Pope Francis's defense of doctrine sends the Associated Press spinning

http://www.getreligion.org ^ | November 18, 2014 | Dawn Eden

[NKP_Vet]

A colleague offers the following capsule summary of Associated Press reporter Nicole Winfield's latest report on Pope Francis, in which the pontiff's defense of traditional church teaching seems to baffle the Vatican correspondent:

Francis is a RADICAL – no, no, sorry about that–he is now a conservative who sounds just like Benedict -- NO, WAIT -- he really is a liberal at heart, but he is being FORCED by those evil, evil right-wing conservatives to cave--he is at WAR with his own CDF chief (you know, the one he re-confirmed -- but never mind) -- AT WAR, I TELL YOU!

I thought he was exaggerating – until I read the actual story. "Pope Reinforces Traditional Family Values" is a classic example of the kind of story that makes us at GetReligion ask, "What is this?" Is it meant to be hard-news journalism, or is it meant to be advocacy or commentary? And if it's commentary, or analysis, why is it not labeled as such? Why is the AP selling it to news outlets as straight reporting?

Here's the lede:

VATICAN CITY – Pope Francis is seeking to reassure the church's right-wing base that he's not a renegade bent on changing church doctrine on family issues – weeks after a Vatican meeting of bishops initially proposed a radical welcome for gays and divorced Catholics.

Give the AP credit at least for not beating around the bush. Winfield, or her editor, is telling us upfront that, in the AP's eyes, Catholics who uphold church doctrine are "right-wing." The AP well knows that "right-wing" is a loaded political term. As I wrote in this space when USA Today labeled the late Rev. Benedict Groeschel "conservative,"

Basically, is someone a conservative for defending church doctrines? So moderates are for changing doctrine and liberals are for changing doctrine really fast? What do these words mean, in debates about doctrine?

The AP story continues:

Francis on Monday opened an interreligious conference on the "complementarity" of men and women in marriage and sex. He said marriage between a man and woman is a "fundamental pillar" of society and that children have the right to grow up with a mother and father.

It was the second papal speech emphasizing church doctrine in as many days: On Saturday, Francis pronounced some of his strongest words yet against abortion, euthanasia and in vitro fertilization, sounding more like his predecessor, Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, than the Argentine Jesuit who famously said "Who am I to judge?" about gays.

It really does sound as though Winfield is trying to wrap her head around the fact that the pope is Catholic. I have written in this space before about the befuddlement that takes place among mainstream news reporters when Francis doesn't fit the "progressive" image that they have carved out for him. We see that clearly as the AP fumbles to explain the pope's straying off his supposed liberal talking points:

Vatican officials concurred that the interventions could be read as a response to the conservative backlash that erupted after the recent meeting of the world's bishops on family issues.

What officials? The AP doesn't say. I haven't seen any other news outlet report a similar comment from "Vatican officials." And why is the AP characterizing Francis's statements as "interventions," as though the pope violently inserted them into his own papal discourse, like some bizarre right-wing version of Tourette syndrome?

The rest of the story includes the bizarre reference to the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that was noted by my colleague:

The conference is being organized by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, whose conservative prefect, Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, helped lead opposition to Francis' radical agenda at the synod.

So the AP is now pitting the "conservative" prefect of the CDF against the pope's "radical agenda." Seriously, what is this? Pope Francis himself confirmed Muller in his job. To claim that the pope's own doctrinal head is locked in an ideological battle with him is a serious charge. And how can Pope Francis have a "radical agenda," if he speaks in favor of traditional Catholic doctrine on marriage, abortion, euthanasia, and IVF? If this story is truly intended as reporting, and not analysis, then the AP's spin machine has officially gone off the rails.

[cloudmountain]

Good points, all. I love that about the Mass. Also the Rosary. I have heard the Mass in Latin, Italian, Polish and Spanish. I could follow it fine.
It IS easy to follow because it's the same celebration we've attended THOUSANDS of times over our lives. It is MOST comforting, yet still extraordinarily special after all these decades.

I mentioned the Rosary because I have a CD of Saint John Paul II praying the Rosary in Latin. So now I kid that I can say the Rosary in Latin with a slight Polish accent. :)
That works, since God created our abilities to communicate, even in Polish. :o)

[defconw]

Polish is a hard language. I have tried to learn a bit here and there. At this point in my life I have no desire to leave the United States to travel. But if I ever did decide to The Vatican and Poland would be my choice.

I really connected with Saint John Paul II, just like so many others my age. Still miss him, even though I know he's watching out for us.

I have some Polish in me. :)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Pope Francis doing foolish things does not make him a heretic. It causes problems for the Church, but this is not heresy, it is personal defect, weakness, limitation.

Pope Benedict wanted to "change things" too (unspecified.) I am assuming he wanted to change the clubby clericalism and curia cronyism (Vatican Bank, fugitive sex offenders, Lavender Mafia and so forth.) "Change" doesn't necessarily mean "I am repudiating my immediate predecessor." Sometimes "cahnge" means "change the same things my predecessors were trying to change." And Francis did specify, in so many words, the fact that the specifically Lavender Mafia should not be tolerated.

That's part of the paragraph that the media never, never, never sees fit to quote.

As for Nancy Pelosi, she needs to be excommunicated in the full, Gothic-lettering-and-gold-leaf, "Bell, Book and Candle" style.

As for what Pope Francis thinks of Raymond Burke: no, we don't know what he's thinking. He gave him a reassignment after his six years at the Signatura, which was fully expected. And his new assignment is one that positioned him to land solidly on his feet. He now has no immediate ecclesiastic superior --- in other words, he doesn't have to run anybody else's errands. He is surrounded by an enthusiastic affinity group of wealthy and influential supporters. They already comprise a Christifideles Brigade, and he's been installed at the head of it.

Burke is now free to write for the popular as well as the academic press in any language, speak in London, celebrate the TLM in Austria, organize in Perth, agitate in Lisbon, publish in Navarre, address conferences in Lagos and Capetown, pray, work, and influence exactly as he is led by the Spirit to do so, and has been richly endowed with all the practical, temporal resources he would need to do just that.

I hardly think Francis is so stupid that he wouldn't realize that. So it falls within either Francis' positive or his permissive will.

BTW, Cardinal Burke has said The Pope has spoken out unambiguously on abortion, contraception, marriage and that he would "Never oppose the Successor of Peter."

So what do you think of Cardinal Burke? A patsy? A pollyanna? A fool?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh, come on, Benedict himself spoke out on many, many, MANY issues other than contraception, baby-killing and buggery, and was never accused of “echoing” Bernardin. You don’t give the Popes (neither Benedict nor Francis) credit for having a comprehensive, Catholic view of morality. Like the Prophets of Israel and the Fathers of the Church, they speak not only to the bedroom, but to the Board Room and the War Room as well.

[BlatherNaut]

I think for some as long as it appears that the big political issues don’t officially change (abortion, etc), then everything is hunky dory.

Either that, or perhaps they deliberately choose to avoid facing unfortunate facts, or at the very least seek to conceal or minimize them. Might this be an indication of a lack of holy detachment and of confidence and abandonment to God, Who knows how to draw good from all things?

[Mrs. Don-o]

If you're going to criticize papal involvement in ecumenical prayer and discussion meetings, you'll have to dedicate your red pen to the histories of Popes John XIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI as well, because they all participated in or convened similar meetings.

It's strange that you find this regrettable. The Humanum conference (LINK), which I think ends tomorrow, was a huge interreligious forum reasserting the complementarity of male and female, contributing to the theological doctrine that marriage is for male and female ONLY, and that it forms a durable bond which is the foundation of human personalty (in the raising of children by father and mother) as well as the foundation of human civilization.

Here's the strongest affirmation of traditional marriage ethic possible. The shared affirmation by Protestants, Orthodox and Jews clearly underlines the fact that this ethic is rooted, not in some peculiarly Catholic interpretation, but in Natural Law: that which reason and good will can discern about what is required for human flourishing.

David Quinn, director of the IONA institute (Irish organization in defense of traditional Catholic doctrines on sex, gender, marriage and family) said, "The conference is obviously an extremely major international gathering about the importance of marriage between a man and a woman." "It's probably the most significant gathering of its kind to date that's been organized by the Church, and specifically by the CDF."

You're not finding this --- the strong affirmation of male/female, husband/wife, father/mother ---- trumpeted in the media now, are you? Of course not. It is marked OMIT as far as they are concerned: DELETE-DELETE-DELETE. Because the media are working on their Narrative, and this is not part of their favored Francis story line. Don't you get that?

Upcoming is another HUGE interreligious meeting: the World Meeting of Families (Philadelphia 2015). Archbishop Chaput, sponsoring the meeting (LINK), said they're not likely to even bring up so-called "gay" "marriage," divorced-and-remarried Communion controversies and so forth, because they were there to affirm traditional marriage and deal with other challenges to marriage such as unemployment, addiction, disabilities, and the damaging effects of divorce.

This traditionalist aspect of the Meeting of Families --- the largest such meeting, probably, in the history of the world --- is not even on the media's radar. Is it on yours?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Absolutely. You’re familiar with the Incarnation?

[Iscool]

1. Perhaps it's their brief visual CONNECTION to a 2000-year-old institution started by Jesus. The Catholic dogma doesn't change so it's a continuity that will ever be the same.

Naw...Your religion started more than 5000 years ago with Nimrod as it's first pope...

[piusv]

If you're going to criticize papal involvement in ecumenical prayer and discussion meetings, you'll have to dedicate your red pen to the histories of Popes John XIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI as well, because they all participated in or convened similar meetings.

Did you mean John XXIII? If so, yes! All popes who invoked, participated, promulgated, supported, and continue to enforce the false teachings of Vatican II! I have been saying that this current crisis in the Church is not just a Francis problem, but a Vatican II Modernist problem.

[piusv]

I’m not sure what your point is here.

[Mrs. Don-o]

“The thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful. It needs nearness, proximity,” he said. "The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules."

Scripture doesn''t say "For Goid so loved the world, He sent a Nook." Still less does it say, "For God so loved the world, He sent the 613 Mitzvot (or the Code of Canon Law)."

It says,"God so loved he world, He sent His son."

Incarnation.

"Get" that, and all the other priorities fall into place in the correct order.

[Mrs. Don-o]

That's "Book," not "Nook."

“The thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful. It needs nearness, proximity,” he said. "The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules."

Scripture doesn''t say "For God so loved the world, He sent a Book." Still less does it say, "For God so loved the world, He sent the 613 Mitzvot (or the Code of Canon Law)."

It says,"God so loved he world, He sent His son."

Incarnation.

"Get" that, and all the other priorities fall into place in the correct order.

[piusv]

Where did he say this along with his small minded rules comment in the interview?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Here's your context from the original article on America (LINK)

Phrases alluding to the Incarnation --- the activities of Our Lord when He came to be with us in he flesh--- bolded (by me):

“I see clearly,” the pope continues, “that the thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds.... And you have to start from the ground up.

“The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all. The confessor, for example, is always in danger of being either too much of a rigorist or too lax. Neither is merciful, because neither of them really takes responsibility for the person. The rigorist washes his hands so that he leaves it to the commandment. The loose minister washes his hands by simply saying, ‘This is not a sin’ or something like that. In pastoral ministry we must accompany people, and we must heal their wounds.

“How are we treating the people of God? I dream of a church that is a mother and shepherdess. The church’s ministers must be merciful, take responsibility for the people and accompany them like the good Samaritan, who washes, cleans and raises up his neighbor. This is pure Gospel.

The ministers of the Gospel must be people who can warm the hearts of the people, who walk through the dark night with them, who know how to dialogue and to descend themselves into their people’s night, into the darkness, but without getting lost. ... they must also be able to accompany the flock that has a flair for finding new paths.

Acts 10:38
God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

Matthew 9:35-36
35Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. 36Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd.

[ebb tide]

What do you think about Francis appointing Cupich to Archbishop of the third largest diocese in America?

Is that another strategic move that we have to discern the supposed “good” behind it?

[ebb tide]

So what do you think of Cardinal Burke? A patsy? A pollyanna? A fool?

No, I consider Cardinal Burke to be an intelligent, obedient, holy, son of the Church.

It's the die-hard defenders of Francis whom I consider to be "patsies", "pollyannas" and "fools".

[Mrs. Don-o]

I disapprove of Cupich because of previous decisions of his like forbidding his priests and seminarians from supporting 40 Days for Life in any way--- even through publicly approving or publicizing their activities --- let alone going and saying a rosary on the sidewalk in front of a baby slaughter shop.

I can't imagine why Cupich would want to impede this powerful Work of Mercy.

So Cupich would not have been my choice. It's terribly disappointing.

However, appointing him is not a sin. Neither is it any of my business.The Pope usually acts on the advice of the Apostolic Nuncio. That would be Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. I don't know what Viganò told or did not tell Pope Francis about Cupich. Do you?

Is Viganò turning into a Jean Jadot type?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Burke is cetainly an intelligent, obedient, holy, son of the Church. He does not employ --- ever--- the kinds of detraction, rash judgment, calumny, scandal-mongering, and vulgar ridicule against our Holy Father which I see every day on the FR forum. I am not mentioning any names. But I could collect --- if I wanted to waste my time ---- hundreds of examples.

If we all maintained a tone of filial respect and focused our criticism to what is objective rather than speculative and tendentious-- in other words, if we all wisely emulated the intelligence, equitable judgment and piety of Cardinal Burke --- this would be a far more valuable and God-pleasing forum.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"It's the die-hard defenders of Francis whom I consider to be "patsies", "pollyannas" and "fools". "

Look what you're doing here. You've turned it into something personalized --- the issue is "Francis" --- are you for "Francis" o not ---- rather than focusing on particular policies, statements, actions, ISSUES.

This is not objective or just: it is making it thumbs-up or thumbs-down on the Holy Father, not thumbs-up or thumbs-down on the final Relatio of the Synod, the appointment of Kupich, the address to the Humanum conference, the World Meeting of Families, or whatever it is you want to discuss.

If we don''t make it a personal thing about Pope Francis, --- if we keep it on the level of doctrine, discipline, and policy, as Cardinal Burke does --- we will be doing well.

I admire Burke more and more every day. Really, what an admirable priest.

[ebb tide]

Look what you're doing here.

It is you who brought up "patsy", "pollyanna" and "fool" in the first place. So who's making it personal?

You repeatedly accuse other freepers of slander, calumny, etc with no back-up. Again, who's making it personal?