jump to navigation

Secular news site blasts institutional Catholic media response to papal criticism October 6, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, episcopate, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, persecution, Revolution, scandals, self-serving, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
trackback

Pretty interesting coverage from The Blaze, below.  They note the seeming persecution of Catholics who criticize the papacy in fairly strong terms by institutional Catholic media sites.  The implication of the piece is that Francis’ pontificate is forcing many Catholic media apostolates to reveal their true stripes, liberal or anti-liberal:

Directly following the papal visit to the U.S., the editor of conservative journal First Things announced he sacked a writer after she wrote a column critical of Pope Francis.

The announcement from First Things editor R. R. Reno is revealing……..[follows excerpt likening Maureen Mullarkey’s writing to conservative talk radio hosts, which I think is unfair and, yes, revealing]

It may surprise some that such anti-conservative clichés would come from a conservative publication like First Things. [Not me. This is the same site that has employed Damon Linker and Joseph (I heart gay marriage) Bottum] But Pope Francis’ pontificate is having that effect on more and more Catholic publications.

Adam Shaw lost his position at Catholic News Service after writing a critique of Pope Francis’s economic opinions. Patrick Archbold was sacked from National Catholic Register when he complained Pope Francis was alienating traditionalists. This writer was told to leave a Catholic publication after writing articles with a “tone” of “judgment” out of line with Pope Francis’s message of “welcome.” [This is a  most partial list]

It’s almost as if publications that are owned by or beholden to the Church are treating the Holy Father’s critics like whistleblowers uncovering an unsightly scandal. Perhaps because they are………

………Defending Pope Francis against the fired writer, Reno contends that “we need to have the moral and spiritual generosity to enter into our adversaries’ ways of thinking,” apparently implying that his adversary Maureen Mullarkey’s way of thinking is an exception to that rule.

And what rule is that? It is the “golden rule,” which Pope Francis proposed during his recent address to Congress. But Pope Francis applies the golden rule to battles between truth and dangerous error — rather than between neighbors as the Gospel recommends — and so it serves only as a defense of error against the truth. [Think on that a bit]

After all, when he spoke live to a world torn apart by error and moral chaos, what was the single “temptation” that Pope Francis said “we must especially guard against” in his address to Congress? “The simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and the sinners.” [But Pope Francis’ opposition to hard doctrinal stands, which he decries as an “ideology,” is itself an ideology! He is the most rigidly ideologically pontiff most of us have ever experienced]

Instead of praising saints and admonishing sinners, we must “confront every form of polarization which would divide [the contemporary world] into these two camps” in the first place, the pontiff said. [What a disastrous statement.  This guy……..he’s not Catholic.  He doesn’t get it.  He doesn’t get Saints as sources of division and even bitter struggle, but favors a strumming the guitar around the campfire while smoking a J kind of Church]

Perhaps this is why Reno would choose to publically excoriate Maureen Mullarkey for criticizing the political coalition Pope Francis is building with the left, instead of, say, First Things contributor Elizabeth Scalia — who was broadcasting the “Virtuous Pedophile” movement long before even Salon.com would touch it[Yeah, uh…….no wonder I’ not such a fan of Patheos and their ilk]

This kind of thing has long been known. That’s one major reason why specifically “traditional” publications have emerged going back decades, because the mainstream or institutional media would simply not countenance these kinds of opinions.

There are two major reasons why I don’t collaborate well and keep this blog a small, one man operation (and why I don’t look to make money from it, thank God):  money makes people do things they don’t want to, it is a rare man who can resist the temptation of the almighty dollar to stick to his principles, and I don’t like being told what opinions I can or cannot express or whether it’s OK if I X, Y, or Z.  I’ve had some very fortunate collaborations (mostly years ago) involving Vicki Middleton and Rebecca Diserio who would kind and generous enough to let me do my spiel with a totally free hand (and found both made quite insightful contributions in their own right) but those kinds of collaborations are rare.  I think they worked because we weren’t exchanging money back and forth, and because the ladies had their own commitment to the fight.  Some others haven’t worked as well, mostly because I lost interest or just sort of like to do things my way.

I think we’ve seen a heckuva lot of people go off the rails over the matter of money (and, possibly, fame) over the years.  Some people stop making sense, or they fall away entirely.  But I’m glad there is explicitly traditional, unyielding media that point out the crisis – and its roots – and refuse to be bullied into silence.  They are financially independent and don’t depend on the good graces of Bishop X or Group Y to make their money.  All the better.  Nothing seems to lead to mixed motives and moral compromises that direct Church-sponsorship.  None of that for me.

 

Comments

1. Baseballmom - October 6, 2015

Too many times I have seen money succeed at or attempt to control great apostolates. I have been around the (c)3 world for over 40 years and have learned much. Rare is the generous donor who does not want to control things or at least have a big voice in decision making… But when you find him (I can count the number I have known on one hand) he is a treasure….

2. Murray - October 6, 2015

As much as I hate to say it, that may have been a low blow aimed at Scalia (“Momma Bear of the New Homophiles”, in Austin Ruse’s clever coinage). Yes, she tweeted a Simcha Fisher (yeesh) article about “virtuous pedophiles”, but it was her job as queen of Patheos Catholic to promote her writers. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t get her off the hook entirely, but she wasn’t exactly endorsing Fisher’s article. On the other hand, it’s Elizabeth Scalia, so who knows?

Lynne - October 7, 2015

Elizabeth Scalia has been gay-friendly in a non-Catholic sense for a long time. It wasn’t one tweet.

3. David - October 7, 2015

I have seen The World Over Live several times this year. I have noticed that Raymond Arroyo has been willing to push the envelope (in a tactful way) by asking good questions. He interviewed Cardinal Kasper and called him on the carpet (tactfully) on a few issues, and he even mentioned that when the Archbishop of Chicago was chosen, Raymond Arroyo was not afraid to report that when this bishop was in another diocese, he locked up a parish known for orthodoxy before an Easter vigil Mass.

The last few weeks with the upcoming Synod, Raymond Arroyo had a good interview with Bishop Morlino, and both expressed their concerns about the revised annulment guidelines. During the Papal Visit, I heard Mr. Arroyo covering Washington, DC (he lives in DC), and he wasn’t afraid to call out the guest list of the dissenters and what their views were. I’m glad he expressed these things on EWTN.

Fr. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute also had some coverage during the Papal Visit, and Fr. Sirico wasn’t afraid to express some concerns, and I was glad Fr. Sirico mentioned that the secular media has an agenda when it comes to Pope Francis I.

4. Long-Skirts - October 7, 2015

“And what rule is that? It is the “golden rule,” which Pope Francis proposed”

Yeah, he that has the gold, rules!

5. Stephen Herreid - October 7, 2015

Thanks for the share.

6. tg - October 7, 2015

I went to the link and read some of Elizabeth Scalia’s. They are written in typical modernist language. I think some of these people have homosexuals who are family members.

Tantumblogo - October 7, 2015

She does. Very close family members. She was also sexually abused as a child. I can say form my personal experience (I wasn’t abuse, but have known several women who claim to have been) that those who experience such abuse are never quite right. It is simply too shattering an event for most to recover from, and Scalia’s was particularly egregious – it was her own father.

Murray - October 7, 2015

Yes, I remember I’d read that before, it seems to me from her own pen. I will try to remember her in my prayers.

Nevertheless, Scalia has gradually transformed from an occasionally interesting “conservative” blogger (an Instapundit favorite for several years) to a hand-wringing, tone-policing schoolmarm, scolding anyone expressing unease with the Magisterium of the Moment and allowing herself to become the mascot of the New Homophiles, who are agitating for official ecclesial recognition of what they call “spiritual friendship”, an ostensibly chaste version of same-sex partnership.

Tantumblogo - October 7, 2015

I noticed that transformation occurred right around the time she got a job with the Diocese of Brooklyn and started earning substantial $$ from her blogging.

tg - October 7, 2015

That’s terrible.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: