The news media has trounced and pulverized the Catholic Church exclusively on the sex abuse scandal but refused to report similar stories just as egregious as the Church's in other major religious institutions such as in Protestantism and Judaism not to mention the public schools' systems.
Led by the New York Times, which owned the Boston Globe at the time, we all know the liberal media's political desire to neutralize the Catholic Church's influence in promoting the truth of our pro life teachings as well as our marriage and human sexuality teachings.
President Trump does not cower or kiss the ring or anything else of the "bishops" of the dishonest main line liberal media. Catholic bishops could learn a lesson from President Trump in this area.
26 comments:
Sean Spicer, White house Press Secretary, just reported on the sinking (?) of the Titanic: "We had a record number of passengers, everyone enjoyed themselves. Again, contrary to what the liberal media is reporting!"
Should Catholic bishops learn a lesson?
Yep. That lesson is, "Don't make a fool of yourself on national television."
The Left wing media reporting on the end of the world: "God has decreed that the world is to end tomorrow, no reprieve. Blacks, women, and homosexuals hit the hardest.
Catholic bishops did routinely assign known child molesters to positions of authority over children. The Church deserved a media "ass whooping" for that.
The radical Left in this country is not only unhinged but I truly believe influenced by the Devil.
Yesterday I saw Madonna speaking before that huge crowd and held up as a person of integrity. Madonna a woman of limited talent, evidenced by her off key singing yesterday. A woman famous not for her talent but for performing simulated sex acts publicly on stage, IN FRONT OF CHILDREN, for the past 30 years. A woman who offered to perform fellatio on every man in this country who voted for Hillary Clinton. A woman who stood up in front of all those little girls yesterday as spewed vulgarity after vulgarity and said her wish was to blow up the White House.
And Donald Trump is supposed to be evil?! The man said objectively vulgar and abussive talk against women......for which he apologized. As Christians do we not believe in forgiveness? Or are only some people allowed to be forgiven?
Jane Fonda was at that march. Hanoi Jane Fonda who was a traitor to this country and was responsible in part for American soldiers being tortured and killed because of her words and actions. She has apoligized. Why is she due forgiveness but Donald Trump is not?
Meryl Streep that paragon of virtue......who publicly stood up and showed her support for a convicted pedophile Roman Polanski who is also a fugitive from justice.
And then we have Hillary Clinton who refused to help our boys who were under attack in Bengazi and left them to be butchered. But she is tolerant and compassionate.
And let's not forget Ted Kennedy. A drunk who let his mistress die at the bottom of a lake while he ran home to daddy and cried on his lap.
And Robert Byrd, that Democratic icon of the senate. Who a grand dragon. A hood carrying member of the KKK, a revered Democrate. He was forgiven. Why is not Donald Trump allowed forgiveness?
The Devil is involved in all this.
you miss the point of my post. If reporters did their complete job in exposing egregious sex abuse, be it the bishops' reassigning priests or the different levels of the scandal, they would have done the following:
1. Contextualize where society was prior the the information age and airing of dirty laundry which the Phil Donahueization of television leading to exploiting of victims on TV for profit opened the doors to this once taboo subject, not just in the Church but all segments of society.
2. That the Catholic Church was far from alone in reassigning abusers or ignoring what they were doing, in other denominations, in Judaism and other institutions, especially the public schools messy.
3. That the majority of sex abusers in the priesthood abuse teenagers not prepubescent children and thus are not true pedophiles which cannot be successfully treated with therapy, but ephebophiles with a homosexual orientation which as a high success rate in being treated. Bishop followed what psychiatrists and others were telling them, not to excuse what happened but to contextualize.
4. Just a cursory study of those convicted of the crimes of child molestation and in prison are mostly laymen who do not profess celibate chastity with a smattering of clergy of all denominations and in some cases.
Shall I gone on?
The first thing that Donald Trump did on entering the Oval Office was to reinstate the bust of Winston Churchill which his predecessor had removed. He might be an Anglophile but he knows that there is no 'special relationship' and that if NATO is going to work the European partners must pull their weight. Britain is shortly to commission two super-carriers and is completing a naval base at Bahrain. Fifty years ago the then Labour government cancelled the CVA-01 carrier and announced that we were withdrawing from commitments east of Suez.
The free world cannot hang onto the coat-tails of the only superpower (and how lucky we are that it is the USA). The Cold War is over, but challenges remain and we have to face up to them. The United Nations, the European Union, alike have feet of clay. Trump knows this.
To give an opinion on your headline question: Yes, I do think Trumps approach is good at neutralizing the MSM's liberal agenda. I do think that MSM does have that agenda, and part of that is to go after the Catholic Church. I have noticed the abuse scandals in the paper from other organizations such as protestant ministers, police, and teachers. In all of those instances the emphasis is placed on the person that committed the crime and not the organization they belonged to.
In looking at media bias, I just read the Washington Post article on the Women's March on Washington. The article mentions it is a response to Trumps election. It states "The organizers of the Women’s March on Washington, who originally sought a permit for a gathering of 200,000, said Saturday that as many as half a million people participated." It lists the names of many individuals participating, and shows many of them carrying hand drawn signs. It is portrayed as a grass roots women's movement. Nowhere in that article does it mention who the march organizer is. A little internet digging reveals that the primary organizer is Planned Parenthood. Why didn't the article use the name "Planned Parenthood" in place of "The Organizers"? Did they want to slant the article? Who is the biggest opposition to "Planned Parenthood?" Its "The Catholic Church"
Bee here:
I do enjoy Trump calling out the MSM on the misrepresentations and falsehoods they perpetrate. It's about time someone did. And Trump has a tiger by the tail, because they are going to (mis)use their power of the press to relentlessly pound on him. These are not meek people who are willing to say a mea culpa when caught doing wrong. This are very proud (as in haughty) people who love to influence others through biased "reporting" and when caught or embarrassed, with double down and take revenge.
Not the same as with Obama. Can you imagine Obama having to TELL them at his last press conference, "you're not supposed to be sycophants."? (This really happened.) My God, even HE knew it. It's really bad when the guy you're fawning on tells you to please ask him one or two "tougher" questions so it can at least appear you are grilling him for the truth.
Do you think the media is going to go so mild on Trump? Not on your life! Already the CNN report of the first press secretary meeting today, which he used to blast the media on their reporting of the inauguration, had a headline that says, "White House Press Secretary Attacks Media For Accurately Reporting Inauguration Crowds." Did he? Perhaps they meant "...Inaccurately Reporting...", but I doubt it. They are mocking him.
The article then goes on to correct a couple of what may be misstatements by the press secretary, which I'm sure CNN had a chance to research and fact check. And use to make a fool of the press secretary. And then they reported the reaction of some of the REPORTERS(!) on their tweets.
I honestly am tired of this new generation of so-called journalists who seem to be just like a high school clique that is so confident of their superiority they use scorn, contempt, and snide remarks to degrade those who don't belong, and fawn all over those they like.
I sure wish we could get some fair and unbiased news reporting. Wouldn't that be refreshing?
And to address Fr. McD's comments regarding the lack of courage in calling out the media by the bishops and cardinals around the world - well, that some do and some won't certainly helps me to know which ones are willing to defy the world (like John the Baptist), and which ones are a part of the world and bow to it. That helps me to know which shepherd is telling the truth, and whom to follow. But that they let the world maul the sheep, well, disgusting.
God bless.
Bee
The bishops don't have control over the secular news media. That said, a bishop or bishops could exhort Catholics to consider as to whether they (laity) should boycott this or that secular news media outfit.
In view of a Catholic boycott, for example, of newspaper "X", one might consider as to how that would impact newspaper X's honest employees. Should they be subjected to financial hardship? They weren't dishonest.
Beyond the secular news media, let us consider the undeniable dishonesty that is found around-the-clock on certain "Catholic" blogs where His Holiness Pope Francis is misrepresented.
Example: More than three years after Pope Francis said "Who am I to judge him?" — Pope Francis presented ancient Catholic teaching...a sinner who, in goodwill, has sought the Lord, confessed his sin, then "converted," is forgiven (Who am I to judge him?) — certain "Catholic" blogs continue to flat-out misrepresent Pope Francis' comments in question.
Today, as I searched for Church-related news, I noted that certain "Catholic" blogs had misrepresented Pope Francis' new interview that he granted to the Spanish daily El País.
Certain "Catholic" bloggers pretended that Pope Francis viewed President Trump as a new Hitler. However, when I read Pope Francis' response to the question posed to him about Donald Trump, our Holy Father did not state remotely that President Trump is Hitler.
Along that line, certain "Catholic" bloggers continue to lie about Pope Francis' supposed declaration last year that Donald Trump (President) is not a Christian.
Pope Francis did not say that about now-President Trump...not even remotely...never said that.
Perhaps our bishops should tend to their subjects who daily post dishonest reports via "Catholic" blogs. Perhaps our bishops, in peaceful fashion, could appeal to the hearts and minds of those who operate "Catholic" blogs to refrain from misrepresenting Pope Francis and additional persons.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"Fearless Frank" NEVER called out Obama for his absolute devotion to abortion and gay marriage, so I am not going to pay any further attention to this coward's politicized religious views. Paul VI must be smiling because he has now been officially replaced as a the worst Pope of my lifetime.
Mark Thomas,
What gives you the right to place the Catholic identity of bloggers that you disagree with in quotation marks? Are you indicating that the operators of these blogs are not Catholic? Rome has not condemned them and you have not mentioned their supposed heresies (which shouldn't matter to you anyway since you, in your error, refuse to believe in the recognition of material heresy by lay Catholics), so they are in good standing with the Church. Quit impinging their right to call themselves Catholics when the Church recognizes them as such. Besides, these bloggers claim good will and are searching for the Lord, so, who are you to judge?
Mark Thomas said... "Beyond the secular news media, let us consider the undeniable dishonesty that is found around-the-clock on certain "Catholic" blogs where His Holiness Pope Francis is misrepresented."
August 4, 2016. A certain person who shall remain nameless but whose initials are M.T. asserted the following on a "Catholic" blog in reference to a recent statement made by the pope:
"The Pope's actual words and, just as important, the context, render things quite different from the initial quote."
M.T. then stated that the pope's actual words were: "There are parishes with ungodly parish secretaries who scare people off."
However, what the pope actually said is: "Ci sono parrocchie con segretarie parrocchiali che sembrano discepole di satana."
The last three words translate into English as "disciples of satan," just as many bloggers originally asserted.
So, it looks like Catholic bloggers are not the only ones who misrepresent what the pope says.
Adam Michael, the quotation marks are for certain bloggers who insist that they are Catholic, but insist that Pope Francis is a "heretic" who, of course, has broken communion with the Church.
Therefore, they declare that they will not submit to him as they do not submit to a heretic.
Some insist that the are in communion with the Church, but when it's time to commemorate Pope Francis during the Roman Canon, they claim that...mystically, magically, very, very interestingly...they "separate" for a few seconds from the commemoration of Pope Francis, then mystically, magically, very, very interestingly, return to communion with the Church as soon as the commemoration in question has concluded.
A dope such as yours truly isn't certain as to how said folks accomplish their mystical, magical, very, very, interesting communion with the Church/separation from the Roman Pontiff performance during, and for that matter, outside Mass.
Again, yours truly, a dope, isn't certain about that. Therefore, I play it safe..."Catholics"...are they or aren't they? I report...sorry...use quotation marks, you decided.
Ambiguity...it's win-win for everyone.
Now, you have a "good" day. I "really" mean that.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
P.S. It was just a joke. May you and your family have a blessed Sunday.
Does the following signal the manner in which President Trump's administration will
deal with the news media?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPlagGOFGeY
The term bridge-building, other than in the literal sense, doesn't exist in the new administration's lexicon...at least in regard to media relations.
That plays to President Trump's base. But will that in-your-face routine play well beyond President Trump's base?
Oh, well. Interest video. It had been a long time since I had last watched Bruno Samartino, Fritz von Erich, Killer Kowalski, Andre The Giant...
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bee and Others:
“How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?” Think about it.
Sean Spicer remarked that the press has said that they will hold President Trump's administration to account but that it works both ways and President Trump's administration will hold the media to account, and that is just what they are doing.
"Mark Thomas" says "That plays to President Trump's base. But will that in-your-face routine play well beyond President Trump's base?"
Well, yes, from what I've read President Trump's base seems to be growing because many more are calling out the media for fake news. For example, Mashable shows a side by side photos contrast to the numbers that attended President Trump's inauguration and President Obama's organization. It highlights the fact that the photos that Sean Spicer complained of did not correlate to the photos showing attendance during the time President Trump swore his oath. CNN's megapixal photograph shows that too and yet CNN still continues to claim the opposite - denying the obvious in their own photo:
"Despite the shenanigans Sean Spicer was correct. The crowd grew significantly just as the event began. Yes, this was mostly due to the crowd being intentionally delayed from attending. Yes, tens of thousands of people could not get through the screenings. Yes, the federal workers and DC Park and Security leadership made attendance more difficult than any previous inauguration.
Yes, every imaginable tool and technique was utilized last week to provide the maximum level of crisis and discomfort….
…and yet, given the history of DC doing this with other events, this somehow surprises people?"
https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/gigapixel-1.jpg
In the Mashable side by side photos there is very little difference, if any, between the Obama inauguration and President Trump's but the media has not corrected it and won't. Just as they reported on the Catholic pedophile issue (which I certainly don't and never have condoned) while conveniently forgetting and covering up for notorious pedophiles such as Jimmy Savile.
I wish please to return to Adam Michael's comments. He said to me...
"What gives you the right to place the Catholic identity of bloggers that you disagree with in quotation marks? Are you indicating that the operators of these blogs are not Catholic? Rome has not condemned them and you have not mentioned their supposed heresies (which shouldn't matter to you anyway since you, in your error, refuse to believe in the recognition of material heresy by lay Catholics), so they are in good standing with the Church. Quit impinging their right to call themselves Catholics when the Church recognizes them as such. Besides, these bloggers claim good will and are searching for the Lord, so, who are you to judge?"
I was a bit humorous in my initial reply to his comments. Now, to be serious...
It is certain "Catholic" bloggers who have applied quotation marks to Catholics who belong to the Catholic Church...you know, the one governed by the Vicar of Christ, His Holiness Pope Francis.
Proof:
Today on The Remnant's web page is found the following chilling video presented by Matt Michael, The Remnant's editor.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2999-debating-pope-francis-a-catholic-civil-war
DEBATING POPE FRANCIS: A Catholic Civil War
At the 8:17 mark, Matt Michael declared that we must become "a quote, un-quote, traditional Catholic...or pretty much cease to be a Catholic altogether."
-- Does Matt Michael determine who is or isn't a "traditional Catholic"? Or is there a right-wing committee who defines "traditional Catholicism"? From there, does the committee determine whether Person "X" is a "true" Catholic?
At the video's 8:54 mark, Matt Michael launched chilling claims that "Pope Francis and Company...they're trying to make the Church protestant. I know that sounds scandalous, but that's what they're doing."
Adam Michael, I didn't indicate that "the operators of these blogs are not Catholic." They have declared that they reject membership in the Church governed by Pope Francis.
They declared that the Church governed by Pope Francis is soon to become a Protestant Church.
Adam Michael, you need to direct your comments, for example, at The Remnant's Matt Michael, as he declared that we must become "a quote, un-quote, traditional Catholic...or pretty much cease to be a Catholic altogether."
Finally, as early as April 27, 2016 A.D., when they denounced Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider, and each bishop who refused to declare Amoris Laetitia "heretical," The Remnant right-wingers had launched the theme that one must either join their version of "Catholicism" or fall into apostasy.
Proof: One must either resist the Vicar of Christ Pope Francis or turn into an apostate.
The Remnant, April 27, 2016 A.D....final sentence in the following article:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2484-amoris-laetitia-foolish-bishops-and-bishops-playing-us-for-fools
"For the time is growing near where there will no longer be any choice but resistance or apostasy."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said... "A dope such as yours truly isn't certain as to how said folks accomplish their mystical, magical, very, very, interesting communion with the Church/separation from the Roman Pontiff performance during, and for that matter, outside Mass."
They accomplish it in the same manner "Catholics" like Tim Kaine and Joseph Biden, both of whom have officiated at "gay" marriage ceremonies, are "Catholic."
They accomplish it in the same manner as "Catholics" like Hans Kung, Charles Curran, and a myriad of other "Catholics."
None of those people have received rulings from the Church stating that they are outside the Church, so you consider them to be Catholic.
Neither have the Catholic bloggers received any such ruling; therefore, they are "in good standing" with the Church.
Catholic Catechism.
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.
278 He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.
Last two posts = Dang!!
Did Trump go to church yesterday (January 22)? And does anyone know the religion of his wife Melania? Being from eastern Europe, I would assume her background would be Catholic or Eastern Orthodoz.
Jan said..."Well, yes, from what I've read President Trump's base seems to be growing..."
That is good news for President Trump as he may need a dramatic expansion of his base to obtain reelection (should he run again in four years). Although she was awful candidate, Mrs. Clinton trounced Mr. Trump in the popular vote.
That isn't a good sign for the republican party.
The right-wing dirty tricks machine worked overtime during the past 25 years to defame Mrs. Clinton (and Mr. Bill Clinton). For decades, the machine spewed filth at Mrs. Clinton.
But even in light of that, and her lack of charisma, which even she acknowledged, Mrs. Clinton trounced President Trump in the popular vote category.
Therefore, as its possible that the democrats may, during the next four years, find/develop another Bill Clinton or Barrack Obama — a candidate who can electrify the democratic party as well as swing voting groups and states — then its imperative that President Trump add greatly to his base.
When the likes of Hillary Clinton smashed him by nearly three million votes, then President Trump had best attract as many new supporters as possible.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I said..."A dope such as yours truly isn't certain as to how said folks accomplish their mystical, magical, very, very, interesting communion with the Church/separation from the Roman Pontiff performance during, and for that matter, outside Mass."
DJR said..."They accomplish it in the same manner "Catholics" like Tim Kaine and Joseph Biden, both of whom have officiated at "gay" marriage ceremonies, are "Catholic." They accomplish it in the same manner as "Catholics" like Hans Kung, Charles Curran, and a myriad of other "Catholics."
DJR, I believe that your notion is wrong as the above men, as far as I'm aware, have never declared their separation from the Roman Pontiff.
Conversely, there are "Catholics" who claim that they have separated from Pope Francis, and reject communion with the Catholic Church governed, taught, and sanctified by Pope Francis.
DJR, should you possess them, please offer declarations from Tim Kaine, Joseph Biden, as well as Fathers Hans Kung, and Charles Curran, through which they announced their separations from Pope Francis and the Catholic Church he governs.
=================================================================================
DJR said..."None of those people have received rulings from the Church stating that they are outside the Church, so you consider them to be Catholic. Neither have the Catholic bloggers received any such ruling; therefore, they are "in good standing" with the Church."
Very good.
Then were are to dismiss those "Catholic" bloggers who, via their very own declarations, have insisted that they are separated from Pope Francis (they claim that he's a heretic and refuse to be in communion with him) and the Catholic Church he teaches, governs, and sanctifies, (they claim that that Catholic Church is the "Conciliar," "protestant" Church)?
Correct?
DJR, feel free to announce to said folks, even though they will reject your announcement, that they are actually in communion with Pope Francis and the Church he governs...even though said folks have declared that they reject Pope Francis' authority, do not recognize that he's Pope, and reject communion with he and the Catholic Church (you know, the Church that Pope Francis governs).
Good luck with that.
Anyway, they, not I, have declared themselves separated from Pope Francis and the Catholic Church whom he governs.
But DJR, it is great news that, according to you, they aren't separated from Pope Francis and the Church he governs, even though they have insisted that they are separated from Pope Francis and the Church he governs.
Thank you for another logical discussion. Uh-huh.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas, the popular vote has nothing to do with elections in the USA - as you should know. The only way the Democrats could perhaps win next time round is if the bulk of Californians spread themselves around other states. Can you see that happening? Who are they going to have for a candidate? There is not one that stands out. You have to face facts that the next election for them is lost already. The only hope they have is to rebuild in time for the election in 12 years' time. I have read moderate Democrats saying they have to get back in touch with their grassroots, etc. But you still have the entrenched lot that ensured the party lost. If you had left off following Francis so much and stopped reading what Rorate has to say that you always disagree with, then perhaps you might be more up with the play and you might then realize just how decimated the Democrats are. Out of the ashes may rise a whole new party but it will be baby steps - not enough to overtake the Repubs at the next election. Many Democrats actually voted for Trump as they are saying - I doubt they are going to change allegiance after eight years of Obama.
Mark Thomas, as a Democrat, you are just blind to what the Clintons were guilty of. Obviously you never read the Podesta emails, given to Wikileaks by a Democrat insider - rumored to be the young Democrat worker who was shot in the back in a robbery where nothing was stolen from him. You are so myopic that it seems to me you may have even risked your soul by voting for a pro-abortion candidate. You are an out and out liberal. There is no good spouting anti-abortion sentiment when you are obviously not prepared to follow through and put your money where your mouth is. "The machine spewed filth against Hillary" you said, a woman who upholds Planned Parenthood and abortion on demand and almost up to full term, not to mention selling baby body parts. As for Obama, his policies caused the Little Sisters of the Poor to fight his Obamacare through the courts and others to lose their business and be fined for refusing to bake cakes for homosexual weddings and he is credited with dividing the USA as no other president has done before. From looking at your country from outside, I see the Democrats as an ugly bunch, bordering on evil. In supporting them you further solidify your position as a liberal Catholic because it is only liberal Catholics who voted for Hillary or Democrats. You are all talk and no do. The Democrat politicians you refer to above, are not in communion with the Pope. Any Catholic who supports abortion is ipso facto excommunicated and there is not one Democrat that you can point to who is pro-life. Time you pulled your socks up and started acting like a true Catholic does. You have criticized President Trump and yet he has proved himself more pro-life than you.
Mark Thomas said... "But DJR, it is great news that, according to you, they aren't separated from Pope Francis and the Church he governs, even though they have insisted that they are separated from Pope Francis and the Church he governs."
Have their bishops, or anyone from Rome, issued decrees separating them from the Church?
If not, they are Catholics in good standing.
Mark Thomas said... Thank you for another logical discussion. Uh-huh.
You're welcome.
Mark Thomas said... "But DJR, it is great news that, according to you, they aren't separated from Pope Francis and the Church he governs, even though they have insisted that they are separated from Pope Francis and the Church he governs."
DJR said..."Have their bishops, or anyone from Rome, issued decrees separating them from the Church? If not, they are Catholics in good standing."
This is fantastic. Correct?
Although the folks in question have declared that they are in schism, they aren't in schism, even though they reject communion with the Catholic Church.
I am please that despite their having declared that they reject communion with the Church, they haven't rejected communion with the Church, despite their having announced their separation from the Church, but have remained in communion with the Church.
That is good news.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment