a CLAIM — coming from this source. But the Register report has other anonymous voices making similar statements in what appear to be telephone interviews or contacts via email.

U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has stated approximately 100 U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents remain in Afghanistan. …

But Sher Shah said he has heard nothing from the State Department since Aug. 26 — and he made use of the State Department’s information posted on its website for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents stuck in Afghanistan.

“There are thousands of Americans still in Afghanistan,” he said. “And I’m one of them.”

The reality that emerges, in this stories and others, is that the United States and other Western forces were not engaged in 20 years of “nation building,” as in building an Afghanistan government that looked to the nation’s past — its monarchy, for example. It would be more accurate to say the goal was building a new culture, one that incorporated elements of modernity and even postmodernity in America and Europe.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

In the news media storm about the Texas abortion bill: Outrage -- 1, objectivity -- 0

In the news media storm about the Texas abortion bill: Outrage -- 1, objectivity -- 0

If I had to sum up last week’s media maelstrom on Texas’ new abortion regulations, it’s this: 95 percent of the quotes was from those who opposed it. Maybe 5 percent was from those who favored it. And of that 5 percent, how many of them were inserted near the top of the piece rather than strung together near the end?

We’re talking about the Texas Heartbeat Act, aka S.B. 8, which bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected (usually around six weeks). Individuals who learn of violations can sue the clinics involved and anyone who helps women get abortions.

Which could your friendly Uber or Lyft driver, which is why both companies, according to CNBC, have offered to cover legal fees for any driver caught transporting a woman to a clinic.

Probably the most thoughtful dispatch was Emma Green’s piece in The Atlantic. It was a Q&A more than an essay, but at least it was an interview with the Other Side, which has been lambasted everywhere else for introducing a real-life Handmaid’s Tale situation into the Lone Star state. The lead sentence began:

Sometimes, the Supreme Court does the most when it does nothing. Last night, the justices denied an emergency petition by abortion providers in Texas seeking to block S.B. 8, a law banning pregnancy terminations after roughly six weeks’ gestation.

A 5–4 majority of the justices argued that they had no power to stop the law from going into effect, since none of the citizens who are now empowered under the law to sue abortion clinics for providing the procedure has yet attempted to do so.

Hold that thought. What’s new in Texas is something called “private enforcement,” by which any citizen -– and I mean anyone –- can report -– or sue -– someone trying to sneak an abortion past them. It’s a stunning legal strategy that evades the lawsuits that groups like Planned Parenthood use to quash their opponents.

Some on the pro-life side, like conservative pundit David French, aren’t happy with it at all, feeling that it’s bad law that will end up biting pro-lifers in the end. He is not the only abortion opponent who feels this way but there was zero reporting out there on the mixed feelings in his camp. Back to The Atlantic:

Legal challenges likely lie ahead. But abortion opponents see this as a victory, however temporary. For now, at least, abortion clinics in Texas are largely suspending their work and abiding by the ban.

The article continues as an interview with John Seago, the legislative director of Texas Right to Life who, more than anyone, contributed to the success of this law. Right away, Green jumped to the crux of the law; people reporting on other people. His answer:

There are two main motivations. The first one is lawless district attorneys that the pro-life movement has dealt with for years. In October, district attorneys from around the country publicly signed a letter saying they will not enforce pro-life laws. They said that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, they are not going to use resources holding the abortion industry to account. That shows that the best way to get a pro-life policy into effect is not by imposing criminal penalties, but civil liability.

The second is that the pro-life movement is extremely frustrated with activist judges at the district level who are not doing their job to adjudicate conflicts between parties, but who in fact go out of their way to score ideological points—blocking pro-life laws because they think they violate the Constitution or pose undue burdens.

For anyone wishing to understand why Texans went to this “private enforcement” stratagem is because they’ve tried everything else for the 48 years that Roe v. Wade has been in effect. And with a legal system set against them no matter what they do, it was time to come up with something else. And they did.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: What could go wrong? NYTimes explores Facebook's religious ambitions

New podcast: What could go wrong? NYTimes explores Facebook's religious ambitions

Truth be told, I am not prone to flashbacks — even though I did come of age in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Anyway, I had a big flashback recently while reading a very interesting New York Times feature that ran with this headline: “Facebook’s Next Target: The Religious Experience.” In this case, the subhead is also crucial:The company is intensifying formal partnerships with faith groups across the United States and shaping the future of religious experience.”

Whoa. What does “shaping the future of religious experience” mean? I imagine that to learn details, readers would have to hear from some of the participants in this trailblazing online work. But there’s a problem with that. When asked about some specifics, an official with the Atlanta branch of the trendy Hillsong Church couldn’t answer, because “he had signed a nondisclosure agreement.”

Don’t you hate it when that happens?

Anyway, here’s the passage the stirred up lots of conversation, and my multi-decade flashback, during the recording of this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

A Facebook spokeswoman said the data it collected from religious communities would be handled the same way as that of other users, and that nondisclosure agreements were standard process for all partners involved in product development.

Many of Facebook’s partnerships involve asking religious organizations to test or brainstorm new products, and those groups seem undeterred by Facebook’s larger controversies. This year Facebook tested a prayer feature, where members of some Facebook groups can post prayer requests and others can respond. The creator of YouVersion, the popular Bible app, worked with the company to test it.

Now, combine that mind-spinning information with this passage, which very gently raises the issue that millions of Americans — on the cultural right and left — are convinced that the Facebook gods have lost control of much of the information that is located on their platform:

The company’s effort to court faith groups comes as it is trying to repair its image among Americans who have lost confidence in the platform, especially on issues of privacy. Facebook has faced scrutiny for its role in the country’s growing disinformation crisis and breakdown of societal trust, especially around politics, and regulators have grown concerned about its outsize power.

This brings me to my flashback to a graduate-school class at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign that changed my life.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Religion ghosts? The New Yorker offers hellish glimpse of pedophile science in Germany

Religion ghosts? The New Yorker offers hellish glimpse of pedophile science in Germany

As Ross Douthat of The New York Times noted the other day, every now and then there is a scary news story that demands serious attention, even if readers want to avert their eyes.

That is certainly the case with a recent Rachel Aviv feature at The New Yorker than ran with this headline: “The German Experiment That Placed Foster Children with Pedophiles.

This is not a religion story. If readers do a few quick searches through the text, they will find no references to words such as “religion,” “faith,” “church” or “Bible.” The word “morality” shows up, but only in a negative context. Hold that thought.

The man at the center of this horror story is Helmut Kentler, a Sexual Revolution hero in post-World War II Germany who sincerely believed, for reasons personal and professional, that it would be a good thing for the government to fund experiments in which lonely, abandoned children were placed in the homes of male pedophiles.

This was not a religious conviction — other than the fact that it was seen as a way of attacking traditional religions.

This raises journalism questions, methinks. The unstated theme running through this stunning New Yorker piece is that the Sexual Revolution has become part of a new civil religion. On the moral and cultural left, sexual liberation helps citizens to escape the chains of the nasty old faiths. Concerning Kentler’s work, Douthat notes:

It seems almost impossible that this really happened. But the past is another country, and Aviv explains with bracing clarity how the context of the 1960s and 1970s made the experiment entirely plausible. The psychological theory of the Sexual Revolution, in which strict sexual rules imposed neurosis while liberation offered wholeness, was embraced with particular fervor in Germany, because the old order was associated not just with prudery but with fascism and Auschwitz.

If traditional sexual taboos had molded the men who built the gas chambers, then no taboos could be permitted to endure. If the old human nature had ended in fascism, then the answer was a new human nature — embodied, in Aviv’s account, by “experimental day-care centers, where children were encouraged to be naked and to explore one another’s bodies,” or appeals from Germany’s Green Party to end the “oppression of children’s sexuality,” or Kentler’s bold idea that sex with one’s foster children could be a form of love and care.

All this was part of a wider Western mood, distilled in the slogan of May 1968: It is forbidden to forbid.

This brings us to the feature’s primary discussion of “morality.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

That New Yorker #FreeBritany feature: It's all about a Baptist daddy and his wild daughter?

That New Yorker #FreeBritany feature: It's all about a Baptist daddy and his wild daughter?

One thing is clear, when you read the long, sad (but buzz-worthy) feature in The New Yorker entitled “Britney Spears’s Conservatorship Nightmare.”

Britney is a celebrity.

When she goes to court, she is a celebrity. When she escapes to a pub, she is a celebrity. When she fights to see her children, she is a celebrity. When she has a nervous breakdown (especially in public), she is a celebrity.

If and when she ever returns to church (there are rumors), she will do so as a celebrity. Ditto for any return to celebrity friendly Kabbalah classes.

But you get what you expect in this feature, written by Ronan Farrow and Jia Tolentino. There’s a huge cast of characters, some who speak on the record and some who do not. There are waves of details from court documents and testimony. There’s an endless survey of public scenes and paparazzi chases.

But the second line of the double-decker headline points to the heart of the story: “How the pop star’s father and a team of lawyers seized control of her life — and have held on to it for thirteen years.”

This is a story about a fight between a Baptist father (simply “Jamie” in most of the story) and his wild daughter — who has lived her entire teen and adult life in the glare of a media spotlight that burned her, even as it poured wealth on everyone around her, including members of her immediate family.

What about faith issues? There are fleeting glimpses of religion “ghosts” throughout this story. However, there is evidence that The New Yorker team realizes that, behind all of the talk about Britney’s mental health, the father and daughter are fighting about the moral choices she has made in her private life. Meanwhile, the daughter keeps trying to break free from this noose, in part through sex, love, marriage and children.

Consider the implications of this passage, referring to the legal drama that pulled the #FreeBritney social-media world back into the headlines:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Why does no one, including the New Yorker, want to address the Catholicity of Joe Manchin?

Why does no one, including the New Yorker, want to address the Catholicity of Joe Manchin?

The New Yorker always has interesting profiles and I got to reading one about West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat who is the one bulwark in the U.S. Senate against a Republican majority.

That is, in a Senate divided 50/50, Manchin is the swing vote on the Democratic side. And he has been known to oppose the hopes and dreams of the Democratic Party’s center-left coalition.

So lots of people are writing about him, including the New Yorker, which bent over backward to avoid talking about one of the inner strengths that Manchin has: His determination to be a Catholic politician, even in an age in which compromise is all but impossible.

Tmatt has covered Manchin beforehand and these days, Manchin is very much in the headlines these days because if anything, the diference between two major parties is massive.

The story begins with a near-fatal accident involving two Senators, one of them Manchin.

In another year, the prospect of losing two Democratic senators overboard in an ice storm might be greeted with a certain wry resignation among Washington’s political class. This year, it inspires panic, at least among Democrats: in a 50-50 Senate, the Party’s agenda is only one vote — or one heartbeat — from oblivion. Manchin, in particular, holds extraordinary power.

As perhaps the Senate’s most conservative Democrat, he often breaks from the Party, which gives him a de-facto veto over a large swath of the Administration’s agenda. In the first months of Joe Biden’s Presidency, Manchin tanked the nomination of Neera Tanden as budget director (he disapproved of her tweets), opposed raising the corporate tax rate to twenty-eight per cent (he preferred twenty-five per cent), and single-handedly narrowed unemployment benefits in a COVID-relief bill.

Over and over, Manchin said that he was driven by a fundamental faith in bipartisanship, a belief that Democrats could and must find Republican support for their legislation—a posture so at odds with the present hostilities in Washington that it evoked a man hoisting his glass for a toast while his guests lunged at one another with steak knives…

Biden and Manchin have obvious points in common—two white, Catholic Joes, in their seventies, both former football players who take pride in their working-class roots, long after becoming wealthy.

What drives Manchin, what gives him the courage to stand alone as he so often does?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Epic New Yorker 'chin stroker' meets thin Guardian 'head scratcher' in no-news showdown

Among the varieties of “news” stories dumped on an ever more skeptical clientele by the rapidly metastasizing news business are two categories I’ll call the “chin stroker” and the “head scratcher.”

Examples of both recently caught my eye. One was unquestionably high brow, the other decidedly not. I’ll get to them soon enough, but first some clarification.

Never confuse a “head scratcher” with a “chin stroker.”

The first is confounding — as in, what the *&#@ is this? Or, why’d they bother to publish this useless collection of words and punctuation, the point of which eludes?

The chin scratcher, in contrast, can be stimulating and have value, even if it leaves you wondering, why run this feature on this subject right now? Thus, chin stroking here is meant to conjure the image of the serious reader massaging their chin in thought.

My GetReligion colleague Richard Ostling recently tackled one such chin stroker in a post about a super-long New Yorker piece about the search for archeological evidence that the biblical King David was a historical figure. It’s the same one that caught my eye.

It’s a great read — if one has the time and patience to explore 8,500 words on the political and religious differences that infect the field of biblical archeology in Israel. Because I do — the coronavirus pandemic has me hunkering down at home with considerable time to fill — I found the piece an interesting, solid primer on the subject.

Journalistically, however, and as Richard pointed out, why did the New Yorker choose to run this story now? We’re in the middle of a scary pandemic and a brutal presidential election campaign complicated by great economic uncertainty and racial and social upheaval.

One need not be an ace news editor to conclude there’s plenty of more immediate fodder that readers might prefer. And given that it’s the New Yorker, why give it, as Richard put it, “10 pages of this elite journalistic real estate” when there’s no discernible news peg?

If you missed it, read Richard’s post — fear not, it’s far, far shorter than 8,500 words — because I’ll say no more about it here. Richard covered the finer points of the piece’s journalistic questions. Should you care to go straight to the New Yorker article, then click here.

Now let’s pivot from our chin stroker to a definite head scratcher, courtesy of the The Guardian.


Please respect our Commenting Policy