Umm...I thought you were one of us silly naysayers, Fr.
He has the attention but has any good come of it? Rather, how much damage has been done?Mike
I have to agree with Mike, the damage has been done, can it be recovered from?
I don't watch this TV show because of its bias against most of what I believe, but I watched this for the sake of this blog entry. What amazed me is they STILL twisted the context of what the Pope said when he said "Who am I to judge?" So in my book the credibility of these folks is very low. I discount most of what they report, since when I do know the truth, I see how they have slanted it. It makes me question how it may be slanted when I do not know all the facts about a topic.Media people are used to being kingmakers. They are behind the rise and fall of all celebrity. And they know a good product when they see it. I expect they are hoping after the pontificates of JPII and Benedict XVI there will be a reversal to more politically correct theologies, kind of like a change in the party running the White House, and they seem to be working very hard to get it to be so by selectively reporting things the Pope says that they can use to promote their liberal ideas and ignoring his comments that contradict their agenda. Sad thing is that many, many people look to shows like this one for their information about the world. They'll will take in what was said, and will form their opinion of what the Pope is and our Church is based on the reporting of the crew of 60 Minutes. And that's too bad.
I nearly turned it off when Mickens came on. This was the man whom the ultra-liberal 'Tablet' fired for exchanging offensive tweets about the Pope Emeritus with his equally odious chum Chris Grady who regularly used to sneer his way through the PrayTell combox.Pope Francis seems to have allowed the secular media to get the idea that he is little short of a revolutionary who plans to align the Church with 21st century moral relativism, and that the stage is set for a stand-off between the Pope on the one hand and a corrupt, power-seeking and ossified bureaucracy (the demonized 'Curia') on the other. The way the media reported the recent synod (Pope's plan to welcome gays thwarted by conservative bishops) is a prime example.This has been going on for so long that it would seem to be part of a long-term strategy of what amounts to deception. How this can further 'evangelization' is beyond me. Francis knows full well that he cannot change doctrine even assuming that he wants to (and he has given no indication that he does).He could of course demote Gerhard Mueller and take over the prefecture of the CDF himself (as was the case until 1968). But I suspect he would prefer to distance himself from rulings which might be unpopular, if necessary. His off-the-cuff advice to the Latin American religious to ignore letters from the CDF conveniently ignored the fact that such letters are never sent without the Pope seeing and approving the contents.Those of us who admired Benedict XVI did not do so simply on account of his scholarship, liturgical sensibilities, and self-effacing modesty, important as these qualities were. He had both integrity and honesty (which the press interpreted as 'gaffes'). Dissimulation was foreign to his nature. I'm not so sure about his successor - time will tell.
Not if the "new evangelization" includes watering down doctrine through "pastoral practice."
I'd sooner read the NY Times than watch 60 minutes, and I haven't read the NYT in decades.
Templar, you mean the NY Slimes and Sixty Spin-its.
Ah, yes, 60 Minutes or as we said of the NYTimes: "All the news that's print to fit" (when I lived in NYC in the late 60's).
I enjoyed Morley Safer piece about the Vatican library and seeing the beautiful Bibles and other artifacts.
Bee..et al...who speak of "the media" in the same way that one might speak of "the devil"....what do you mean by "the media"? In America, to those on the right, "the media", or sometimes "the mainstream media" seems to mean The New York Times or MSNBC or any news organization that is not "Foxnews", which for some reason is not "the media". If you only gather "the truth" from sources with whom you agree, how dou know that you know the truth. It's pretty confusing to a liberal, pinko ignoramus like me.
TV,I think the problem with the "mainstream" media outlets is that they so frequently get basic facts about the Church wrong. I've rarely seen a piece that did not make at least one factual error. These sources can be tolerated for controversial subjective reporting, but they should not be easily excused for getting objective facts wrong.
John Nolan says: Those of us who admired Benedict XVI did not do so simply on account of his scholarship, liturgical sensibilities, and self-effacing modesty, important as these qualities were. He had both integrity and honesty (which the press interpreted as 'gaffes'). Dissimulation was foreign to his nature. I'm not so sure about his successor - time will tell.Exactly!
Tevye,I speak of all media nowadays, because outlets you cite, such as Fox News, seem to present outrageous caricatures of the conservative mindset and beliefs. Sometimes it seems as if they are the productions of liberals made specifically to make the conservative point of view seem absurd and offensive. I can't prove this because, of course, I'd have to rely on published articles which expose this which, of course, don't exist. I personally don't watch the Fox News channel, and don't rely on them for my news. In any case, it seems to me all "news" channels these days are far from objective, and I feel we are very close to the olden days of yellow journalism in media coverage. The trick seems to be recognizing the bias whatever you are seeing or reading and trying to get to the facts, if there are any. Oh, and you're the one who made the happy connection between "the media" and "the devil." I had never thought of it, but now that you mention it...
By the way, in the 60 Minutes piece there are some photos of Pope Francis when he was Cardinal Bergoglio sporting some pretty serious looking "funeral faces." They even comment on it in the piece, saying he looks then as if he has the weight of the world on his shoulders. Hmmmm. Perhaps he's come to some sort of self-awareness and enlightenment.I can only guess it must be good to be Pope!
Bee:The interview also addresses a possible reason for the change in demeanor. That reason is not because “it must be good to be Pope” although it may indeed have involved some “self-awareness and enlightenment.” See video beginning at 11 minutes.
Did they address his obvious weight gain of about 75 lbs? That started to happen before he was elected pope so the self awareness might have started around the same time too?Mike
Mike, self-awareness through eating…we could start a new phony nutrition program…"Take the weight of the world off your shoulders and put it in your belly."
Gene,Happy New Year to you. I'm very happy God gave you His grace to discern that the Catholic faith is the only valid option available and your desire to help to preserve the Faith is much needed. All the best to you and your family. Sincerely,Mike
Mike, thanks. I am glad you are on the blog. I enjoy your posts and it is good to have another devout Catholic join us. Happy New Year to you and your's,
Post a Comment