Is Anybody There?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says Yahweh Sabaoth" Zach 4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dio di Signore, nella Sua volontà è nostra pace!" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin 1759

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Once Again We See the Anti-Life Anti-Truth Bias of the Main Stream Media

The big news of the past 24 hours is the rumor that Archbishop Chaput of Denver will be appointed the new Archbishop of Philidelphia to replace retiring Archbishop Justin Rigali. As I type this the evidence points to that rumor being true.

I have found it interesting to see how the various media have reported it. The Catholic News Agency story focused on the fact that Papa Benedetto rejected the name put forth on 30 June by the Vatican's Congregation for Bishops that was picked from the "terna" (list of 3 candidates). The story said that after praying over the 4th of July weekend, Papa Benedetto rejected all 3 of those named in the terna & selected Archbishop Chaput instead. The article went on to point out how Archbishop Chaput worked a lot with the Pope during the apostolic visitation of the Legion of Christ between 2009 & 2010 & that Archbishop Chaput also led the visitation of Bishop Bill Morris in the Diocese of Toowomba, Australia in 2007.

Contrast this to the bias shown in the liberal "catholyc" press as well as the main stream media.

The article in the Sacramento Bee is a prime example. That article focused mainly on the current "sex-abuse" scandal in the Archdiocese. While that is a valid story, to make it the centerpiece of the article & especially to ignore the positive steps Cardinal Rigali took to deal with the scandal was just wrong.

But what really showed the anti-Catholic bias in the article was how it described Archbishop Chaput. It was clear that they intended to paint him as a radical conservative. "Chaput, 66, is known as an outspoken U.S. bishop who criticizing Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, speaking out against government playing too big a role in health care and opposing gay marriage and stem-cell research.
In 2010, he defended a decision by a Catholic school in Boulder not to re-enroll two children of a lesbian couple. Chaput said the parents of Catholic school students are expected to agree with church beliefs, including those forbidding sex between anyone other than married, heterosexual couples
." (emphasis mine)

Did you notice what they pointed out? Everything mentioned was clearly intended to paint him as a hardline conservative, something that I have to strongly disagree with. All the Archbishop has done is what he is supposed to do as a bishop, uphold the authetic magesterial teaching of the Catholic Church. But what is worse, he has often lead by example, including praying in front of the then largest Planned Parenthood clinic that opened in the Denver area in 2008. Of course the pro-abort, pro "culture of death" main stream media doesn't want to point that fact out since it opposes the very things the Catholic Church stands for.

But what I found especially egregious is how they lied about his stand on stem cell research by leaving out the term "embryonic". They know full well that the Archbishop has no problem with other forms of stem cell research. But to admit that just wouldn't do. So they pull out the old lie that to oppose embryonic stem cell research is to oppose stem cell research. I've pointed out many other times how the media misrepresents stem cell research so I won't go into all the details here.

I have to say that considering it is the newspaper of record for those working to undermine authentic Catholic teaching, that the "Non-Catholic Fishwrap" story written by John Allen was much more balanced. The liberal "catholyc" vitriol did come out in the comment section however. (more on that later)

Allen describes Chaput as being perceived as "a leader of the church's conservative wing and a tough administrator with a strong work ethic". It goes on to desscibe him "as a prominent lightning rod for controversy." & that "He's seen as a strong voice for doctrinal orthodoxy, and he champions a robust role for people of faith in political life."

The article does point out the problems with the "sex abuse" scandal he will face, but it doesn't dwell on them. Instead it does talk about how he has been that strong voice for "doctrinal orthodoxy".

Where the vitriol come out is in the comments section as I have pointed out. Yes, there are a few positives, but given the fact that most of the NCReporter readers are "catholycs' who oppose "doctrinal orthodoxy" rather than authenticly Catholic, that the majority of commenters would attack him is no surprize.

Among the comments are such things as "The very worst man for the job in Philadelphia." Another said "The Church just plunges itself deeper and deeper into the abyss..." Another accused Chaput of having "a heart of stone". Another person said that Rome felt Philidelphia needed a Bishop who was more "Republican". & of course he was attacked for his part in the Toowomba visitation that showed how far the Bishop had strayed from orthodoxy.
But the one that really got me was this one: "Despite his reputation for orthodoxy, like the rest of the US bishops (save 2), he is guilty of material cooperation with the objective evil of unjust war, and has effectively proclaimed a message of moral relativism when it comes to participation in unjust war. So he's just another cafeteria Catholic, selectively picking and choosing which doctrines of the Faith he preaches and teaches." I had to laugh at how the author, who is clearly an authentic cafeteria "catholyc", tried to paint Chaput as one. Unless the author is totally ignorant, he knows full well that there is plenty of room for debate on whether what he describes as an unjust war is or isn't. I am willing to bet that the author is a prime example of moral relativism in what he speaks out for. BTW, since Papa Benedetto hasn't labeled any of the current wars the US is involved in as unjust, by this guy's standards, does that make him a moral relativist as well?

While there have been times I wish Archbishop Chaput would take a stronger stand in dealing with pro-abort "catholyc" politicians, over all he has been a strong defender of orthodoxy. Papa Benedetto is making it very clear that his prime concern is bringing about the end of the damage done by the false "Spirit of Vatican II" gang ASAP. As for those SVII gang who have their shorts bunched up in a knot, now you are beginning to understand how the Arians, Pelagians & the others who are your spiritual ancestors in heresy felt as the Holy Spirit ensured that their heresies would be rejected. Your views are ending up in the same trash heap as they were always fated to.

Labels: ,


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home Headlines

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Get this widget!
Visit the Widget Gallery