Posted on 02/13/2013 5:33:44 AM PST by NYer
Because the Roman Catholic Church adamantly defends life in the womb, the oldest and most infirm and the institution of marriage, it has legions of foes spread throughout major media. Those critics will surface repeatedly between now and the selection of the new pope to use the occasion to sling their stones. It is a fun time, really, since they know almost nothing of which they speak, and their agenda journalism is of so little consequence unlike the MSM's recent interventions in the presidential election.
There are very good commentators on the Church and the proceedings at the Vatican, and they include Father Robert Barron, Father Joseph Fessio, Father C.J. McCloskey, Father Robert Sirico, Father Robert Spitzer and Benedict and John Paul II biographer George Weigel to name just six. There are others, though these scholars and very savvy media commentators are at the very top echelon of Americans who can offer genuine insight and commentary on this extraordinarily important moment in the life of the Church and the world it serves. Many protestant leaders, like Dr. Albert Mohler, can offer very informed judgments on the role of the Church in the world.
But do beware of lefty, ill-informed, or simply outright anti-Catholic "journalists" dressing up their agendas as "reporting," and attach zero importance to location of the byline being Rome.
Today's lead piece on the succession in the New York Times is a perfect example. Authored by Rachel Donadio and Elisabetta Povoledo, and originating in Vatican City, it contains this whopper of a paragraph:
The resignation sets up a struggle between the staunchest conservatives, in Benedict’s mold, who advocate a smaller church of more fervent believers, and those who believe that the church can broaden its appeal in small but significant ways, like allowing divorced Catholics who remarry without an annulment to receive communion or loosening restrictions on condom use in an effort to prevent AIDS. There are no plausible candidates who would move on issues like ending celibacy for priests, or the ordination of women.
This is so silly a paragraph as to rank in some annual competition for naked bias somewhere.
Note these two reporters do not cite a single name of one of those staunch conservatives, nor of a cardinal or even an advisor to a cardinal who wants to allow divorced Catholics who remarry without annulment to receive communion.
They made up this "struggle" because they either do not know or do not want to report on the real issues facing the Church. If even one cardinal can be quoted saying he wants a smaller church of more fervent believers, I'll send the reporters roses, but it is just absurdity with a byline, passed on by at best ignorant editors.
Lousy, biased reporting like this is going to be a regular, indeed daily event for the next many weeks as folks who know very little and who refuse to ask those who do know much write vast amounts of copy. Skip it all except for the op-eds from folks like those I have cited, and just read John Allen in the National Catholic Reporter if you want facts.
Excellent question. Also why do so many of them believe in evolution?
I'm not sure I agree that his resignation was motivated by his ability to influence his successor. Eventually, that trust would be left to God and the Church over which he was a steward. At some point in our lives, even at the hour of our deaths, we no longer are in control of earthly things. Having input over his successor is one thing, but what about his successor's successor?
That's in the hands of his successor.
Maybe, or maybe not. Eventually, Benedict will have little influence on future Popes, other than their memory of him.
You seem to be creating a straw man to knock down.
Show me what I said that implied Benny was trying to choose all future Popes?
Half my family is Roman Catholic, and they voted for Obama by in large because he was better for “the poor”. No real knowledge of anything else.
A few were so shocked about his abortion stance that they repented of that vote, but others just told me and my Catholic mother in law that we are lying.
Tribal identity.
I guess I don’t understand some other Catholic families. If anyone in my family expressed support for an abortionist homo enabler pissedent there’d be a Dorner-style conflagration to follow.
I'm not trying to create a straw man; what I'm suggesting is the futility in such a deliberate action. He's chosen to resign. What good does it serve to do so, just to influence his immediate successor? What he'd be saying is that "I don't trust my cardinals, I don't trust who they might pick were I to die or become so incapacitated that I couldn't influence them."
So my question to you was, if he could not influence future Popes, what difference would it make to influence his successor?
“The group of homosexual and transgender Catholics stated the next pope should step away from an emphasis on “purity.””
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2987836/posts
“The viciousness and the hate will soon come out.”
The viciousness and hate has already come out here on FR, unfortunately. Some of the comments I was reading on Monday on the initial thread were disgusting. There’s a lot of hatred out there for Catholics and all things Catholic. :-(
So if I can't influence a thousand years from now, I shouldn't try to influence tomorrow?
50-48... actually is not bad considering the vast majority of Catholics live in the Northeast and the ratios are very low across the South. Also, Romney won heavily with Catholics that attend mass weekly. Looks like Obama won with the Snooki/JWOWW “Catholics” by enough to offset those of us that actually attempt to live the Word.
On the whole, those attending church weekly selected the Republican over Obama 59 percent to 29 percent. The problem is also the fact that Soros has spent millions distorting the church’s message. He has created organizations, that call themselves Catholic, and are really Soros agents.
Then there is the fact that libs managed to distort republicans message as immigrant hating, intolerant, and uncaring. Every time an immigration issue comes up, certain people turn into rabid dogs, and it’s scary to witness. Liberals truly know how to bring out the ugly in some people. We are a nation of immigrants. Catholics didn’t arrive on ships that landed in Salem, and we didn’t come on the Mayflower. Reagan managed to be all inclusive and he won. He welcomed Hispanics, and he liked Catholics. We all loved him.
A few were so shocked about his abortion stance that they repented of that vote, but others just told me and my Catholic mother in law that we are lying.
How in God's name do people arrive at this point? Someone please give me a valid answer.
Keep in mind what Jesus said:
“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 7:21
Along those lines, we can certainly also truthfully say, "Not every one who says they are Catholic are real, genuine Catholics, who are trying their very best to faithfully follow ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church."
(Think of all the pro-abortion, pro-so-called-homosexual-marriage, pro-euthanasia, pro-assisted-suicide, anti-religious-freedom, anti-Catholic "CINO's", such as Biden, Sebelius, Pelosi, etc.)
It is a cultural thing. Many Catholics view the Democratic party as the most “kind for the poor”, or as the party they have always voted for.
brainwashed Democrats first, Catholics second....there are far too many of these, and the church is far too silent on the problem.
Denial of reality. It’s that simple.
Lutheran Satire provides a pretty accurate depiction of how the liberal press reports on the Roman Catholic Church-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87vo2jkmJUg
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.