I hope this is my last post on the papal election and the election of Pope Francis. I don't have a horse in this race so it is almost a waste of my time to continue to write about it. Nonetheless, I'll say a few more words.
The media couldn't help but fawn over the choice of Jorge Maria Begeglio as the Pontifex Maximus. There was no shortage of stories about how this pope as Archbishop of Buenos Aires lived a life of simplicity by cooking his own meals, living in a simple apartment and even using public transportation. But there was more--this man spent a great deal of his energy caring for the poor, making it a focal piece of his ministry while in Argentina. Surely a man who was humble like this and not one of those rich, poor-hating popes like Benedict XVI would also be in favor of women's ordination, homosexual marriage, marriage of priests, liberalization of abortion and use of contraceptions, right? How wrong they were.
"But, but, he cares for the poor. So it's only logical that he favor abortion rights, right? He must also favor homosexual marriage, too, right?"
Regrettably, the media found out that Pope Francis was a Roman Catholic after all. Pope Francis, even during his tenure as Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires railed against abortion, homosexual marriage, contraception, etc. Why would the media just automatically assume that care for the poor=endorsements of abortion? Because the media simply doesn't get Christianity, in general, nor does it get Catholicism, in particular. And, too many get their information about Christianity and Roman Catholicism from the media so the cycle of stupidity and assumption repeats ad infinitum.
Since when did caring for the poor automatically mean a support for abortion on demand, or no fault divorce, or homosexual marriage, or women's ordination? Mother Theresa cared for the poor and she was and is still attacked for condemning abortion. Why would the media assume a man elected pope would be different?
It's wishful thinking and it is pointless. Despite my many arguments with Rome, whatever her faults, she still upholds a good moral foundation for how society should conduct itself embracing a culture of life, not death, of charity, not selfishness, etc. That will not change. The media is not going to get one of their own in the papal office any time soon. And since that is the case, now the media will resort to demonizing. If he won't play ball with our liberal agenda, we'll come up with every bit of dirt we can on him. It has already started for Pope Francis. It was the same with Pope Benedict XVI.
You can read this article which accuses the pope of being in collusion with the military junta that ruled Argentina in the 1970s. Who can forget that as soon as Ratzinger was elected as pope, the next day papers came out denouncing him as a Nazi because he was forcibly conscripted into the Hitler Jugend?
The media know that their influence is waning in politics and in the world of religion. Just like in democracy, when they don't get what they want, they resort to villainy, hyperbole, slander, demagoguery, etc.
New York City (what's wrong)
5 hours ago
I have long observed this phenomenon: the media doesn't want to be accused of forgetting the niceties or outright sneering at the papal election (if only because of the large Catholic TV-viewing audience), but at the same time, no development will be reported without slipping in some reference to the priest sex abuse crisis or what one commentator last night on Erin Burnett Live (btw, Catholic) referred to as the "pelvic issues". On CNN, they talked all over the Habemus Papam announcement. It's a stream of subtle agitprop that you don't even notice until you flip over to another channel like EWTN.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if it's that they don't get the Church's stance so much as they DO get it, and they just don't like it. Catholic social teaching just plain doesn't fit into our country's Democrat-Republican paradigm, which I think is largely the product of Protestant ethic. That's not to say that American Catholics don't follow this or that platform, but the Vatican certainly doesn't. Statements like Leo XIII's seminal papal encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891) were just as critical of laissez-faire capitalism as they were of socialism for promoting economic growth at the expense of human dignity. And whenever the Pope has come to visit the States and had audience with our president, the Holy Father does not mince words on life issues, and it gets tense. There really isn't anything analogous to it in our current political representation, though our country has a long history of third-way movements. I don't think this is an accident, and it's probably considered the greatest success of American politics that there isn't a Catholic bloc in this country.
I quite liked this exchange:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SsqzCDaS5uI
Thanks for that. I liked it, too. I find that atheists (with the exception of jerks like RIchard Dawkins who can't stand people that disagree with him) are often more honest and more likable than these liberal modernist Catholics and Christians who demand that they be taken seriously for their views even though they've, for the most part, repudiated their own affiliation with the Church.
Delete