Posted on 07/14/2015 6:03:49 PM PDT by markomalley
They “got it wrong” because they’re totally freaked out by this. As am I.
Frankie the Red.
This is what happens when a church (and its members) defers to, puts blind faith in and “worships” a man in the place of worshiping the one and only God.
This story is so poorly arranged that I’ve got a headache.
The main issue is whether the Pope accepted a communist cross or not. If he did, then he gave the commie Morales legitimacy, as well as his views.
If he didn’t, then he would be opposing Communism in the form of a cross.
I think he’s too far left to reject anything from the reds except abortion.
Yes, I am a bit confused, is the author upset because the paper got the story wrong and this Pope is an avowed socialist and proud of it? I mean he is a Jesuit after all. Or is he upset that they were stunned as many American Catholics are by this pope’s antics?
Yea the cross designed by a communist Jesuit given to Mary.
Some how fitting ...the communists liked a dead christ and Mary has helped Rome move its eyes off Christ
I don’t feel so bad that re-read the article twice and still couldn’t determine what the Pope’s position is. This author should run for office and he could never be pinned down on a position.
But he doesn't see it that way. He admires it and truly believes the way of Jesus Christ is World Communism. In just TWO Popes we have gone from an anti-Marxist warrior to a Marxist revolutionary. In just 4 presidents, America has gone from an anti-Marxist warrior to a Marxist revolutionary. this is the most dangerous hour I have seen in my 50 years.
“Yes, I am a bit confused, is the author upset because the paper got the story wrong and this Pope is an avowed socialist and proud of it? I mean he is a Jesuit after all. Or is he upset that they were stunned as many American Catholics are by this popes antics?”
Both. They aren’t mutually exclusive. The paper got it wrong and was covering up for the Pope, and thinking American Catholics are stunned by his Pope’s antics.
“by this Popes antics” above. Missing “t” on this.
"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your fathers desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44
“The Red Pope”, I’ve been calling him that for a while.
Do Catholics not bow down to the Pope and kiss his ring or feet?
They got it wrong because, like many of the Catholic posters here, their heads are in the sand and are too busy defending the indefensible.
And I’m betting still no criticism of Francis from Michael Voris.
....The bottom line is that publishing an erroneous story and then knowingly maintaining it after it was repeatedly brought to their attention calls into question the judgment of the editorial staff at the National Catholic Register and the credibility of the outlet. This was not a matter of difference of opinion, but rather of known facts. The misleading headline and lede left in this story, which was accessible from the front page of the Register website, caused not a little confusion for Catholics trying to get to the bottom of what really transpired.
It seems obvious that the story was left unchanged intentionally. Less obvious are the motives for such a choice. Was the headline, which provided cover for actions by Pope Francis that many Catholics ultimately found objectionable and offensive, left in place to mitigate the damage the story might do to the popes reputation? Is there any reason to believe that a story with a negative headline about the Holy Father would have been left unchanged for four days after the reporting it contained was demonstrated to have been false? As Catholics, we all want to give the benefit of the doubt to the Vicar of Christ, but when facts emerge that contradict the narrative we prefer, are we not obligated to present the truth?
Journalistic and Catholic integrity demand a public retraction of the story and an explanation of this unprofessional behavior. Without it, the National Catholic Register risks forfeiture of any claim that it is a reliable Catholic news outlet
The story does an exceptional job laying out not only the facts of the matter but the likely motivations behind what was IMO an obvious spinning of the pope's actions.
FWIW, this incident reminds me of the apologetics, offered up here about ten years ago, around JPII's "kissing of the Koran" incident. To summarize those arguments, Protestants were told that kissing the Koran does not mean the pope accepted the Koran's contents as a religious work, but indicates acceptance of a gift and a show of respect and affection for the giver.
Just throwing this out there, but how is the "Commie-Crucifix" incident any different except for the swapping of Communism for Islam?
Because that was JPII...and he’s a “saint”.
YWIA.
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.