The L.A. Times tells the Vicar of Christ what to say
Once again the liberal editorializers at the L.A. Times take it upon themselves (click on this post's title) to tell the Holy Father what to say.
They want Pope Benedict XVI to "address the role of religious differences in conflicts from Darfur to the Middle East to Tibet." Don't look now, but those are all different situations, and many factors are at play in each.
They want the Pope to "acknowledge...that Christians too have wielded the sword in defense of their faith." Wait a minute; so Christians should have surrendered at Vienna in 1683 and not defended their Faith, families and homes from invaders who had promised massacres and enslavement?
They want the Pope to "apologize for sexual abuse of young people by a minority of priests without further demoralizing clergy who have been faithful to their vows." They ignore that the Popes have already apologized; and since when do liberals worry about "demoralizing clergy?"
The Times wants Pope Benedict to avoid "taking sides in the debate among American bishops about whether pro-choice [sic] Catholic politicians should be denied Holy Communion..." Sure, they do. But, um, it's not a matter of the Pope "taking sides"; he is ABOVE the U.S. bishops.
They also want the Pope to avoid "seeming to insinuate himself into a presidential election in which a pro-life Republican will oppose a pro-choice [sic] Democrat." Sure, they do; they're all about partisan politics.
And for good measure, the L.A. Times liberals want the Holy Father to "resist suggestions that he censure Catholic colleges that encourage robust debate even about such issues as abortion, homosexuality and women's rights." As we know, such colleges don't encourage debate, they often stifle pro-lifers and pro-family activists and favor anti-lifers and the pro-homosexual-agenda side.
We ruefully expect the Times to say such things; what's bad is when liberal Catholics say them and worse.
They want Pope Benedict XVI to "address the role of religious differences in conflicts from Darfur to the Middle East to Tibet." Don't look now, but those are all different situations, and many factors are at play in each.
They want the Pope to "acknowledge...that Christians too have wielded the sword in defense of their faith." Wait a minute; so Christians should have surrendered at Vienna in 1683 and not defended their Faith, families and homes from invaders who had promised massacres and enslavement?
They want the Pope to "apologize for sexual abuse of young people by a minority of priests without further demoralizing clergy who have been faithful to their vows." They ignore that the Popes have already apologized; and since when do liberals worry about "demoralizing clergy?"
The Times wants Pope Benedict to avoid "taking sides in the debate among American bishops about whether pro-choice [sic] Catholic politicians should be denied Holy Communion..." Sure, they do. But, um, it's not a matter of the Pope "taking sides"; he is ABOVE the U.S. bishops.
They also want the Pope to avoid "seeming to insinuate himself into a presidential election in which a pro-life Republican will oppose a pro-choice [sic] Democrat." Sure, they do; they're all about partisan politics.
And for good measure, the L.A. Times liberals want the Holy Father to "resist suggestions that he censure Catholic colleges that encourage robust debate even about such issues as abortion, homosexuality and women's rights." As we know, such colleges don't encourage debate, they often stifle pro-lifers and pro-family activists and favor anti-lifers and the pro-homosexual-agenda side.
We ruefully expect the Times to say such things; what's bad is when liberal Catholics say them and worse.
posted by Quintero at 11:15 AM
1 Comments:
Well, as everybody know, Benedict not only has apologized for the clerical sex-abuse crisis (in terms that JPII never used, btw) but has dressed down the bishops for their failures.
Good for him! It's long past time.
Now, Benedict needs to put more meat on these bones by removing Mahony and George, and by laicizing Law. The fact that the latter protrated himself in a mosque in December 2002 (do a Google search) makes him an apostate who is not fit to be a priest, let alone an archbishop.
Post a Comment
<< Home