So before I go any farther, let me just send a personal message to Fox News: DAMN IT LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!
Now with that out of the way, we can look at WHY I'm actually defending the Pope. Earlier this week Fox News published an article entitled "Pope Francis is the Catholic Church’s Obama – God help us", and unfortunately for me, it's adherence to logic, fact and history, and knowledge about the subject the author claims to know about was up to Fox's usual standards (which is to say, the words are in English and spelled correctly). Which means it tripped my anti stupid alarms, and now I have to dissect the piece and defend the Pope (again, thanks for that FOX....)
So here we go, lets dive right in to the full unedited article as presented by FOX News:
"Pope Francis is undergoing a popularity surge comparable to the way Barack Obama was greeted by the world in 2008. And just as President Obama has been a disappointment for America, Pope Francis will prove a disaster for the Catholic Church."
Yep. Which is why America replaced President Obama in 2012 with this guy named Mitt Romney, because that's what this country does when our leaders disappoint us. Oh wait no, I forgot THAT DIDNT HAPPEN. But anyways, continuing with your delusion;
"My fellow Catholics should be suspicious when bastions of anti-Catholicism in the left-wing media are in love with him.
Much is being made of his ‘compassion’ and ‘humility,’ but kissing babies and hugging the sick is nothing new. Every pope in recent memory has done the same, yet only now are the media paying attention. Benedict XVI and John Paul II refused to kowtow to the liberal agenda, and so such displays of tenderness were under-covered."
Yea, Pope John Paul II never kowtowed to the liberal agenda. In fact I'm sure he never would have been the first Pope to declare Gay People are entitled to the same inherent rights and dignity as everyone else. He also never pushed the idea of religious liberty, or was a major player in the Vatican II conference that helped modernize and liberalize the Church on many issues. Oh wait....I just did a Google search, apparently he actually did all of that.
"But Francis is beating a retreat for the Catholic Church, and making sure its controversial doctrines are whispered, not yelled – no wonder the New York Times is in love.
Just like President Obama loved apologizing for America, Pope Francis likes to apologize for the Catholic Church, thinking that the Church is at its best when it is passive and not offending anyone’s sensibilities."
So Francis is not saying anything controversial and is shying away from any church teachings that might be so......actually lets save this thought for later, I dont want to give anything away, but this gets funnier by the end.
But yea I do agree, clearly the catholic church has nothing to apologize for, like child rape or anything like that (by the way, guess whats on the list of things Francis (and the Church) havnt apologized for?)
"In his interviews with those in the left-wing media he seeks to impress, Francis has said that the Church needs to stop being ‘obsessed’ with abortion and gay marriage, and instead of seeking to convert people, “we need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.”"
So your mad because the Pope thinks its a good idea to figure out what Catholics believe in compared to other Catholics? Again, I'm an Atheist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt the whole point of religion supposed to be about shared belief in a series of universal "truthes?"
I'm just saying, making sure you all still believe the same things, and that therefore you are in fact still catholic, seems like it might be kinda important.......
"This softly-softly approach of not making a fuss has been tried before, and failed. The Second Vatican Council of the 1960’s aimed to “open the windows” of the Church to the modern world by doing just this.
The result was the Catholic version of New Coke. Across the West where the effects were felt, seminaries and convents emptied, church attendance plummeted, and adherence to Church doctrine diminished.
John Paul II and Benedict XVI worked hard to turn this trend around, but now Pope Francis wants the bad old days to resume."
You know who actually part of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's? Bishop Karol Wojtyła and Father Jospeh Ratzinger. Also known as John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Thats right, they worked SO hard to turn around the trend of Vatican II, they wrote the damn thing. In fact in 2011, then Pope Benedict declared the year between October 2012 and end of November 2013, a Year of Faith that provided "a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, in the words of Blessed John Paul II, 'have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church's Tradition ... I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning."
Yea, sounds like Benedict was trying REAL hard to backpedal away from Vatican II there.
Anyways, now that your done botching the history of your own religion over the course of your own life time (give or take a decade maybe, depending on how old the author of the piece is), what else you got for us?
"Proof of this is Francis’ aforementioned statement of the Church being obsessed with controversial issues and the need to rebalance by talking about it less.
That Francis didn’t see that this would be translated into headlines of “Pope tells Catholics to shut up about things that offend Sandra Fluke” by every left-wing media outlet shows a terrifying naivety.
Nor do his comments reflect reality.
For years, the majority of priests didn't dare cover controversial topics in their homilies in fear of getting angry letters from pick-and-choose Catholics outraged that their pastor dared to say something out of line with the Democratic Party."
So lets see, your pissed because Francis called on the Church to do something your claiming it was already doing? (not being controversial).
Ok so if the Church is already doing it, whats the problem again?
Also, your claiming the reason the Church is already noncontraversial is because of fear of Democrats.
This either means you have no idea the Democrats are an AMERICAN political party, and dont exist outside this country, or you dont realize Catholics exist outside this country. In fact Pope Francis exists outside this country, or do you not know where the Vatican is?
"Most parishioners therefore haven’t heard the Church’s argument on controversial topics. Consequently, usage of contraception is only slightly lower in Catholics than in the general population, and support of gay marriage is actually higher in Catholics than the general population. Perhaps talking about it even less isn’t the answer?"
Ok so if your own practitioners ignore you, and you cant seem to communicate with them the ideas they are supposed the AGREE with you on, why the fuck do you think the rest of us would give a shit about your belief on any issue.
Oh and by the way, I have an answer to your rhetorical question. Talking about it less isnt the answer, you know what is, finding ways "to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.” By the way if that sounds familiar, it should. Its from your own article about 6 paragraphs back. In was Pope Francis' suggestion for how to deal with that very problem.
Which means basically your entire article to this point has been you attacking the Pope for addressing the problem you want him to address in a manner you imply you'd like him to address it. Just saying, I'm half way though your piece, and I still dont understand your complaint, and I'm strongly starting to suspect you dont either.
"In trying to please the media and the modern world, Francis mistakes their glee for respect. Just like Obama thought he’d won over Putin by promising a reset, Francis thinks by talking vacuously about the poor, he will be respected. And it is vacuous -- the pontiff recently asked why it’s news that the stock market drops but not when an old person dies. When your leader is asking, “Why isn’t the newspaper a laundry list of obituaries?” you know you elected the wrong guy.
What effect is this having? For all we’re being told about how ‘disenfranchised’ Catholics are being brought back by Francis ‘reaching out,’ a recent Pew Research study showed that in America, the number of people who identify as Catholic has actually decreased
. Lesson: rubbing the egos of Church-hating left-wingers doesn’t make more Catholics, it just makes the Church less respected."I'm going to leave the link in your piece intact, that way people can click on it, and go see what that poll says for themselves. Like say this part where they summarize the findings "But attendance at Mass and Catholic identification in the U.S. has been steady since 2007". Also known as not what you claimed the poll said. But hey kudos to you for providing your own readers with a link that proves your lying to them. I guess at this point anyone who believes anything in this article really only has themselves to blame.
And to be honest, its not really surprising Pope Francis is having no affect on Church Attendance in either direction yet, given that he's only been Pope about 6 months, thats not a statistically significant period of time really.
"Francis not only panders to enemies and professional grievance mongers, but also attacks his allies. Just as Obama snubs Britain and Israel, Pope Francis swipes at practicing Catholics.
So not only has he insulted, and severely damaged the work of, pro-life and pro-marriage groups with his comments, he has also gone on the attack, dismissing Catholics who attend the older rites in Latin as ‘ideologizing’ and being guilty of ‘exploitation.’ Apparently “Who am I to judge?” doesn’t apply here."
Now without quotes we have to just take your word that these comments exist (odd how you couldn't seem to find any when the rest of your piece is full of them), so I can only really comment on example you claim about the Latin Mass. Which was done away with/severely curtailed by Vatican II, under Popes John Paul and Benedict, the same guys you've been lionizing. But hey we already established you actually dont know the history of your own religion in your life time, so moving on
"On world matters, Francis’ statements are embarrassing. About communism, a destructive ideology that slaughtered millions of Catholics, he said:
“Learning about it through a courageous and honest person was helpful. I realized…an aspect of the social, which I then found in the social doctrine of the Church."
Not such kind words for the free market, however. In his recent apostolic exhortation he slammed unfettered capitalism, calling it ‘a new tyranny.’
Apart from the fact that there is no major nation practicing unfettered capitalism (like Obama, Francis loves attacking straw men) there is more real tyranny in socialist cesspools like Francis’ home of Argentina than in places where capitalism is predominant.
In the document he rejects the free market and calls for governments to overhaul financial systems so they attack inequality. In doing so he shows himself painfully misguided on economics, failing to see that free markets have consistently lifted the poor out of poverty, while socialism merely entrenches them in it, or kills them outright.
Like Obama, Francis is unable to see the problems that are really endangering his people. Like Obama he mistakes the faithful for the enemy, the enemy for his friend, condescension for respect, socialism for justice and capitalism for tyranny."
You remember when I said I would come back to your earlier claim Francis wants the church passive and not offensive? What happened, I mean you seem to think those comments are pretty offensive.
Could it be your just outraged about being on the wrong side of the offensive comments this time? Could that really be what this temper tantrum is all about? cause we've already established its not about Church History, or solving Church problems.
So is that it? did the Pope hurt your feelings when he dismissed a good chunk of your world view? I hate to break it to you....so did the last guy. And the ones before him too. Because again, as you yourself pointed out, most Catholics dont believe in their own churches teachings. That seems to include you.
If only you had a Pope who would take your suggestion and do something about it. One who could, as you put it "see the problems that are really endangering his people." Oh wait, you do. But you just think he's a meany poopoo head.
Anyways lets finish this up.
"As a Catholic, I do hope Francis’ papacy is a successful one, but from his first months he seems hell-bent on a path to undo the great work of Benedict XVI and John Paul II, and to repeat critical mistakes of the past."
Great works that you seem to know nothing about, since apparently you were in a Coma between 1978 and March of last year, and missed the papacy of the last couple of guys.
In fact the only critical mistake I've seen made in this whole article in the 5 minutes I spend reading it I could have devoted to other, more intellectual pursuits like watching paint dry or seeing if I can touch my nose with my tongue..
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go bleach my brain and try to disinfect it from your stupidity....
