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Note these two reporters do not cite a single name of one of those staunch conservatives, nor of a cardinal or even an advisor to a cardinal who wants to allow divorced Catholics who remarry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.
Posted as an affirmation of what we know to expect .. AND .. of the mistakes even the purportedly less biased reporters can make. While John Allen occasionally sticks to orthodox catholic reporting, The National Catholic Reporter is the LAST place for factual information.
The viciousness and the hate will soon come out. These people hate the Pope because the Church opposes gay “marriage”, abortion, sex “change” operations, and all the other aberrations of the left.
Every station seems to dig up some lesbian-looking nun to tell us how horrid and backward the popes have been.
Isn’t it ridiculous that in the media homosexuals are treated as a noble protected group, and Catholics are the deviant whipping boards? They recycle cases of abuse years later as front page news. Even the Pope’e humble retirement decision, was excuse to add needless adjectives such as “scandal” and “pedophile”. Can’t say I hear those terms associated with homosexuals. It is so distorted that you would never know that sexual abuse is statistically no more common in Catholic institutions than in any other, actually less so. They don’t scandalize other churches, mosques, temples, schools, etc, not because human sin is less prevalent, it is because they are less relevant in this battle for truth.
Yet, the Church, meaning its people, will vote to elect a president that supports just those things.
Unfortunately, I’ve already seen some of that anti-Catholic attitude right here on FreeRepublic.
(We have a great deal of praying to do....against ignorance as much as against hatred.)
Repeating lies. In this election Catholics voted no differently than other Christian groups. What part of election fraud didn’t you get?
See the post above yours
See the post above yours
I Freep mailed a warning to a number of people on the day the announcement was made, sorry I didn't include you.
If he's dead, he has no control over it.
Indeed, the usual proces is for the media to lecture the Cardinals about exactly what type of Pope the Church.
Then when the new Pope is announced, they are flipped out shocked that the Cardinals picked a Catholic instead.
Yet, the Church, meaning its people, will vote to elect a president ...
_________________________
NO, only those who are *cafeteria Catholics* will do such a thing. That is why Pope Benedict called for a re-evangelization of such Catholics. There are also SOME who are absolutely ignorant of current events. They are just too busy with their jobs and daily demands. I personally know of one such Catholic who truly did not even know that Obama was pro-abortion. I shared lots of factual information with this person and the same person did not vote for him a second time....but there are others who are similarly ignorant.
>>will vote to elect a president that supports just those things.<<
Right?
Just wondering WHY so many catholics in the Northeast voted for Obama. Honest question...why?
Thank you for a profound post. The media agenda is to promote aberrant behavior as normal. They lambasted the Boy Scouts of America for their policy of refusing to admit homosexuals yet failed to report that a former Boy Scout leader, has been charged with sodomizing a boy under 13 years of age in his troop. The Boy Scouts should learn the lessons of the Canadian Scouts. If this is what can happen with a ban in place, imagine the ramifications of lifting that ban!
We do well to spend this holy season of Lent focusing on Christ and asking to the Holy Spirit to guide the cardinals in selecting the pope's successor. God bless you!
I shall introduce these anti-Catholics to the back of my hand.
The Holy Father named a huge number of those currently srving in the College of Cardinals. That will be the effect he has on the conclave.
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.