Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ABC Pushes Anti-Catholic "Pope Joan" Tale
Newsbusters.org ^ | 28 December 2005 | Dave Pierre

Posted on 12/28/2005 10:48:42 AM PST by infoguy

Check out the promotional ad for this Thursday evening's (December 29, 2005) episode of ABC's Primetime. The promo is for the story, "On the Trail of Pope Joan" (audiotape on file; emphasis mine):

"Diane Sawyer takes you on the trail of a passionate mystery. Just as intriguing as The Da Vinci Code. Chasing down centuries-old clues hidden even inside the Vatican. Could a woman disguised as a man have been Pope? Thursday night. One astonishing Primetime."

It doesn't get much uglier than this, folks. Quite simply, there was never a female pope, or "Pope Joan." The tale is a complete fabrication dating back to the 13th century - nearly 400 years after the reported "reign" of the so-called "Joan." For reliable summaries of the bogus tale, see this and this. Scholars debunked the fable hundreds of years ago, and recent books (this and this, for example) have further repudiated it.

Over the centuries, the "Pope Joan" story has been used as a slanderous tool to tarnish the Catholic Church and degrade Catholics. In his acclaimed 2003 book The New Anti-Catholicism, Philip Jenkins writes, "The Pope Joan legend is a venerable staple of the anti-Catholic mythology" (page 89). Jenkins adds,

"Though it has not the slightest foundation ... [f]rom the sixteenth century through the nineteenth, the tale was beloved by Protestants, since it testified to Catholic stupidity ... [Today] Pope Joan enjoys a lively presence on the Web, where feminist anti-Catholics celebrate her existence much as did seventeenth-century Calvinists" (page 89).

That a major network like ABC would lend credibility to such a vicious anti-Catholic smear is deplorable.

What could be worse? Donna Woolfolk Cross' novel, Pope Joan, seeks to advance the stature and validity of the fictional character, and a movie of this book is currently in production. Yikes.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abc; abcnews; anticatholic; boobtube; catholic; catholicchurch; christianity; christians; dianesawyer; disneynews; fakebutaccurate; feminazis; hollyweird; jesushaters; legend; liberalbigots; makingitup; mediabias; pope; popejoan; primetime; religion; religiousintolerance; sewerpipe; urbanrumor; waltsrotatingcorpse; zogbyism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-209 next last
To: carton253

No, not defensive at all.

Not in the least. I just think you are trolling by this point, searching for an argument that you, yourself, have already fluffed into a larger issue than it might be, but that it represents a crises of your belief system, not anyone else's.


181 posted on 12/29/2005 2:43:25 PM PST by MillerCreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: carton253

And, at this point, I have written about minutae to the point of nonsense with you and I don't believe you are valuing any discussion here but are into emotional territory that, again, suggests that your internal questions are somewhat in turmoil. And, thus, anyone attempting to interact with you as to issues you raise will receive your projected difficulty.

Like or do not like the Catholic church, agree or do not agree with Holy Scripture. Believe or do not believe the words of Jesus Christ as they are recorded in that Scripture. Your choice, your decisions. The church, the Scripture, Jesus Christ...will remain constant and will not dissolve nor disappear contingent upon your lack of faith.

But I've got to get some sleep and will say some prayers for FR in religious quandray, and that includes you. So, good morning and good night.


182 posted on 12/29/2005 2:47:07 PM PST by MillerCreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Prove its a lie, schmuck!


183 posted on 12/29/2005 3:35:03 PM PST by Bommer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Bommer

I don't need to prove it is a lie. I cannot prove a negative. Also, your fable has been demonstrated to be groundless and false by greater authorities on the subject...and the links are in this thread.

You continue to lie, proving again that BOMMER IS A LIAR.

You throw pathetic insults at me, betraying the weakness of your position, but you cannot address your LIES.

There is a strong tradition on Free Republic regarding the truth. Liars are eventually caught and squashed. Keep spreading you BS and you will be gone too, because the lies you spread are filthy.


184 posted on 12/29/2005 4:14:02 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: billbears
So what if there was a woman pope? It wouldn't be the end of the world and it wouldn't have any affect whatsoever on Christian beliefs.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Church accepted that there was a Popess Joan for several hundred years until research showed it almost certainly was a myth.

185 posted on 12/29/2005 5:20:06 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MillerCreek

I do not reject those statements at all. And that verse has already been discussed. I'm just not small minded enough to think that Christ was speaking about Peter but rather his faith in Christ that was the Rock the church would be built on. Of course if you want to believe that the Church of Christ was built on a single man instead of faith in Christ, be my guest.


186 posted on 12/29/2005 5:55:57 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Can't prove a negative, but can prove that I'm a liar with no factsto back up your petty little mind? Shame! Guess the only thing you've proven yourself to be is an idiot with a big mouth! That BTW is a fact! LOL!!!!!


187 posted on 12/29/2005 6:37:00 PM PST by Bommer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: infoguy
There is no reason for this other than a lack of common decency. Lack of good old fashioned consideration for others.

Those elites think it's fine to use other people's religions for their own gain and amusement. If nothing else, I think if they piss us off then they've accomplished something.

188 posted on 12/29/2005 6:40:28 PM PST by rvoitier ("Democrats are the only reason to vote for Republicans." -- Dr. Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bommer

You have posited a theory.

I have called your theory a lie and you a liar for failing to prove it.

You have NOT proven your theory.

You ARE a LIAR.


189 posted on 12/29/2005 6:42:01 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident

They should do something on how Mad Mo married a 6 year old girl and consummated his "marriage" when she turned 9. Wait, unlike the Pope Joan fable, that's NOT a lie.....


190 posted on 12/29/2005 8:53:49 PM PST by Cronos (Never forget 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Sources?

  1. Herman Ridderbos (Dutch Reformed), Bible Students Commentary: Matthew (Zondervan, 1987) p. 303
  2. R. T. France (Anglican), Gospel According to Matthew (Eerdmans, 1985) p 254
  3. Friedrich, Gerhard and Bromley, Geoffrey, Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT (Eerdmans, 1968), pp 98-99, 108.
  4. Maier, Gerhard (Lutheran?) "The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate" in D. A. Carson, editor, Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context (Paternoster Press, 1984) p. 60
  5. Gaebelein, Frank, et al., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke) (Zondervan, 1984), p. 368.
  6. Carson, Donald A., Matthew, in Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary -- New Testament, vol 2 (Zondervan, 1994), p. 78.
I have more than that.

Christ was promising that to all of us when He made that statement.

Nonsense, and I think you know it's nonsense. "Bind and loose" is rabbinic terminology for "the power to make binding decisions concerning something". The power to bind and loose is further granted to the rest of the Apostles in Matthew 18. It is nowhere granted to everyone; that wouldn't even make sense unless you think God is an anarchist.

And the "keys" hearken back to Isaiah 22:22, which is the where they are described as the emblems of power of the "grand vizier" or royal chamberlain of the Davidic monarchy. There's no possibility that they can be seen as anything but a grant of authority to Peter, personally.

Besides, Christ is speaking to Peter, using the second person singular pronoun, not to all of the Apostles, and not to all believers in general.

191 posted on 12/29/2005 9:22:47 PM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
1) It isn't MY theory, which proves you are one of limited intelligence! I posted one of thousands of posts on Pope Joan. If you possessed any computer skills to do a Google search on Pope Joan, you could spend many years slandering all others that are posting the same information. But since that would call for an intelligent rebuttal of facts to PROVE they are wrong, your out of your league in the debate!

2) You can't refute what has been circulating for hundreds of years to put it to bed once and for all!

3) One can only be a LIAR if one is refuted with concrete proof to prove the lie! Since you CAN'T do that, nor can the Vatican, your obviously one of limited brains and a big mouth! But to save you time, since thinking isn't your forte' I'm a liar and your a Clueless Dullard. Happy?

192 posted on 12/29/2005 9:56:18 PM PST by Bommer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: billbears; wideawake
Again, who cares ?!? This is no more an 'attack' on Christianity than it would be to air out the closets of some televangelists. The message of Jesus Christ will still be spread after the fact and people will still come to a personal relationship with Him. The fact whether or not some dude may have been a lady 1000 years ago doesn't affect my belief in Jesus Christ one iota.

The problem is that it's not just whether a dude looks like a lady (apologies to Aerosmith!), but the fact that ABC will spin this to point out that the Church lies (and they'll use that to impugn ALL Christian groups) as we've seen with the tele-evangelist issues. But this is bigger -- this goes back to a time when the Church was one -- the Eastern Orthodox and the Western Catholic hadn't split and it was waaay before the Protestants.
193 posted on 12/29/2005 9:57:04 PM PST by Cronos (Never forget 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

well, I think at the last count there were something like 2.5 billion Christians in the world with 300 million Orthodox, 250~300 million Protestants, 50 million Oriental Church Christians and the remaining as Catholic.


194 posted on 12/29/2005 10:21:28 PM PST by Cronos (Never forget 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: infoguy

I watched it, I'm Catholic, I didn't see anything wrong with it, except that they could have done it all in 30 minutes.

My church is not without investigation, and its an interesting story.


195 posted on 12/29/2005 10:23:02 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser (What would Jesus do......for a Klondike bar?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
We're not talking about the world, we're talking about this nation of states.

In the US, Catholics form 45% of the church-going population -- that was in the posting itself.
196 posted on 12/29/2005 10:39:20 PM PST by Cronos (Never forget 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
The Protestants are a result of Paul's teaching...

Nope, the Protestants are a result of Luther, Calvin's teachings.
197 posted on 12/29/2005 10:42:12 PM PST by Cronos (Never forget 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: MillerCreek
You must have me confused with someone else. You've posted to me once... and that post did not include minutae to the point of nonsense with you . Your post to me was quite simply to ask me if I was Catholic, and if I am not how do I know anything... which didn't answer the question in my original post to you.

Furthermore, last time I looked, I hadn't shipped off into emotional territory and my internal questions aren't in turmoil. In fact, I'm pretty well grounded in the questions that I asked you.

And, thus, anyone attempting to interact with you as to issues you raise will receive your projected difficulty.

Do I even want to know what you mean by that psycho babble. I just asked you a simple question... It only takes a simple answer.

Like or do not like the Catholic church, agree or do not agree with Holy Scripture. Believe or do not believe the words of Jesus Christ as they are recorded in that Scripture. Your choice, your decisions. The church, the Scripture, Jesus Christ...will remain constant and will not dissolve nor disappear contingent upon your lack of faith.

Again, I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't think I let you know how I felt about the Catholic church, my question didn't let you know whether or not I agree with the Holy Scripture or the words of Jesus Christ. And as for my faith... shame on you for even thinking that your refusal to answer my question determines whether I have faith or not...

It's one thing not to have an answer to my question... no harm, no foul in that... it's a whole other to attack a poster because you have some made up rationale as to why I posted in the first place.

So, just in case you forgot what I posted, let me remind you... "Are you saying that today's Catholic Church (or any denomination for that matter) is equal to what Peter built in the first century?

198 posted on 12/30/2005 12:28:33 AM PST by carton253 (Al-Qa'eda are not the Viet Cong. If you exit, they'll follow. And Americans will die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
I watched it, I'm Catholic, I didn't see anything wrong with it

What's wrong with it is that it is a settled fact of history that there never was a Pope Joan and that the whole thing was a complete myth.

The show treats it as if it were an open question when it isn't.

It's the liberal media using blatant misrepresentation to discredit an institution they don't like, and it's part of a strategy.

My church is not without investigation

There are plenty of legitimate historical and contemporary things to investigate the Church over, but this is complete hogwash.

It would like saying that George Bush needs serious investigation and, as a result, we are doing a hardhitting report into whether Bill Clinton did drugs when he was playing piano for Louis Armstrong in the 1920s.

199 posted on 12/30/2005 5:34:33 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
We built nothing. Christ himself built His Church upon St. Peter--the Rock.

I find this topic and conversation quite interesting...

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

As I see it looking at this in context, Jesus asked the entire group who they thought He was...Simon Bar-Jona spoke up first and echoed what was obviously the perception of the entire group...

And Jesus says to Simon, You are Peter (which means what??? Stone, or little rock, or something to that effect?)...

One could suppose that Jesus then walks up to Peter and puts His arm around him to signify to the rest of the group when he then says, and upon 'this' (little) rock, I will build my church...But then maybe not...

Jesus was the big rock, the rock of offense...He knew it...They knew it...They were all familiar with the Old Testament...
But I suspect Jesus was pointing at Himself when he said, and upon 'this' (exceedingly large) rock, I will but my church, contrasting Himself with Peter ...He didn't say 'upon you, or upon Peter'...They knew who THE rock was...

And immediately after, Peter was severely rebuked as a doubting Thomas and even called Satan...

And as we see, Jesus is talking about a future church...And Peter preached...And people were saved under his ministry, and filled with the Holy Spirit...And he baptised them after they were filled with the Spirit...

And then Paul shows up...And God shows Paul the mystery of the church...

200 posted on 12/30/2005 5:45:01 AM PST by Iscool (Start your own revolution by voting for the candidates the media (and gov't) tells you cannot win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-209 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson