Paul Moses, a professor of journalism at Brooklyn College/CUNY, is the author of The Saint and the Sultan: The Crusades, Islam and Francis of Assisi's Mission of Peace (Doubleday, 2009).
By this author
Back in September, New America Foundation published a study that used federal data to evaluate how well colleges do in admitting low-income students and providing financial aid to them.
About 200 Catholic theologians have signed a statement that calls for a "radical reconsideration of policing policy in our nation." Some would no doubt question what theologians know about police work, but their effort to bring Catholic teaching to the controversies surrounding the police slayings of Eric Garner in Staten Island, N.Y., and Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.,deserves to be read and discussed.
"Huge and illuminated," here is a billboard the Catholic League has purchased in Los Angeles to mark the coming season of peace--the time of year when you would naturally want to compare those you disagree with to the world's most vicious killers.
Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago issued a pre-Thanksgiving statement in which he gave thanks for President Obama's decision to defer deportation for about 4.5 million undocumented immigrants. It follows a Nov. 20 statement that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued to welcome the president's decision.
I probably just missed it, but I haven't seen any discussion in Catholic media of one of the best pieces of reporting concerning the Catholic Church that I've ever read. It's Jon Lee Anderson's article in the Oct. 20 New Yorker, "The Mission: A Last Defense against Genocide." It tells the story of one Catholic priest and his mission to create a refuge of peace in the midst of the extraordinary Christian-Muslim violence dividing the Central African Republic.
The article begins in a straightforward way: "When the killing reached Bossemptele, a small town deep in the isolated interior of the Central African Republic, Father Bernard Kinvi, who helps run the Catholic mission there, tried to save everyone he could."
In this case, "everyone" included Muslims whom Christian militias were bent on slaughtering.
A new poll finds Americans are sharply divided on the question of religious liberty. The Public Religion Research Institute reports:
Nearly half (46%) of Americans say they are more concerned about the government interfering with the ability of people to freely practice their religion, while an equal number (46%) say they are more concerned about religious groups trying to pass laws that force their beliefs on others.
Despite the U.S. Catholic bishops' campaign to highlight religious liberty as an issue, a majority of Catholics (51 percent) fall into the latter camp, while 42 percent said they were more concerned that the government was trying to interfere with the practice of religion. The poll highlights generational and gender differences among Catholics.
Millenials, aged 18 to 34, are far more likely to be concerned about religious groups tyring to impose thier beliefs on others, while those 69 and older are much more likely to be concerned about government interference. Catholic men were evenly divided on this issue, but women were more likely to be concerned about religious groups (55 percent) than they were about government interference with religion (36 percent).
Back when I was covering the religion beat at New York Newsday in 1992, I interviewed various theologians on the question of whether anything in Catholic teaching required that a group called the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization be barred from marching under its own banner in New York's St. Patrick's Day Parade. The views I heard were diverse. One of the theologians, Father Avery Dulles, reached at his desk at Fordham University, told me he hadn't made up his mind. "It really depends. If it is a religious event, you kind of go in one direction," he said. "If it is a manifestation of civil order, I suppose then theology doesn't have too much to say about it."
I tracked down that yellowed news clipping after reading Cardinal Timothy Dolan's column in this weekend's issue of Catholic New York, newspaper of the New York archdiocese. As reported earlier this month, the cardinal had backed the decision of the parade committee to allow an Irish gay group to march in the parade, and also accepted the parade's invitation to be the grand marshal in 2015. Facing criticism for this, Dolan responds in his column:
... the most important question I had to ask myself was this: does the new policy violate Catholic faith or morals? If it does, then the Committee has compromised the integrity of the Parade, and I must object and refuse to participate or support it.
From my review, it does not. Catholic teaching is clear: “being Gay” is not a sin, nor contrary to God’s revealed morals. Homosexual actions are—as are any sexual relations outside of the lifelong, faithful, loving, lifegiving bond of a man and woman in marriage—a moral teaching grounded in the Bible, reflected in nature, and faithfully taught by the Church.
So, while actions are immoral, identity is not!
In his reply, Dolan does not take the escape route that the parade is simply a civic event. It is "intimately linked to the Catholic Faith," he writes. Contrast that to my yellowed 1992 clipping, which reported the view of Catholic New York back then: "There can be no doubt that a group which publicly proclaims its opposition to Church teaching by championing its preference for homosexual activity is out of place in this parade."
An article in which a former reporter in The Associated Press’s Jerusalem bureau accuses The AP of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic bias has been getting a lot of attention. Like many other people, I received it in a friend’s e-mail blast.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has given over his fingerprints and smiling mug shot, and his lawyer calls the case against him “an attempt to criminalize politics”—that is, Perry’s hardnosed style of politics, which involved cutting off funds to a prosecutor who investigated his administration.
Indeed, there is a school of thought that prosecutors have been criminalizing political maneuvering in many places. In New Jersey, the U.S. attorney has a grand jury investigation into whether Gov. Chris Christie knew about his aides’ “Bridgegate” tactics (among other things). And the U.S. attorney in Manhattan is taking a very skeptical look at New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s cynical manipulation of a commission he appointed with the stated aim of exposing political corruption. Other governors such as Wisconsin's Scott Walker have also received prosecutorial scrutiny.
Even The New York Times editorial board has bought into Perry’s defense: “Bad political judgment is not necessarily a felony, and the indictment handed up against him on Friday— given the facts so far — appears to be the product of an overzealous prosecution."
Why are the political maneuvers of so many governors being investigated? I’ve seen various theories. One is that prosecutors have political motives. Another, advanced by Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post, is that with the demise of newspaper statehouse bureaus, governors are tempted to play their politics faster and looser.
My theory, based on some years of covering prosecutors up close, is a little different. Prosecutors have a lot of discretion about what to investigate and whom to prosecute. They are also quite attuned to the zeitgeist. In some sense, they have to be: They need to know what is going to play before a jury, and what will not.
Perhaps it is a sign of the times that the main route of the Camino de Santiago, the network of pilgrimage paths across Spain, has become so crowded in the summer that peregrinos are being asked to walk lesser-used trails.
The newsletter of the American Pilgrims on the Camino urged in its summer issue that peregrinos not walk the Camino Francés, “where the hysteria over securing a bunk, avoiding bedbugs, and finding relief from crowds reaches a fever pitch.”