[livius]

They “got it wrong” because they’re totally freaked out by this. As am I.

[Argus]

Frankie the Red.

[immadashell]

Great we now have a commie pope to go along with a muzzy prez.

[Thumper1960]

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.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

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.

[RnMomof7]

This morning Francis lay the two presidential honours he received Wednesday from President Evo Morales in La Paz, at the feet of Our Lady of Copacabana. One of these featured the hammer and anvil with a carving of a crucifix

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

[montag813]

Pope should have rejected the blasphemous object

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.

[Heart-Rest]

It is really starting to get very weird, when you consider how radically the world has changed for the worse in just a couple years, and when you look at sources (like the National Catholic Register) who used to be reliable, and find them trying to maintain and continue to push a false story, which they absolutely know to be false.

---

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s 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

---

[piusv]

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.

[Alex Murphy]

On the video, when the gift is first presented to him, Pope Francis appears to register some slight surprise at the crucifix. He quietly says something, shaking his head slightly, but because of the poor audio quality, it is unclear what the Pope said. Later that same morning, some suggested after examining the video that what the Pope might have said was “No está bien eso,” or “that’s not right”....better quality audio of the incident became available and it quickly became clear that instead of saying “No está bien eso,” that the Pope actually said, “No sabía eso,” or, “I didn’t know that.” It became clear that the Pope was not rejecting the item, but rather reacting to something President Evo Morales had said to him....By the end of the day, a clear and verifiable sequence of events of events had emerged, a sequence of events that made clear the Pope happily received the gift, and in no way rejected or expressed any concern about it....

....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 pope’s 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.