Rock vs. Scissors: Benedict against the Media’s smears and petty gossip

Clearing Benedict’s Good Name: The New York Times Must Retract Its False Reporting — SIGN THE DEMAND FOR RETRACTION

GoPetition

The New York Times does respond to pressure. It happened before. It can happen again.  This is not a lost cause. Keep praying. Keep up the pressure. Don’t take your eye off the ball!

(Source)

For a scandal that has long past, why is the main stream media demanding “action” when action has already been taken? What motivates these anti-Catholic bigots to drudge up decades-old garbage which has largely been dealt with, except, of course, for pure hatred of the Faith?

______________________________

RECENT ADDITIONS:

More false accusations against the Pope (Socon or Bust)

New York Times: Refuses To Admit Errors, Consigns Itself To Bigot Journalism (Socon or Bust)

The Definitive Paper Showing Homosexuality at Root of the Sex Abuse Crisis (LifeSite)

‘Change in Vatican Culture’: A Sex Abuse Expert Sees Hope in Pope Benedict (Catholic Register)

______________________________

Due Process for Accused Priests (Catholic League)


Celibacy is not the issue (Newsweek)

Selling Out Their Integrity for Petty Anti-Catholic Bigotry (Socon or Bust)

Child Abuse As Entertainment (Socon or Bust)

NY Times Quietly Rewrites Article Smearing Pope — Now Represents Leading Media Outlet Fueling the “Drive By Smear”(Fr. Raymond De Souza)

Catholic League Takes Out Ad In New York Times (Catholic League)

Prayer for the Pope (Knights of Columbus)

Let’s Get the Story Straight: Defrocking and Divorce (Ignatius Press)

“Associated Press” Disgraces Itself With Attack on Pope

The media simply cannot stop viciously attacking the Pope, even if it makes them look like ignorant buffoons at best and anti-Catholic bigots at worst. The latest example of the drive-by smear against Pope Benedict XVI, laced with false and disingenuous reporting, comes to us courtesy of the Associated Press.  Let’s examine this story carefully in order to amaze ourselves at just how deep in the gutter main stream journalism can go.

Jewish Former NYC Mayor Koch: Enough with the Attack on the Pope Already (LifeSite)

Vatican to Introduce “Zero Tolerance” Rules on Clerical Sex Abuse: Reports (LifeSite)


Hick Journalist of the Year: Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times (Socon or Bust)

Lutheran Pastor Defends Pope Against Attacks over Sex Abuse Crisis (LifeSite)

The Pope and the New York Times (Wall Street Journal)

SEXUAL ABUSE IN SOCIAL CONTEXT: CATHOLIC CLERGY AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (Catholic League)

Sex abuse spans spectrum of churches (Christian Science Monitor)

The Bigots and Their End Game (Socon or Bust)

Moral Panic Flares Again (Mercatornet)

MSNBC Headline: “Pope Describes Touching Boys: ‘I Went Too Far.’” (MSNBC)

Forgotten Study: Abuse in School 100 Times Worse than by Priests (LifeSite)

Pope Deserves Strong Defense, but Catholic Church Problems Still Far From Resolved (LifeSite)

Response from the New York Times (New York Times)

Hitchens’ bigotry is clouding his reporting (Catholic Education.org)

Cardinal Levada Comes Out Swinging Against The New York Times’s Smear Job (Catholic San Francisco)

New York Times Caught In Manufacturing Evidence, According to the Judge (Catholic Anchor.org)

Press Claims and Document Trails Miss Point in Abuse Scandal (Vatican Radio)

CWN Commentary: The Pope and His Pharisaical Attackers (Catholic World News)

Judge of Abusive Priest Corrects ‘Sloppy and Inaccurate’ New York Times Smears against Pope (LifeSite)

New York Times Anti-Catholic Bigots Exposed: The Trial Was Never Stopped, According to the Judicial Vicar In Charge (Catholic World News)

Lying Times: The Defamation of a Saintly Pope by The New York Times (Socon or Bust)

The New York Times: Lying, Left-Wing Rag Which Defames A Holy and Righteous Pope (Socon or Bust)

The Myth of Pedophile Priests (Fr. Dwight Longenecker)

A Response to the New York Times (Raymond de Souza)

The New York Times’s Smear on Pope Benedict (Socon or Bust)

19 thoughts on “Rock vs. Scissors: Benedict against the Media’s smears and petty gossip

  1. John, I appreciate your collection of articles here.

    An off-topic question however: If Benedict is a liberal’s worst enemy, what is he to the conservative?

    Kelly.

  2. Ok. Fair enough. I take it you have a rather specific description of each of these terms (liberal & conservative), because the way the words are used more generally, I would think that Benedict, as the vicar of Christ, would be making conservatives as uncomfortable as liberals. After all, Christ wants disciples, not ideologues. By the way, Happy Easter.

  3. Quite simply because Christianity is better. In Christianity, as he wrote in his first encyclical, one encounters “an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.” We both know who that is.

  4. We’ve discussed this before, Kelly. I only use “conservative” and “liberal” as to really to discuss those who are in the Catholic faith and those who are not and are enemies of it.

  5. And I simply do not understand the rationale for that. It makes “conservative” synonymous with Christian, and that’s absurd. I don’t attribute any ill-motive, but don’t you see how that reduces Christianity?

  6. But our job isn’t simply to preserve. There’s some powerful images of the Church (Bride, Mystical Body…) which, some would see as conservative. They speak to the mystical, relational, and aesthetic view of the Church, and are a part of our understanding of the Church. However, those images need to be held alongside others, which some would identify as liberal, which emphasize development, change and service (images of Servant or Pilgrim Church, for example).

    That chap with the one talent, who buried it in the ground, was interested in simply preserving. The language of `conservative` and `liberal` when used to distinguish between friend and enemy of the Church, betrays that same mentality.

    That`s why I expressed some time back, my interest in a post from you about how you perceive Jesus, and what transformation that has had and continues to have in your life. Jesus is bigger than these things, and while I suspect you know this on one level, your polarizing language suggests a disconnect.

    In your promotion at this blog of what you see as “conservatism” what is it about “conservatism” that makes it so much easier for you to advocate than the revelation of God?

    I hope you don’t take offense. But I think this is important.

  7. Kelly,

    There is obviously room for the development of Christian teaching. However, certain items like contraception and women’s ordination are “liberal causes” which have been definitively condemned, and are, in fact, of the devil.

    Polarizing language is necessary sometimes. Jesus came to bring a sword, after all.

  8. I think you missed the point. Of coarse I don`t think you deny the importance of development and change in the Church. But your point is a poor one, for while Jesus may have brought a sword, his ability to wield it, and yours (and mine) differ. Where’s the humility? James and John no doubt thought they were doing Jesus’ will when they asked his permission to call fire down from heaven to consume a village that wouldn’t listen. Doesn’t the surprise of those at the Last Judgment (told in Matthew 25) ever bother you?

    So that we don’t get distracted here, you keep harping about the “liberal causes,” and you’ve given some indication at what your getting at , but precisely which “conservative causes” do you feel are damaging the Church, and when are you going to concern yourself with the health of your soul, with what people who like to sound smark call the kerygma? Those are important things too.

    By the way, I hope you don’t mind the honesty. You’ve always been decent in your interaction with me, so its not malice for you that’s motivating me. I just think its kind of a joke that you refer to yourself so proudly as “always Catholic” (I realize the bio is a bit facetious). As I noted before, in Christianity one encounters “an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction,” and I don’t see that evident here.

    Hence my interest some time back in a post from you about how you perceive Jesus, and what transformation that has had and continues to have in your life. Again, I’m not saying you’re going to hell or are a bad person, I’m just saying there’s a disconnect.

  9. I stand by my point, but I don`t want to get too preachy, or make it seem as if I have everything figured out and you have nothing figured out, so I`ll leave it at that.

  10. John: I would suggest you not engage in debate with Kelly. Not that debate is not good, but his pattern is to never deal with the core of an issue when it is presented to him head on. He goes on and on and on – even when he is outrightly demonstrated to be wrong, as in his recent exchange with the brilliant Steve Kellmeyer, who literally destroyed his arguments. Kelly dances around issues, he is ambiguous, he speaks in a kind of eerie double-talk, and uses the typical liberal tactic of accusing authentic Catholicity as being “polarizing”. He claims to be a seminarian, but he appears very confused and always gives too much weight to dissenters (this also speaks to his professors or whatever, who are likely geriatric throwbacks from the “spirit” of Vatican 2). He has written for Catholic Insight, but I am quite sure that Fr. de Valk would be quite displeased if he read any of Wilson’s blog stuff.

    Pray for this guy. He needs it.

  11. Thanks TH2, for calling for individuals to pray for me. Can I consider that as serious, or are you just trying to make a cheap point? If you really are going to pray for me, or really are calling on others to do the same, then I appreciate it.

    As for my debate with the Steve, I’ll leave it for readers to decide who took a beating. If I lost, I am not ashamed. One does not sin simply by being on the wrong side of an argument. However, I maintained my Christian charity (I hope) while in his comments I don’t think he did. Further, if I showed you some of the private emails he sent me, perhaps you would not be as quick to associate yourself with him. Would you like examples?

    As for myself, I consider myself a “good” Catholic, and believe that what the Church teaches is true. I am a Seminarian (I don’t apologize for that), and while I have written 3 articles for Catholic Insight, I would be more than happy to pass along each to you or to whoever is interested, and I strongly suspect that you would find in them nothing to dispute.

    Where we may disagree, is in the “weight” the Church attaches to a particular teaching. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I have been working very hard to come to a correct understanding of this issue. Remember please, disagreeing about the weight a document contains does not have to mean that one disagrees about the truthfullness of the teaching.

    I am just completing a paper I’ve been working on for one of my ecclesiology classes. I chose the subect (the gradations of Church teaching). If you would like to read or discuss it, I’d be more than happy to pass it along, and await your feedback.

  12. I think you missed the point. Of coarse I don`t think you deny the importance of development and change in the Church. But your point is a poor one, for while Jesus may have brought a sword, his ability to wield it, and yours (and mine) differ. Where’s the humility? James and John no doubt thought they were doing Jesus’ will when they asked his permission to call fire down from heaven to consume a village that wouldn’t listen. Doesn’t the surprise of those at the Last Judgment (told in Matthew 25) ever bother you?

    No. Not really. We should not seek division for division’s sake, but it will be there and there is no point in running from it. The Cross itself is both a sign of division and unity. And the dividing line is the truth. I assure you that I am not calling down fire from heaven to consume anyone, but then again, I’m mindful of Jesus’s words in Matt.10:15.

    So that we don’t get distracted here, you keep harping about the “liberal causes,” and you’ve given some indication at what your getting at , but precisely which “conservative causes” do you feel are damaging the Church,

    There are not many conservative causes that are damaging to the Church, Kelly. The SSPX issue is of some concern to me, of course, but generally speaking, 99% of the problems in the Church are predominately from liberals. I don’t doubt that in the future the error is going to come from the “Right”, as the movements outside of the Church try to swing from one side to the other. But in our age, it’s all about correcting the “Left”.

    Moreover, I am not the one that is associating or defending dissenters against definitive positions of the Church like contraception and women priests, Kelly. You are — or at least you were. The Church will never reverse these decisions because they concern the very heart of the Gospel itself.

    and when are you going to concern yourself with the health of your soul, with what people who like to sound smark call the kerygma? Those are important things too.

    Generally I find that when my opponents start concerning themselves for the “health of my soul”, it generally coincides with their desire to divert the issue. This blog does not exist to concern itself with my own personal struggles or triumphs. And it certainly does not seek to discuss the same over and above the central issues of the day, your concern notwithstanding.

    By the way, I hope you don’t mind the honesty. You’ve always been decent in your interaction with me, so its not malice for you that’s motivating me. I just think its kind of a joke that you refer to yourself so proudly as “always Catholic” (I realize the bio is a bit facetious). As I noted before, in Christianity one encounters “an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction,” and I don’t see that evident here.

    That’s fine. I don’t generally talk about my encounter with Christ and His Mother on my blog, but I assure you it was and is real. In fact, there’s even some rather remarkable supernatural events thrown in, for what it’s worth. It’s the central reason why I have devoted much of my waking life to fighting for the truth in any way that I can. If you don’t see evidence of it, perhaps you are not looking hard enough or perhaps you have a distorted view of the evidence that is required to meet your definition. Either way, it doesn’t really concern me too much.

    Hence my interest some time back in a post from you about how you perceive Jesus, and what transformation that has had and continues to have in your life. Again, I’m not saying you’re going to hell or are a bad person, I’m just saying there’s a disconnect.

    I assure you that there is no disconnect with my view of who Christ is and what His Church teaches. I do agree with you that there is a disconnect, of course, but that it is not mine.

  13. Sorry, Kelly, but I have not changed the settings at all. If you included a link, it might have rejected it. Best always to do your work in a word processor and THEN post.

    Take it from someone who has been there 🙂

  14. Ok. I can’t go into the detail I did in a post that ended up not appearing, so let me be brief:

    1. I do not question the authenticity of your faith.

    2. I think the dividing is love (Mt. 25), unless you define Jesus as the Truth, rather than assent to propositions (but I do not want to belittle the importance of correct assent). I also agree with (Aquinas, I think) that one cannot sacrifice the truth in the name of “love”, nor can one sacrifice love for truth.

    3. I think dissenters require conversion. I think everyone does, but when there is an apparent case of dissent, I would like to see conversion. However, I have to highlight an important distinction: Dissenting from the truth of a teaching (i.e. saying “artifcial methods of birth regulation are not intrinsically evil,”), and disagreeing with the interpretation of the particular gradation of authority that this teaching possesses (i.e. saying “this teaching has not been solemnly defined,” or “this teaching is not contained within the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church”), are two very different matters. Where there is not a “solemn judgment,” so far as I can tell, interpretations regarding the infallibility of teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium (because the Church can teach infallibly in this way) are interpretations, and even if some interpretations (those of the CDF) are higher than others (like say those of Kung), interpretations are not protected by infallibility.

    Also regarding my “defense” of Gaillardetz, I took issue with the nature of some critiques, but I did note that there are important crtiques of him that are deserving of being heard. Two such critics (Fastiggi & Welch) in my own correspondence with them, would never use some of the language that certain bloggers are. And that was my main point about being charitable (but it was a general comment, and in this case not directed to you).

    I just finished a paper on gradations of Church teaching, and if you’re interested, I’d be happy to pass it along. It’s not perfect, so I’d appreciate whatever feedback you could offer in making it better.

    However, I mostly just wanted to reassert #1 in case it was in doubt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
15 × 25 =