CNN Sanitizes Blogger Post Calling for Early Death of Benedict XVI

Inside Politics - CNN | governsleast governsbest

[governsleastgovernsbest]

A few minutes ago, CNN's Inside Politics aired its daily blog segment, and the focus was naturally on reaction to the election of Benedict XVI.

One of the hostettes cited a blog entry from "a gay man in Tennessee," and his entry could be seen on the screen. The hostette read the part in which the man wrote something to the effect "leave it to the Church to find someone to the right of JPII. Can't wait till he starts bashing women, gays, etc."

But the CNN hostette conveniently failed to read the remainder of the man's post, which astute viewers could see on the screen:

"The good news is that Ratzinger is 78 and should die soon."

I would say that this kind of vile sentiment is at least as newsworthy as this man's musings on Benedict's policy positions. Yet CNN chose to suppress it. Gee, I wonder why?

[weegee]

Odds are even greater that, as with Michael Savage's phoney "gay" caller, this blogger was just an angry 20-something liberal nutcase who wasn't even homosexual.

They don't say such things to taint the homosexual agenda, they hide under a crossdresser's skirt to be protected by the shield of political correctness.

[Mark in the Old South]

Glad you appreciate it but just for those Demoncrats who may be lurking it is not that I expect Pope Benedict XVI to bash women but I fully expect them to characterize anything he says in that light. Such as No women priests = bashing women; praising the modesty of St Mary = bashing loud brassy women; advising against the gay lifestyle = bashing lap licking women. and on and on it will go.

[Hi Heels]

I agree with you on all points. And frankly, as a minister myself, I don't think the church has any business directing or trying to influence politics. But I do think that this wouldn't be an issue if the MSM didn't stand outside the vatican waiting for the Pope's opinion. Then they use only the parts of that opinion that serve their agenda and broadcast it all over the world. They are not just adding to the problem.... they are promoting it.

Until a Pope arrives that doesn't support the opinion of the liberal press, this will continue. At that point we may have the quietest Pope ever. It reminds me of that headline, "Bianca Jagger supports John Kerry." With all due respect to the Pope, I don't CARE what his opinion is of US politics and just don't understand why it's an issue. There is so much work to do as a church leader these days. That should be the priority.

[OriginalChristian]

The Church never will.
Its the Cardinal's and the Pope's sworn duty to uphold and teach the Catholic faith as it comes to us from the Apostles.

There will never be women priests. Homosexual acts will never be seen as normal. The Church is not a Democracy? When did Christ take a poll of the Apostles to determine his next action?

Its amazing what these people think the Church is. Simply amazing.

[notthat]

Well, since it's my blog, I suppose I'm best suited to comment on what I wrote.

Frankly, those of you who complained that my hoping that the new pope would die an early death was a tasteless sentiment to express were right. I fully agree. I let my anger at Pope Benedict's past policies get the better of me, and I lashed out with a bit of hyperbole. I assure you that I don't actually wish death on the pope. Despite my disagreements with his policy stands, I respect the fact that he's dedicated his life to serving God. But I inartfully expressed my opinion that he wasn't the best man for this particular job, and I've since revised that post.

And for the record, I am not a godless, freedom-hating liberal. Well, some may disagree with the former, given my sexual orientation, but I can at least aver that I don't hate freedom. Most liberals don't, y'know. Perhaps we should all tone down the hyperbolic rhetoric a bit.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I respect the fact that you went to the trouble of joining FR, responding in a reasoned way and acknowledging that your original comments were over the top.

I can't agree with your notion that most liberals don't hate freedom. At the least I'd say they have an aversion to it. Whereas conservatives believe in limiting the power of the state and preserving maximum freedom for the individual, liberals want to empower the state, and that can only come at the expense of individul freedom.

As to your disagreements with PB's policy stands and your view that he wasn't the best man for the job: since I'm not a Catholic, I don't have any particular stake in his policy positions.

But as an intellectual matter, as a question of logic, I don't understand how you can expect a church which sees itself as the purveyor of eternal, unchangeable truths to pull a Roseanne Rosannadanna and suddenly proclaim: "all that stuff about abortion and homosexuality - never mind."

[notthat]

I'm assuming you didn't vote for Bush in November, then? Because I don't understand how a true conservative, one who believes in "limiting the power of the state" and "preserving maximum freedom for the individual" could possibly find that in this administration. I myself used to be Republican, but I figured if I was going to have to vote for a big government candidate, I should at least vote for the side that didn't hate gay people.

I certainly don't want the Catholic Church to endorse abortion any time soon (I'm pro-life), but their position on homosexuality has changed just in the last 25 years (JP2 acknowledged it as being something that we don't choose), though I don't expect the Church to endorse gay marriage, either. But as Andrew Sullivan has noted, the Church has gone a long way in the last few years to stifle debate on any policies or doctrines, and I just don't think that's healthy for an institution, especially not one that claims over a billion followers and is seen as the very public face of Christianity.

All institutions evolve and change, and the Catholic Church has been no exception. And I agree with you that there are certain "eternal truths" that shouldn't be changed (pretty much anything from the Nicene Creed, for example). But I think many of the institutional processes that have been tied to those truths are just daffy, like the ban on contraception.

Nice Roseanne Roseannadanna reference, though.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I happily voted for Bush. Yes, he favors much more government than I'd like, but surely much less than Kerry. In my view he was an infinitely better choice than Kerry on both foreign and domestic issues, and a better human being to boot.

As to the policies of the Church: sounds like we're not that far apart. But many critics of this Pope and the JP II apparently DO want the Church to alter its understanding of eternal truths.

[notthat]

While we're going to have to agree to respectfully disagree on the big government thing, I am curious as to what makes Bush a better human being than Kerry. I'm not asking to be sarcastic; I'm legitimately interested in what you think on this point.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Bush strikes me as sincere. Someone who had a wild young adulthood, found a good woman, found God, settled down, and is decent, honest and consistent.

Kerry strikes me as phony, vainglorious, snobby and condescending. Someone who sought an annulment declaring his first marriage, in which he had children, a nullity. Someone who probably married for money.