Posted on 11/18/2014 2:54:50 PM PST by 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.
“Millions Dismayed, The Pope is Still Catholic”! :)
This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful.
-Pascendi Dominici Gregis, St. Pius X, 1907
Pope Translator:
For the record, I don't think it's contradictory, either. This is by no means the first (or even second or third) time Pope Francis has highlighted the complementarity of men and women in marriage and sex, and the right of children to grow up with a mother and father. He has positively promoted --- and never contradicted --- these principles both as Archbishop of Buenos Aires and as Pope.
The same is true concerning his opposition to abortion, euthanasia and in vitro fertilization. He hasn't been on both sides of this fence. He has never been a Death-Eater on these issues.
"Millions" are pretty stupid to think that a POPE wouldn't be der uber katholische, like the Pope before him.
Well, that sounds unkind. MAYBE the press and the "millions" were misinformed as to what the Pope MEANT when he said those things.
I doubt if the press and its non-Catholic readers are used to even LISTENING to what the Pope says, let alone what he ever means by his speeches.
Why would they listen or even CARE what he says? I don't get it. Why does ANY non-Catholic CARE about our Pope, what he says, what he does, where he goes or to whom he speaks? Why? What on earth is HE to THEM?
As to why non-Catholics care what he says? No clue, I have been trying to discern that for a long time.
But he doesn’t.
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.
2. There are 40,000 different Protestant denominations (Google) so perhaps it's their natural gravitation to the stability of that one 2000-year-old institution.
3. Perhaps the myriad of differences are less attractive when they see the oneness and unity of our 2000-year-old institution begun by Jesus, NOT by Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, Anabaptists, Schwarzenau Brethren, etc.
4. Perhaps there is a bit of wistfulness to know that when CATHOLICS travel this planet their 2000-year-old Mass is the same wherever they go.
I've been to Mass in many places. I went to one in Belgrade a few years ago. It was all in Serbian. Their Mass was EXACTLY the same as ours but it was in Serbian. I followed it very well but I only understood TWO words in the entire Mass: Jesus Christ.
That WAS enough.
Whatever the magnet, it IS because of our Lord.
TRUE enough.
Except not too long ago he stated that “it was not necessary to talk about these issues all of the time”.
Guess he’s learning that as the elected leader of the Catholic Church, you kinda have to.
And how right he was about that! You will remember the context of this statement: Pope Francis explained that "The church's pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently."
The key word here is "disjointed." If we try to teach these life-giving principles in a fragmentary way, not showing how they are related to a much larger, holistic vision of the holiness of God--- why then, it's just a bunch of incomprehensible shalt-nots.
And the key, as Pope Francis said --- in that same talk --- "The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you."
If we neglect the proclamation of Christ, people will brush off disjointed "shalt-nots." They must first be drawn to Christ, our Life-giver,our Savior.
As in today's Gospel!, Christ first said to Zacchaeus, "Today I will come and dine with you." AFTER that, Zacchaeus said, "I will give half of my property to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone, I will repay them fourfold." Zacchaeus had to encounter the love of Christ FIRST. Then he was eager, he was joyful to fulfill the requirements of the moral law.
Just by your tagline, it seems you’re not pleased with Francis’ papacy. Why?
Especially coming after Benedict XVI, who thought and spoke with clarity and precision. Pope Francis seems to be a babbler. He talks too much. And he talks so off-the-cuff, so colloquially that we always have to be explaining him. The Pope should be the one to do the explaining. IMHO.
Who's the "we" doing the explaining Francis? How does "we" know "we" are explaining correctly. Fr. Lombardi has been caught in outright lies. Who else is explaining Francis?
When Francis is apparently "misinterpreted", as "we" claim, why doe Francis never make follow-up clarifying statements? He seems to have no concern with people agonizing over what "did the Pope mean by that statement?"
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. :)
Yep!
Sometimes you just have to get his whole paragraph. The media --- it can't be denied --- does too much snipping and framing, as Dawn Eden pointed out in this very article we are discussing at the top of this thread.
“Especially coming after Benedict XVI, who thought and spoke with clarity and precision. Pope Francis seems to be a babbler. He talks too much. And he talks so off-the-cuff, so colloquially that we always have to be explaining him. The Pope should be the one to do the explaining. IMHO.” ... Agreed
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.