National Review

Pope's same-sex blessings stunner inspires headlines and firestorms about those headlines

Pope's same-sex blessings stunner inspires headlines and firestorms about those headlines

Catholics around the world — reacting to waves of media coverage — are still debating the decision by Pope Francis to allow priests to bless same-sex couples

Many rejoiced in seeing bold headlines about the decision, while others across the doctrinal spectrum argued it could sow confusion and exacerbate tensions further between progressives and conservatives within the church.  

The 5,000-word document — known as Fiducia supplicans and issued by the Vatican’s Doctrine of the Faith on Monday — elaborated on a letter the pontiff sent to cardinals that was published in October. In that letter, Pope Francis had said such blessings could be offered under some circumstances if they didn’t confuse the ritual with the sacrament of marriage.

This new declaration repeated those conditions, but also reaffirmed that marriage is a lifelong sacrament between a man and a woman. The Vatican said the blessing of these “irregular” situations — which also includes divorced Catholics — must be non-liturgical in nature and cannot be done at the same time as a civil union. 

As alway, intense mainstream-media coverage played a major role in the firestorm surrounding this Vatican document, with many journalists struggling to define the difference between “blessings” for same-sex couples and rites recognizing the validity of those unions.

The confusion shaped the debates. In the end, the document “will undoubtedly be considered yet another black mark on the memory of this pontificate, according to Steven O’Reilly, who runs a blog called Roma Locuta Est.

“Now, in an effort to defend this document, the Francisapologists or ‘popesplainers‘ will no doubt rely on the fact that the new Vatican document does say that the ‘form’ of the blessings for individuals in same sex relationships ‘should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the sacrament of marriage,’ ” he said. “So, the document in its first few sections appears to be consistent with past teaching.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Covering the 303 Creative decision: Why do reporters keep ignoring the fine print?

Covering the 303 Creative decision: Why do reporters keep ignoring the fine print?

Judging from the recent coverage on the US Supreme Court’s decision on 303 Creative v. Elenis, you’d think that a pogrom against LGBTQ Americans is in process.

Many of the headlines came out and said that SCOTUS was allowing businesses to turn away gay customers, period. That’s false and that’s clear in the majority opinion. The truth was that you cannot compel people to create and deliver a message demanded by these customers if you don’t agree with that message (in this case for reasons of religious doctrine and practice).

I’ll start with the Denver Post, in whose backyard the whole case developed.

First, a note to the Post editors: Underneath the headline (“Colorado wedding website designer can refuse gay customers, U.S. Supreme Court rules”) the subhead spells Justice Neil Gorsuch’s name wrong. Being that Gorsuch, the writer of the opinion, is very well known by locals — as he was a longtime Colorado resident before ascending to the high court — the Post might want to correct that.

The First Amendment allows a Colorado graphic designer to refuse to make wedding websites for same-sex couples, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday in a decision that could have a sweeping nationwide impact.

The high court ruled for Littleton graphic artist Lorie Smith, who said her Christian faith prevents her from creating wedding websites for same-sex couples. Smith, who runs the business 303 Creative, wanted to make wedding websites only for straight couples.

I skimmed the article and didn’t see anything about religious beliefs being the reason behind Smith’s decision until well into the piece.

Also, note that — once again, we’re talking about the printed content of the majority decision — declining to do same-sex wedding content is not the same thing as the ability to refuse customers, period.

She challenged Colorado’s public accommodation law, which says that if she offers wedding websites to the public, she must provide them to all customers. Businesses that violate the law can be fined, among other penalties.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Time to step up the mainstream coverage of transgender debates within U.S. religion

Time to step up the mainstream coverage of transgender debates within U.S. religion

News about transgender issues tends to deal with women’s athletic competitions and shelters, pronouns, girls’ locker rooms, public school sex education, competing rights claims (with parents on both sides of the dates) and resulting political and legal disputes.

There’s been less coverage of medical morality, especially concerning under-aged youths, and hardly any about how various religious groups understand gender and why.

Journalists should take notice when four vigorous arguments on the religious aspect appear in the space of just six days, as follows.

March 20: The leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops authorized publication (.pdf here) of an important but little-reported transgender policy. It declares that Catholic health-care agencies “must not” perform or help develop chemical or surgical procedures to transform a person’s bodily characteristics into those of the opposite sex.

The stated reasons are theological and moral. Key quotes: “We did not create human nature; it is a gift from a loving Creator,” so human dignity requires “genuine respect for this created order.” Sexual differentiation is a reality “willed by God” and a “ fundamental aspect of existence as a human being.”

Therefore, surgical and chemical techniques to switch a patient’s sexual characteristics, or puberty blockers to halt youths’ natural development, “are not morally justified.” To the bishops, such interventions are “injurious to the true flourishing of the human person” and violate doctors’ basic moral maxim to “do no harm.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Christian web designer at the Supreme Court: How reporters covered 303 Creative case

Christian web designer at the Supreme Court: How reporters covered 303 Creative case

On the face of it, 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, sounded unimpressive.

A Christian web designer living near Denver was suing her state civil rights commission for the right to create wedding web sites without having to include creative content about same-sex weddings in the mix. She hadn’t been approached by any gay couples yet — but because she might be, she launched a pre-emptive lawsuit with the aid of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm with an impressive track record of 11 wins at the Supreme Court level.

Yet, the more I read about the case and the issues it was trying to raise, the more intrigued I got. And the hearing on Monday didn’t disappoint. It lasted some two and one-half hours, which is long by Court standards. Covering hour-long hearings at the high court is difficult at best; I can only imagine how tough it was for reporters to sift through 150 minutes of speech — and all the tangents that were involved — to sum up how the hearing went.

Which is why I am merely critiquing the first drafts of what I hope will be more in-depth articles as time goes on. I’ll start with how CBS covered the story:

The Supreme Court's conservative bloc appeared sympathetic Monday to a Colorado graphic designer who argues a state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates her free speech rights by forcing her to express a message that conflicts with her closely held religious beliefs.

During oral arguments in the case known as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the court seemed to move closer to resolving a question it has left unanswered since 2018, when it narrowly ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding: whether states like Colorado can, in applying their anti-discrimination laws, compel an artist to express a message they disagree with.

An editorial comment: It's a minor annoyance that the plural “they” is used for a singular “artist.” Just write “he or she” for heaven’s sake.

One issue with reporting on this case is that it takes a ton of backstory to explain that this case isn’t just about a web designer, but also a cake designer-baker in a previous Supreme Court case.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Thinking about Olasky's 2016 blast at Donald Trump, as journalists prepare for 2024

Thinking about Olasky's 2016 blast at Donald Trump, as journalists prepare for 2024

So, I heard that former President Donald Trump made some kind of announcement the other day. That means (#SIGH) that we have to think, again, about that whole elite-media thing with 81% of White evangelicals adoring Orange. Man. Bad.

But readers who scan this Google file on that subject will find plenty of reminders that — when White evangelicals had a GOP choice in the 2016 primaries — many provided core support for Trump while just as many voted for other candidates.

With that in mind, consider this National Review headline: “Can DeSantis Win the Evangelical Vote?” That leads to this summary:

… (I)fDeSantis does intend to challenge Trump, he must convince conservative Christians — particularly white Evangelical Protestants, who made up almost half of the GOP electorate in the 2012 and 2016 primaries — to support his cause.

DeSantis would seem well-suited to the task. He has taken a strong stance on many of the social issues that matter most to Evangelicals: This year alone, he stood up against LGBTQ indoctrination in schools and signed a bill banning abortion after 15 weeks of gestation (in a state where 56 percent of adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases); most recently, at his urging, state medical boards banned puberty blockers and transgender surgery for minors. …

And all of this ignores character. Between his three marriages, his lewd comments about groping women, and his friendship with Hugh Hefner, Trump was always an odd champion for the Moral Majority. DeSantis, on the other hand, has avoided scandal so far and cultivated a family-man public image that Evangelicals might find appealing.

OK, it would be good to take a flashback to a crucial moment in this drama.

As candidate Trump ramped up in 2016, one of America’s most consistent voices on religious, moral and cultural issues — Marvin Olasky — wrote and published a World magazine essay with this headline: “Unfit for power — It’s time for Donald Trump to step aside and make room for another candidate.

Any journalist who wants to cover the next two years of American politics needs to read this essay, which Olasky recently re-upped on Twitter.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Whenever Donald Trump Era ends, what will America's religion landscape look like?

Whenever Donald Trump Era ends, what will America's religion landscape look like?

“Trump is toast.”

So proclaimed National Review’s Andrew McCarthy after the most shocking Republican Party flop since, oh, 1948, which was followed by the least shocking Republican event imaginable, Donald Trump’s Tuesday announcement of a third run for president.

McCarthy joins a significant lineup of conservative pundits and media in blaming the GOP’s embarrassment on Trump and his demands for 2020 election denial with resulting candidate picks. Democrats took the Grand Rapids, Michigan, area by 12.8%, for goodness sake. The former federal prosecutor contends that Trump has not only surrendered his 2024 chances but is certain to face federal indictment.

Well, no matter what such elite conservatives suppose, Trump retains a massive grassroots following. However, the first post-election poll of Republicans and Republican leaners, from YouGov, put Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as the 2024 front-runner with 42% to Trump’s 35%. A month earlier YouGov gave Trump 45% vs. DeSantis’s 35%. A poll of Texas Republicans was similar.

An intriguing Wall Street Journal package recently offered scholars’ speculations on what Russia will look like in the long term whenever Vladimir Putin’s reign ends. The media could borrow the idea to explore what the American religion landscape might look like when Donald Trump no longer rules the Republicans, whether that’s in the primaries or Election Day 2024, or Inauguration Day 2029.

If you grab the theme, also run this one past your sources: Has this secularized, former Mainline Protestant and onetime “reality” TV personality had more impact on American religion than any member of the clergy during these years?

Other assorted post-election musings.

As GetReligion often observes, Catholics are the swing vote to watch, since white evangelicals are locked into lopsided Republican loyalty (this long before the Trump years).


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Thinking about online temptations: Maybe Catholics should log off now and then?

Thinking about online temptations: Maybe Catholics should log off now and then?

If you know anything about religion and social-media, you know that Catholic Twitter can be a wild place.

Niche digital religion is really something. I mean, if Elon Musk decided to swim the Tiber, all of the Big Tech servers would probably turn to pillars of salt. If he became an evangelical Protestant this White House might resort to nuclear weapons.

The question many Catholic priests, and other mainstream religious folks, have asked is rather basic: Is something like Twitter a good, safe, worthy place to invest their talents? Or should they consider it a dangerous waste of time?

I’ve read some interesting essays on topics related to this question and, this time, I will share one as this weekend’s think piece. The headline at RealClearReligion.org is rather blunt: “Catholics, Log Off.” The author is Jack Butler, an editor at National Review Online and a fellow at the Institute for Human Ecology at the Catholic University in America.

Let’s start with the obvious: What would Satan tweet?

The fight against Lucifer was going pretty well — until the devilish enginery appeared. As John Milton depicts the battle of Satan's rebellious angels against the forces of Heaven in his epic poem "Paradise Lost," the demons were on the backfoot, until they devise "implements of mischief" that will "dash/To pieces, and orewhelm whatever stands/Adverse, that they shall fear we have disarmd/The Thunderer of his only dreaded bolt."

Not all artifices are inherently evil. But if the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is true and demons "prowl about the world, seeking the ruin of souls," they can show up in our devices, too. William Peter Blatty suggests this in his novel "The Exorcist." The demon Pazuzu, having possessed a young girl, is asked if it minds being recorded. "Not at all," the demon says. "Read your Milton and you'll see that I like infernal engines. They block out all those damned silly messages from him."

But what does it mean for technology to obstruct our path to God?

To put this in small-o “orthodox” theological terms, technology is merely another development in a world that is both glorious and fallen.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

A key anti-Donald Trump evangelical ponders what seven years have wrought in America

A key anti-Donald Trump evangelical ponders what seven years have wrought in America

This is the 11th Guy Memo in a year guiding the media and other observers on dynamics within U.S. evangelical Protestantism. There are growing signs of a crack-up including, for sure, sexual scandals and self-inflicted wounds, but also the gap between institutional elites and the grassroots, creating division, instability and, we can expect, long-term damage.

If 11 articles seem like overkill, The Guy notes this has long been the most dynamic segment in American religion, and probably the largest in terms of active attendance. Though made up of organizationally chaotic fiefdoms, the movement’s impact rested upon substantial solidarity in belief and social outlook compared with other religious sectors.

Then seven years ago the disruptive force known as Donald J. Trump emerged.

Which brings us to last week’s significant scan by prominent evangelical Marvin Olasky in the conservative National Review.

Importantly, this does not come from some well-meaning outsider (thinking of you, David Brooks) but a career-long insider who’s profoundly conservative in both biblical belief and politics. But he is also anti-Trump.

Here we need to pause to sketch the landscape in evangelical journalism.

Olasky says the “big three” news outlets of evangelicalism are World magazine, where he was longtime editor-in-chief, the 66-year-old Christianity Today and Charisma, voice of the Pentecostal-charismatic wing of this hard-to-define world. (Beat specialists would of course add other informative websites without print editions.)

During Trump’s 2020 campaign, Charisma CEO Stephen Strang issued a book subtitled “Why He [Trump] Must Win and What’s at Stake for Christians If He Loses,” followed by a magazine piece telling readers “Why We Must Support Trump in Prayer and at the Polls.

But the other two top editors disagreed. In World, Olasky proclaimed Trump morally “unfit for power” just before the 2016 election. In 2019, Christianity Today editor-in-chief Mark Galli called for Trump’s impeachment and removal from office over Ukraine meddling for partisan purposes.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

As Roe clock ticks, press avoids news about another big story -- attacks on Catholic churches

As Roe clock ticks, press avoids news about another big story -- attacks on Catholic churches

There have been at least 41 incidents of attacks against churches and crisis-pregnancy facilities since the May 2 leak of the Supreme Court draft decision that revealed the potential fall of Roe v. Wade.

The attacks have included property theft, vandalism, arson and property destruction.

How do we know this? A front page New York Times investigation this past Sunday?

No.

A round-up story in The Washington Post, USA Today, the Associated Press? Coverage on CBS, CNN or another major network?

No, no, no and, alas, no.

We know this because of The Washington Stand, which is described as the Family Research Council’s “outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview.” In other words, these events are “conservative” niche news (as opposed to, let’s say, attacks on “sanctuary movement” churches because of their activism on immigration).

This awful trend should come as no surprise. At least it wasn’t to me. I wrote a story recently at Religion Unplugged on the rash of vandalism — especially acts against Catholic churches — throughout this spring. I opened my news account with the theft of a tabernacle at a Brooklyn, N.Y., church (see this related GetReligion piece). Here’s an excerpt from my piece:

The desecration was the latest in a string of incidents across the United States, triggering fears of future vandalism given the supercharged political climate around abortion, LGBTQ rights and bishops denying politicians Communion.

The vandalism may not necessarily be tied to one or more of these factors — rising crime rates is also a possibility in the wake of the pandemic — but church officials remain vigilant as the summer approaches. While the motivations remain a mystery, the outcome has rattled Catholic churches across the country. Some have resorted to increased security measures, like locking doors when Masses aren’t taking place, installing security cameras and even erecting barbed wire and fences to avoid being targeted.

As we await a final Supreme Court ruling, we could be in for a long summer of violence and vandalism.

My criticism here is not in the news coverage this issue has received. Instead, it’s the lack of coverage.


Please respect our Commenting Policy