Religion and Belief

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares112 Views

    Pope Leo Calls for Diversity in Unity as He Begins His Pontificate

    by

    Presiding over a Mass in St. Peter’s Square on Sunday, Leo was inaugurated as the first American pope, in a ceremony filled with ancient and symbolic rituals.Leo XIV on Sunday celebrated an outdoor Mass formally inaugurating him as the 267th pope of the Roman Catholic Church, telling world leaders, the assembled hierarchy of his church and more than 100,000 faithful gathered in St. Peter’s Square that the church needed a new unity that recognized its diversity.In his homily, the new pontiff sought to bridge the divisions in the church between those who want to engage with the modern world by pushing ahead with the inclusive approach of Francis, his predecessor, and more conservative elements who favor a return to an emphasis on the church’s traditions.The cardinals tasked with electing a pope, he said, had sought a “shepherd capable of preserving the rich heritage of the Christian faith and at the same time, looking to the future, in order to confront the questions, concerns and challenges of today’s world.”Leo, an American who has Peruvian citizenship, also said in his homily, that “I was chosen, without any merit of my own, and now, with fear and trembling, I come to you as a brother.” He added that he wanted “us all to be united in one family.”The morning also marked Pope Leo’s first steps into a global role. He met on Sunday with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, which he said, “awaits negotiations for a fair and lasting peace,” called for peace in Myanmar and urged the world not to forget those “reduced to hunger.”Vice President JD Vance, who had a contentious meeting in the White House earlier this year with Mr. Zelensky, was also in attendance and shook hands briefly with the Ukrainian leader before the Mass began. After the Mass, Mr. Vance, who the White House called “the first Catholic convert,” to serve in the position, briefly shook the pope’s hand on a long receiving line of dignitaries and royals.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 75 Shares161 Views

      in Elections

      The Many Meanings of ‘True’ Religion

      by

      More from our inbox:Stop the ElderspeakReligious believers have a renewed power in Washington. Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Religion’s Role, Revisited,” by Lauren Jackson (Sunday Styles, April 20):About a third of the way into this essay, I realized that the author was on the wrong track. Religion is not about the individual but about the community.The Torah begins not with the creation of an individual but of an ecosystem within which individuals can thrive. And all major religions, in both scripture and practice, emphasize the importance of a common community.Because the author focuses so intently on our national illness of narcissism, she misses the simple answer to her question: Religion is to be found in the people next door, the ones in need down the block and across the sea, the ones who need just laws and an end to violence. To be authentic, religion needs to be not about “me” but “us”; it needs to make us better neighbors, better lawmakers, better lovers and better at self-reflection.Alexander M. JacobsMilwaukeeTo the Editor:I’ve long noted the unsettling contradiction between people who extol the community they find in their religious lives and their need to judge and stereotype those outside their community.Lauren Jackson first lost me at “elite liberals,” a reductive term that dismisses humanity’s rich and complex experiences, beliefs, family influences, education and ethical framework. Further, as someone who has lived in or adjacent to large cities my entire life, I’m deeply skeptical of her claim that “many said they left religion because they moved to places like major cities, where people were more hostile to it.” This makes me wonder about the demographics of her self-selected survey respondents.I, along with my family and friends, have always been able to access and participate in warm faith communities. The “hostility” I can think of has been in cases where Americans’ professed religious beliefs have impinged on other Americans’ rights, beliefs and welfare.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      How Francis, a Progressive Pope, Catalyzed the Catholic Right in the U.S.

      by

      His critics were fellow clergy as well as elected officials in the ascendant wing of the American Catholic political realm.A few months before he died on Monday, Pope Francis entered what turned out to be his last high-profile skirmish with his flock in the United States. In a letter in February to American bishops, with whom he had his own complicated relationship over the years, the pope criticized President Trump’s treatment of migrants, claiming that deportations violate the “dignity of many men and women, and of entire families.”Though he didn’t name names, he also seemed to to rebut Vice President JD Vance’s recent interpretation of a Catholic theological concept. Mr. Vance, who is Catholic, met briefly with Pope Francis at his home in Rome on Easter Sunday, making the vice president among the last people to see the ailing pontiff alive.The slap in February, with its intertwining layers of politics and theology, was typical of the often fraught public relationship between Pope Francis and conservative American Catholics. When Pope Francis took office in 2013, many Catholics in the United States were optimistic that his emphasis on inclusivity and ministry to the margins would lead to a “Francis effect” that would enliven the American church for years to come.Pope Francis did end up energizing American Catholics, but not only in the way his supporters hoped. His papacy galvanized a traditionalist stream that had always existed in the American church, and that strengthened and expanded throughout his papacy as a tide of resistance rose in the American church hierarchy, in Washington and in the pews.Pope Francis’ critics represent a minority of the American church but a powerful one. They were not only fellow clergy but also elected officials in a newly ascendant wing of the American Catholic political realm, as Catholic power in Washington developed harder edges in the final months of his life. President Trump stocked his cabinet with conservative Catholics, and elevated Mr. Vance as vice president, a Catholic convert whose views on church doctrine are deeply enmeshed with his political priorities. Catholics make up more than a third of Mr. Trump’s cabinet, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio.But Pope Francis’ critics in the American church had objections that ranged far beyond disagreements over public policy. Critics, including some clergy, have accused him of sowing confusion on bedrock church doctrines, and at the same time of wielding an autocratic leadership style behind a facade of humility and informality. He was seen as haphazardly rushing the church into the future, at a time when many American traditionalists were questioning the changes of Vatican II.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 50 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      America Wants a God

      by

      Today, we’re introducing “Believing,” a yearlong exploration from The Times on how we experience religion and spirituality now.Americans believe.Most people are wary of the government, the future and even each other, but they still believe in astonishing possibilities. Almost all Americans — 92 percent of adults — say they have a spiritual belief, in a god, human souls or spirits, an afterlife or something “beyond the natural world,” as we reported earlier this year.The country seems to be acknowledging this widespread spiritual hunger. America’s secularization is on pause, people have stopped leaving churches, and religion is taking a more prominent role in public life — in the White House, Silicon Valley, Hollywood and even at Harvard. It’s a major, generational shift. But what does this actually look like in people’s lives?I have spent the past year reporting “Believing,” a new project for The Times. This project is personal to me. I was raised a devout Mormon in Arkansas. I’ve left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I understand how wrestling with belief can define a life. I hoped to capture what that journey looked like for others, too — both inside and outside of religion. I interviewed hundreds of people, visited dozens of houses of worship and asked Times readers for their stories. More than 4,000 responded.In my reporting, I found that there are many reasons for this shift in American life. Researchers say the pandemic and the country’s limited social safety nets have inclined people to stick with (or even turn to) religion for support. But there is another reason, too: Many Americans are dissatisfied with the alternatives to religion. They feel an existential malaise, and they’re looking for help. People want stronger communities, more meaningful rituals and spaces to express their spirituality. They’re also longing to have richer, more nuanced conversations about belief.Unsatisfying alternativesIris LegendreOver the past few decades, around 40 million Americans left churches, and the number of people who say they have no religion grew to about 30 percent of the country.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 50 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      One Nation, Under God

      by

      Americans have stopped leaving Christianity. And the country is overwhelmingly spiritual, a new report found.As religion in America declined, experts administered last rites.Churches were approaching “their twilight hour” as attendance fell, The Brookings Institution wrote in 2011. In his 2023 book, “Losing Our Religion,” the evangelical preacher Russell Moore asked: “Can American Christianity survive?”The answer appears to be yes. People have stopped leaving churches en masse, according to a new study released this morning by Pew Research. America’s secularization is on pause for now, likely because of the pandemic and the country’s sustained spirituality. Most Americans — 92 percent of adults — say they hold one or more spiritual beliefs that Pew asked about:Share of U.S. adults who believe … More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court to Hear Catholic Charity’s Bid for Tax Exemption

      by

      The justices agreed to hear an appeal from a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that the charity’s activities were insufficiently religious to qualify.The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether Wisconsin was free to deny a tax exemption to a Catholic charity on the grounds that its activities were not primarily religious.The court has been notably receptive to arguments from religious groups, and the new case will give the justices another opportunity to explore the limits of the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.The case concerns a Wisconsin law that exempts religious groups from state unemployment taxes so long as they are “operated primarily for religious purposes.”Catholic Charities Bureau, the social ministry of the Catholic Diocese in Superior, Wis., has said its mission is to provide “services to the poor and disadvantaged as an expression of the social ministry of the Catholic Church.” State officials determined that the charity did not qualify for the exemption because it “provides essentially secular services and engages in activities that are not religious per se.”The Wisconsin Supreme Court said it accepted the charity’s contention that its services were “based on Gospel values and the principles of the Catholic social teachings.” But the court ruled that the group’s activities were “primarily charitable and secular” and did not “attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees.”The court added that “both employment with the organizations and services offered by the organizations are open to all participants regardless of religion.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Tony Campolo, Preacher Who Challenged Religious Right, Dies at 89

      by

      A mesmerizing speaker, he urged his fellow evangelicals to turn away from politics in favor of the values of charity and love espoused by Jesus.The Rev. Tony Campolo, one of the most influential evangelical preachers of the past half century, who urged Christians to resist the strong political tug of the religious right and to affirm that their faith called them, first and foremost, to fight poverty and racism, died on Nov. 19 at his home in Bryn Mawr, Pa. He was 89.The cause was heart failure, his son, Bart, said.With a mesmerizing speaking style that combined humor, passion, worldliness and Scripture, Dr. Campolo in his prime addressed 500 or more audiences a year, at churches and conferences, often challenging the hegemony of the Christian right that aligned white evangelicals with the Republican Party.He was a founder of Red Letter Christians, a movement that urges evangelicals to turn away from politics in favor of the values of charity and love preached by Jesus, whose words are printed in red in some editions of the Bible.His lodestar was Chapter 25 in the book of Matthew, which warns that Christ will judge his followers by the compassion they showed to “the least of these” among humanity.“While you were sleeping last night,” Dr. Campolo would tell audiences, “30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition.”“Most of you don’t give a shit,” he added.“What’s worse,” he’d say, building on the shock value, “is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said ‘shit’ than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Theologian Who Changed His Mind About Gay Marriage

      by

      I’ve spent my life in politics, but faith has been most central to shaping who I am. My conversations with people of faith have been among the most enriching of my life. Richard Hays, an ordained minister who is an emeritus professor at Duke Divinity School, is one of the world’s leading New Testament theologians. In 1996 he wrote “The Moral Vision of the New Testament,” in which he argued that gay and lesbian sexual relationships distort God’s created order and that churches should not bless same-sex unions. In his new book, “The Widening of God’s Mercy,” written with his son Christopher Hays, Richard Hays says he was wrong. I spoke to Richard Hays about his journey and what changed his mind. This conversation, which has been lightly edited, is the first of what I hope will be a series exploring the world of faith.1. A Different Way of Looking at How God Sees Gay RelationshipsPeter Wehner: You now hold an affirming view, the belief that gay relationships are not sinful and that sexual orientation and gender identity are not justification for exclusion from church membership or leadership. You had a very different view in 1996 when you wrote “The Moral Vision of the New Testament.” What do you see now that you didn’t see in 1996, and what would Richard Hays circa 2024 say to his younger self?Richard Hays: What I see now has been over the last 10 to 15 years, the experience of having gay and lesbian students in my classes, when I was still teaching, who were very clearly committed to the church and to Christian faith and who were seeking conscientiously how best to serve going forward. That couldn’t help but make an impression on me.And the other thing closely related to that is that in my own experience in the church, I saw church members who were not theological students or anything like that but who were exercising roles of gracious and meaningful leadership.The other thing that I’ve seen is that in the conservative evangelical churches, there was a kind of smug hostility toward gay and lesbian people, and the attitudes that I was encountering there didn’t seem to me consonant with the New Testament’s portrayal of what people seeking to follow Jesus should be like. That they should be patient, kind, generous. And I didn’t see that.I saw ugly condescension in those churches where that was the strongly held view. And the most dismaying thing about that is that people who were manifesting those attitudes were appealing to my book as a justification, which I actually think means they didn’t read my book very carefully. Because back in 1996, at the time when gay marriage was illegal in the United States and forbidden in just about every church, with maybe one or two exceptions, I saw that chapter as, in part, making an appeal for people to be graciously accepting of gay folks.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Curious Case of a Temple Sweet: How Food Increasingly Divides India

      by

      A Hindu politician has accused his Christian predecessor of allowing a temple’s sanctity to be violated with an animal product.It was a sensational charge in a country where food is yet another marker of political, religious and caste divides.For centuries, the Tirupati temple in the south Indian state of Andhra Pradesh has given laddu, a ball-shaped sweet, to devotees. The temple is the richest Hindu holy site in the world, with revenues each year of hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is spending about a million dollars a month just on ghee to fry the laddu in, according to M.K. Jagadish, an official at a state-owned dairy.Last month, the state’s newly elected chief minister, a Hindu named N. Chandrababu Naidu, accused his Christian predecessor of allowing the temple’s laddu to be made in ghee, a clarified butter, that was adulterated with other animal fats. A majority of the temple’s devotees are vegetarian; Mr. Naidu’s allegation called into question the sanctity of the temple itself.The case of the temple sweet shows how India’s food cultures have become increasingly politicized. In a nation where cows are viewed as sacred by most Hindus, many states have banned the slaughter of cows and made the transportation of beef a punishable offense. In some, even the cooking of eggs has drawn official condemnation. Restaurants are closely monitored for any mixing of vegetarian and nonvegetarian food. Some states have ordered the owners of food stalls to display their names clearly so consumers are aware of their religious and caste identity.Cultural sensitivities surrounding food are not new in India. The Indian Rebellion of 1857 against the British was ignited by allegations that rifle cartridges, which had to be manually loaded by biting off the end, were greased in beef tallow and pig fat, antagonizing both Hindu and Muslim soldiers in the British Army.But the politicization of food has become more pervasive with the rise of Hindu nationalism under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Vegetarianism and cow protection are now a staple of the political discourse. Mere accusations of eating or transporting beef — mostly against Muslims — can result in lynchings by cow-protection vigilantes and right-wing organizations.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More