Pope Francis and the Media

Crazy times. That's partly the reason for the lack of updates.

The other thing though is there hasn't been a whole lot to say lately. But there have been a few interesting developments. A couple.

For one thing, my firm belief is the American leftwing media had no real choice but to show admiration for Pope John Paul II. He reigned for nearly thirty years, he was instrumental in the undoing of a major American enemy and he oversaw the implementations of major parts of Vatican II.

I won't discuss Vatican II, you understand. That's above my paygrade as an Inquirer. I'm just talking about Blessed John Paul II's legacy here and why the leftie media had some sympathies for him.

So they HAD to show admiration for him, especially on the occasion of his death. Even the leftie media aren't (or weren't) of such poor taste that they'd bash too much on him after his passing. Their rank and file sure did (check archives of their blogs and news article comments; it was the most ugly viciousness you can imagine) but the media themselves didn't.

And among liberals, some of the grief may well have even been sincere. I saw a picture of former-President Bill Clinton standing next to then current President George W. Bush. President Bush looked serious and solemn while Clinton looked completely overcome. Put another way, you could tell that Clinton had pretty much lost it over Pope John Paul's death. So if he was upset about it, I'll allow others might've been as well.

Pope Benedict XVI was an easier target for their abuse and vitriol. He was more of a traditionalist in some of his views, he was clearly not going to somehow change the Church's more aggravating policies (aggravating to liberals, that is) and all around I think the only reason he didn't have an even worse time is because President Bush was a much more interesting target. But under other circumstances, I shudder to think how the media might've treated Pope Benedict.

Pope Francis is different. Or different to liberals anyway. They fell in love with him because of the perception that he was friendly to liberal pet cause, even though he CAN'T change the Church's teachings regarding female clergy, abortions, same-sex unions and other things.

Everything is politics to the media. Add to that a fondness for deifying human beings as well as a complete ignorance of how the Catholic Church operates and you've got a recipe for them to believe that Pope Francis would be the answers to their prayers if they believed in prayer. They believe that, why, the right Pope at the right time could drag this old fuddy-duddy institution into the modern day, ordain female clergy, bless same-sex unions, permit abortions and other liberal sacraments.

This delusion comes in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

But now the pieces of the puzzle are beginning to fall into place. Pope Francis has said time and again that he cannot and will not "change" the Church's teachings about whatever the liberals are going nuts about this week.

On top of that, top Vatican officials are echoing the Holy Father's remarks.

"[President Obama] appears to be a totally secularized man who aggressively promotes anti-life and anti-family policies. Such policies would have been unimaginable in the United States even 40 years ago. It is true that many faithful Catholics, with strong and clear leadership from their bishops and priests, are reacting against the ever-growing religious persecution in the U.S."
-- Vatican Chief Justice Cardinal Raymond Burke
(Source- http://washingtonexaminer.com/cardinal-burke-criticizes-obamas-anti-life-and-anti-family-policies-ahead-of-vatican-visit/article/2546191

Maybe the leftie media will be content to continue living in Liberal La-La Land about this. Maybe they'll take possibly the most scathing criticism the Vatican has ever made against an American President's policies in my lifetime lying down. I admit it could totally happen.

I just doubt it will.

No, I think this will be the beginning of the end of the American liberal media's love affair with Pope Francis. Sooner or later (sooner, I always thought), they'd realize that Pope Francis hasn't "changed" anything, the Church's policies remain as they always were, Pope Francis is unapologetically maintaining the faith as it has been handed down for millennia and he's not the superhero/reformer he was first thought to be by the American media. The above quote from Burke may be their wake up call.

After that, my hunch is that the only thing that might save Pope Francis from being totally pilloried in the media will be his ethnicity. They may be slightly reluctant to bash too much on the first South American Pope in history. But maybe even that won't be enough.

Now, to address a little conspiracy that's made the rounds, a lot of people think the media have simply adopted Pope Francis as a posterboy specifically to create chaos and disunity in the Church. If the media love Francis, surely that'll tick off the conservatives and traditionalists in the Church, which is precisely what the media want. That may irreparably harm Pope Francis and his pontificate. If that happens, if the conservatives turn on a Pope perceived by the media to be more friendly to liberal wackadoo causes, mission accomplished!

Personally, I don't buy that. That would require the leftwing media to realize how most people view them, and that's something they're fundamentally unwilling to do. They have to believe not only that they're the smartest people in the room but that everyone else believes that too. So this theory that they're intentionally causing problems doesn't work for me because it would require the liberal media to acknowledge things about themselves they've historically been unwilling to acknowledge.

No, being as they tend to view the Catholic Church as just another political organization that can change direction if enough pressure is applied, they've genuinely taken Pope Francis to heart... which is why hell will have no fury greater than theirs when they realize Pope Francis is just another Pope who can't and won't "change" the Church's teachings about anything.

THAT is when the claws will come out and I suspect we aren't too far away from that happening.

More to follow.

Liberalism Doesn't Schism

In recent years, there's been something of a flurry of Anglican parishes (entire dioceses in some cases) joining the Catholic Church. Considering goings on with the worldwide Anglican Communion in general and the Episcopal Church USA in particular, this shouldn't be much of a surprise. The Anglican "Communion" is strictly ceremonial. A "communion" in name only. Certainly the liberals and the conservatives mostly can't stand to be in the same room together.

But increasingly there's no home for conservatives in the Episcopal Church USA and, God knows, other territories in the Communion, thus the impetus to part ways and rejoin Rome. Speaking as a former Anglican, this offends me not.

What is interesting though is how the liberals within the Catholic Church and the Episcopal church have reacted. Put simply, neither is very happy about this turn of events.

At the core of it all is, in my opinion, the natively liberal desire to not just be the majority but to DOMINATE. Whether we speak of religious liberalism, political liberalism or liberalism of anything else, the ethos is inherently repressive and totalitarian.

Thus traditional Anglicans/Episcopalians rejoining Rome is offensive to liberal Catholics, as it even further diminishes their influence within the Church. They view incoming Anglicans as interlopers and intruders. Think about that for a minute. How freaking historic is it that so many Anglican laity, parishes and even entire dioceses are coming home? This should be cause for prayer and praise! Instead, the Catholic liberals throw fits that wayward brothers and sisters in Christ have now rejoined His Church.

As to liberal Anglicans (which is fast becoming redundant but I digress), this is cause for consternation on many levels. For one thing, there are fewer conservatives to do the sticky icky work of feeding the poor, caring for the homeless and manning soup kitchens. And this is not to speak of parish donations taking a massive hit what with conservatives taking their wallets with them when they leave. Liberals of any stripe don't believe in charity.

For decades, the liberals were able to piggyback off the conservatives in caring for those less fortunate. Now with the conservatives rapidly hitting the doors, there are fewer people willing to do the heavy-lifting in the trenches to help the needy. And this makes the liberals look bad.

But the other, sicker issue is that on paper Anglican liberals now have what on paper they say they want. There are either formal or informal blessings to be given for same-sex unions, abortion, "consecration" of gay clergy and other things. The liberals rule the roost in the Episcopal Church USA. With each passing year there are fewer and fewer people to oppose them. At this rate, can you imagine what the next Lambeth Conference is going to be like?

Shouldn't that be cause for joy? They're getting their way. They're winning by percentages even if they're losing total numbers. But they're still winning! Why are they upset about being given even greater hegemony?

As I said before, the only logical answer is that they preferred having the conservatives under their thumbs. Liberal Catholics hate that conservative Anglicans are coming home to Rome because it (further) diminishes their influence. Liberal Anglicans hate that conservative Anglicans are going home to Rome because it places them beyond their grasp.

This is foreign to conservatism, be it religious, political or anything else. This is why religious conservatives tend to be more schismatic than their liberal counterparts. Liberals are perfectly content to wait for their opportunity to take over (the South seceding from the United States prior to the Civil War is the lone major exception I can think of). Conservatives would sooner split the blanket than live at someone else's leave.

Example: It seems every six months or so, some news story comes along that some group of liberal nuns out there are ticked off that the Catholic Church doesn't ordain female clergy/bless gay unions/permit abortion/whatever the moment's heresy is, the Church has said that will NEVER change and these liberal nuns are just fed up, why, they've had it up to HERE with all these old fuddy-duddy Holy Fathers who think they can boss other people around and they should realize it's [INSERT THE CURRENT YEAR HERE] so it's time to get with the times, blah blah blah.

Now, you and I look at that and question why those liberal nuns remain with the Church in spite of the fact that the rules won't ever change. And the answers to that are quite simple.

First, they may attract enough attention to swell their ranks. But lacking that, at least they get to be on TV. Never underestimate a liberal's vanity.

Second, they WILL NEVER leave the Church. The instant they leave the Church, they're a non-story. Nobody cares what a bunch of disaffected liberal former nuns think. The networks know that and the liberal nuns know that. But if they're still active within the church? Hey, their rallies or demonstrations or protests or whatever they call them this week are NEWS.

Liberalism doesn't schism because l liberalism is tyranny.