Catechism

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dangerous four-way intersection looms ahead in Christian debates about LGBTQ issues

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dangerous four-way intersection looms ahead in Christian debates about LGBTQ issues

Flying home from his February Africa pilgrimage, Pope Francis held an unprecedented three-man press conference alongside Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, leader of the Church of England and some 85 million members in the global Anglican Communion, and the Right Rev. Iain Greenshields, this year’s titular head of the Church of Scotland (equivalent of the mainline U.S. Presbyterians).

These men personify three emerging approaches to same-sex revisionism that reporters will be observing. A fourth option,of course, is strict limitation of sex to heterosexual marriage, a doctrine articulated in the Catholic Catechism and shared by all churches until recently. For example, see this summary issued last week by the Rev. J.D. Greear, a former Southern Baptist Convention president.

In the West, many “mainline” Protestant groups have shifted to option one — full-on approval of same-sex relationships, exemplified by liturgies to celebrate church weddings. The Church of Scotland joined them last May as assembly delegates gave this change 67% support. (Dissenting clergy will not be forced to perform weddings they oppose in conscience.) This followed an earlier go-ahead in America’s largest Presbyterian denomination.

With option two, Pope Francis has not proposed any alteration in the Catholic teaching that same-sex acts are sinful, but is ambiguous about how Catholic churches should welcome and potentially bless gay people (see this earlier GetReligion post on a test case in Chicago). That and his other “dialogue” initiatives rile doctrinal traditionalists. Backed by Welby and Greenshields, Francis asserted that secular law should not criminalize people for gay acts -- a striking plea in Africa, where many nations outlaw gay activity and some impose the death penalty.

Then Archbishop Welby’s church made an historic decision for option three — half-way liberalization. This approach would continue to bar same-sex weddings, while approving church “blessing” ceremonies for such couples after their civil marriages (legal in England since 2013). After six years of formal nationwide church discussion, and more than eight hours of floor debate, the General Synod voted February 9 to “welcome” that policy, which the bishops approved in January.

The motion expressed repentance over past and present “harm that LGBTQI+ people have experienced” in church. Welby and the Archbishop of York jointly stated that their church “will publicly, unreservedly and joyfully welcome same-sex couples.” This includes sexually active same-sex couples? Debate continues on that point.

This decision by no means settles matters.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: New York Times dwells (#surprise) on right-wing politics in the Latin Mass wars

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: New York Times dwells (#surprise) on right-wing politics in the Latin Mass wars

What do you call a Roman Catholic who believes the church’s teachings on centuries of moral theology, as in doctrines stated in great detail in the church’s official, and easily available, Catechism?

For journalists who do not trust the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at this moment in time, here is the Vatican website copy of the Catechism.

According to the New York Times these pro-Catechism Catholics are part of a “rising right-wing strain within American Christianity as a whole” (I added bold text).

Then again, they might simply be “socially conservative and tradition-minded” folks. Or they may be people who support a “brand of new hard-right rhetoric and community” found in nasty corners of the Internet.

Then (yet) again, they may — this is the important part — be Donald Trump supporters.

But one thing they are not is normal Catholics. People who defend the stated teachings of the church are strange Catholics.

I raise this question because of a fascinating recent Times report that gained traction online for some obvious reasons. This feature was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). Here is the double-decker headline on what was, for me, a interesting but at times bipolar story:

Old Latin Mass Finds New American Audience, Despite Pope’s Disapproval

An ancient form of Catholic worship is drawing in young traditionalists and conservatives. But it signals a divide within the church.

What makes this story so strange?

First of all, it offers some interesting information and images about the waves of people — including many, many large young families — who are embracing the ancient Latin Mass. I would, however, note that just as many or more of these believers are choosing Catholic churches that use the modern Novus Ordo rite, but offer services packed with chants, incense, processions, traditional prayers and, yes, even the Latin form of the Vatican II text. Someone should check and see how many people are requesting Eastern Rite Catholic parishes, as well.

In other words, the current campaign by the Vatican and strategic cardinals (in some blue American zip codes, for example) against the Tridentine Mass and, in some cases, other traditional forms of worship, may be part of a broader story.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Associated Press: Today's Supreme Court contains too many pro-Catechism Catholics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Associated Press: Today's Supreme Court contains too many pro-Catechism Catholics

A long time ago, in Internet years, I got tired of trying to define “liberal” and “conservative” during discussions of Catholic life.

Truth is, the teachings of ancient Christianity (I am Eastern Orthodox) don’t fit neatly into the templates of American politics. If you believe, for example, that human life begins at conception and continues through natural death the you are going to be frustrated reading the Republican and Democratic party platforms.

At one point, I started using this term — pro-Catechism Catholics. I soon heard from readers who were upset that I was linking Catholic identity with the idea that Catholics were supposed to believe and even attempt to practice the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

This brings me to a new Associated Press story with a very familiar, in recent years, theme. The headline: “Anti-Roe justices a part of Catholicism’s conservative wing.” Here is the overture, which includes — #SHOCKING — a reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade at a time when it has an unprecedented Catholic supermajority.

That’s not a coincidence. Nor is it the whole story.

The justices who voted to overturn Roe have been shaped by a church whose catechism affirms “the moral evil of every procured abortion” and whose U.S. bishops have declared opposition to abortion their “preeminent priority” in public policy.

But that alone doesn’t explain the justices’ votes.

U.S. Catholics as a whole are far more ambivalent on abortion than their church leaders, with more than half believing it should be legal in all or most circumstances, according to the Pew Research Center.

The problem, you see, is that there are justices who appear to embrace the Catechism, on issues linked to the Sexual Revolution, of course. They are clashing with generic “U.S. Catholics,” who are not defined, as usual, in terms of Mass attendance or other references to belief and practice (such as choosing to go to Confession).

What we have here is yet another clash between American Catholics and dangerous Catholics.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Yes, a cardinal with strong Pope Francis ties said church doctrines on LGBTQ issues are wrong

, , , , , , , , ,
Yes, a cardinal with strong Pope Francis ties said church doctrines on LGBTQ issues are wrong

It isn't every day that a prince of the Roman Catholic Church, and a strategic Jesuit ally of the pope, openly rejects centuries of Christian teachings that clash with core doctrines of the Sexual Revolution.

"The Church's positions on homosexual relationships as sinful are wrong," said Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg, in a recent interview with KDA, a German Catholic news agency. "I believe that the sociological and scientific foundation of this doctrine is no longer correct. It is time for a fundamental revision of Church teaching, and the way in which Pope Francis has spoken of homosexuality could lead to a change in doctrine. …

"In our archdiocese, in Luxembourg, no one is fired for being homosexual, or divorced and remarried. I can't toss them out, they would become unemployed, and how can such a thing be Christian? As for homosexual priests, there are many of these, and it would be good if they could talk about this with their bishop without his condemning them."

The latest unorthodox proclamations by Cardinal Hollerich commanded attention because he leads the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Union, as well as being the pope's choice as "relator general" for the October 2023 global Synod of Bishops, helping shape its work to weigh the church's future.

"This Cardinal seems to be claiming a private revelation which is contrary to scripture & the Catechism of the Catholic Church," tweeted Bishop Joseph Strickland, an outspoken conservative who is Bishop of Tyler, Texas. "Any private revelation that contradicts public revelation must be condemned."

However, the recent "Synodal Way" meetings of German Catholic leaders voted to approve draft texts that affirmed some of Cardinal Hollerich's beliefs, including overwhelming approval for a document entitled "Blessing celebrations for couples who love each other." Support was just as strong for a "Magisterial reassessment of homosexuality" text stating that official church teachings on chastity and homosexuality "should be revised."


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today's Associated Press: Why cover both sides of an important Amy Coney Barrett story?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dear editors at the Associated Press:

Let’s discuss a few issues behind your recent feature that was sent to newspapers everywhere with this headline: “Barrett was trustee at private school with anti-gay policies.”

The key, of course, is “policies” — a vague term that way too many mainstream journalists consistently use in place of the simple word “doctrines.”

Yes, of course, traditional Catholic schools have “policies” that affect students, faculty and staff. However, these policies are almost always attempts to teach and defend the doctrines of the church. It’s significant that the word “doctrine” does not appear anywhere in this long AP piece and the same goes for the word “catechism.” Also, “scripture” is used once — by a progressive Catholic stressing that conservative Catholics are “literalists” when reading the Bible.

Anyone who has covered Catholic education for a decade or two knows what is going on here. Yes, Democrats are furious about Amy Coney Barrett’s arrival on the high court. But this Associated Press story is built on divisions inside the American Catholic church, both on moral theology linked to LGBTQ issues and fights over the goals of Catholic education in colleges, universities, seminaries and private schools such as the ones linked to Barrett and People of Praise.

With that in mind, let’s add two other factors to this case that are ignored (or all but ignored) by AP.

First of all, once upon a time there was a man named St. Pope John Paul II. In 1990, this pope issued a document entitled “Ex Corde Ecclesiae (From the Heart of the Church)” focusing on issues in Catholic education. You could tell that it was a controversial document (a) because it said Catholic doctrines should be taught and defended in Catholic schools, (b) progressive Catholics, speaking through the press, went ballistic and (c) it took almost a decade of fighting for American Catholic church leaders to act (sort of) on the pope’s guidelines.

This fight was primarily about colleges and universities, but the principals in Ex Corde are relevant to fights, these days, about classroom and student-life issues in Catholic schools at all levels. So what was John Paul II saying?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An issue that never goes away: What do U.S. religious groups teach about abortion?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
An issue that never goes away: What do U.S. religious groups teach about abortion?

THE QUESTION:

What do U.S. religious groups teach about the contentious abortion issue?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Remarkably, the abortion issue is as contentious as when the U.S. Supreme Court liberalized law 46 years ago, with new state restrictions injecting it into courtrooms and the 2020 campaign. The following scans significant teachings by major religious denominations.

The Catholic Church, the largest religious body in the U.S. (and globally), opposes abortion, without exceptions. A Vatican Council II decree from the world’s bishops declares that “from the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care,” and calls  abortions “abominable crimes.” The official Catechism says the same and dates this belief back to Christianity’s first century (Didache 2:2, Epistle of Barnabas 19:5).

Eastern Orthodox and Catholic leaders have jointly affirmed “our common teaching that life begins at the earliest moments of conception” and is “sacred” through all stages of development. However, America’s 53-member Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops acknowledges “rare but serious medical instances where mother and child may require extraordinary actions.”

A Southern Baptist Convention resolution before the Supreme Court ruling advocated permission in cases of “rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity” or damage to a mother’s “emotional, mental, and physical health.” The SBC later shifted toward strict conservatism on many matters. A 2018 resolution affirms “the full dignity of every unborn child” and denounces abortion “except to save the mother’s physical life.”

Two United Methodist Church agencies helped establish the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (since renamed Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice) to champion women’s unimpeded choice. But the 2016 UMC conference directed the agencies to leave the coalition, and voted to withdraw endorsement, upheld since 1976, of the Supreme Court’s “legal right to abortion.” The UMC recognizes “tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify” abortion. It opposes late-term abortion except for danger to the mother’s “physical life” or “severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

When covering Catholic wars over sex, it's clear there are questions the Gray Lady refuses to ask

, , , , , , , , , ,

You have read this story before. You can count on reading it again and again.

In recent years, American newsrooms have produced a river of stories about LGBTQ Catholics who have lost their jobs in Catholic schools, parishes or other institutions. In most cases they were fired after announcing a same-sex marriage or taking part in some other public act stating their views on sexuality.

Why did they lose their jobs? There are several possible answers that need to be explored in these stories.

(1) They had signed a doctrinal covenant of some kind (usually in a school) in which they promised to affirm Catholic doctrines or, at the very least, not to openly oppose them.

(2) They faced opposition from conservative Catholics who reject their acts linked to LGBTQ issues. The opposition could be ugly, graceful or some combination of both.

(3) They worked in actual parish ministry or administration positions in which they were expected to teach or, at the very least, affirm Catholic doctrines. This would include leadership roles in worship.

Once again, let me stress that journalists do not need to agree with Catholic doctrines in order to do fair, accurate, balanced coverage of these debates. The key is whether the coverage includes accurate information that allows readers to grasp the beliefs of articulate, honest, qualified people on both sides.

This brings us to the latest New York Times jeremiad on this topic, which ran on the front page with this headline: “He Was a Gay Man on Staff at a Catholic Parish. Then the Threats Began Coming In.” Readers will be hard-pressed to find a single sentence in this story that would be affirmed as accurate or complete by pro-Catechism Catholics. There are entire paragraphs, often without attribution, that provide the talking points of liberal Catholics who want to see their church’s doctrines modernized.

The person described in the headline is Antonio Aaron Bianco, a “gay layman in charge of managing St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church” in San Diego. Right up front, readers learn — as they should — the content of these threats, as described by Bianco. Then there is this summary statement:

Located in the heart of San Diego’s largest gay neighborhood, St. John the Evangelist is one of about 300 Catholic parishes around the country that quietly welcome gay Catholics. Although the Catholic church teaches that same-sex relationships are sinful, growing pockets of the church have accepted openly gay parishioners, staff members and even priests.

But after this summer, when the church faced renewed allegations of clergy sexual abuse, some bishops and conservative Catholic media outlets immediately blamed the crisis on homosexuality. That set off a backlash, fueling a campaign to purge the church of gay clergy members and church workers.

The key word in this passage, of course, is “welcome.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Why do churches baptize infants? Why did ancient churches baptize people of all ages?

, , , , , , , , ,
Why do churches baptize infants? Why did ancient churches baptize people of all ages?

THE QUESTION:

Why do most Christian churches baptize babies?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

This classic issue unexpectedly popped up as news on June 23 due to an Irish Times interview with Mary McAleese, an attorney and the former president of Ireland. McAleese assailed her Catholic Church for its practice of baptizing infants shortly after birth with parents making vows on their behalf.

That treats children as “infant conscripts who are held to lifelong obligations of obedience,” she protested, and that’s a violation of their human rights. “You can’t impose, really, obligations on people who are only two weeks old” or inform them “at seven or eight or 14 or 19 here is what you contracted; here is what you signed up to,” because they did not give their own consent to be church members.

To her, the church’s age-old baptismal practice “worked for many centuries because people didn’t understand that they had the right to say no, the right to walk away.” But she says modern people “have the right to freedom of conscience” although “the Catholic Church has yet toi fully embrace that thinking.”

Baptist-type churches that arose in the Protestant Reformation, and many of today’s independent evangelical congregations, agree with McAleese and practice “believer’s baptism” based on the personal decision of each individual. The Church of God in Christ, probably the largest African-American denomination, puts its outlook this way: Baptism “is an outward demonstration that one has already had a conversion experience and has accepted Christ as his personal savior.”

Groups that baptize only youths and adult converts, not babies, almost always insist that the rite involve full bodily immersion in water, not mere pouring of water over the head as in normal Catholic practice.



Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

More than an academic question: At year 500, what is the legacy of Protestantism?

, , , , , , , , ,
More than an academic question: At year 500, what is the legacy of Protestantism?

The Religion Guy raised the above question and answers it with a few thoughts upon the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.

This vast, ongoing split in Christianity involved theology and spirituality, but as a journalist The Guy [disclosure: a lay Protestant] will emphasize culture. The uproar originated on October 31, 1517 (All Saints’ Eve), when Martin Luther issued his “95 Theses.” Matters evolved from there into a sweeping assault on the papacy and the Catholic Church.

Historians debate whether the tempestuous Wittenberg professor actually posted this protest on the legendary door of the town church or simply distributed it. Whatever, Luther sent a copy to the Germans’ most powerful churchman, Archbishop Albrecht, who fatefully referred it to the Vatican for scrutiny.

The “Theses” decried lavish sales of “indulgences” from the church’s “treasury of merits” to lessen punishments due for sins of the living and of the dead in Purgatory. Rid of corrupt money-raising, indulgences still operate in 2017 (per “Catechism of the Catholic Church” #1471 – 1479).

The indulgence money was supposed to fund construction of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. But Albrecht skimmed off half the proceeds to repay a loan of 23,000 ducats he used to purchase leadership of Germany’s most lucrative diocese -- at age 23!  When Luther faced Catholic derision for violating his monk’s vows and marrying, he told Albrecht to end his unwed sexual partnership!

In other words, late medieval Catholicism had some problems. Nonetheless, was this split necessary?


Please respect our Commenting Policy