By creating the illusion that the Church is abandoning certain unchanging moral principles the media can widen the rift between the Church and some traditionalist Protestants. Beware the divide-and-conquer devils among us.
That NBC had doctored a 911 call for the purposes of making George Zimmerman look like a bigot was a shocking revelation. Yet cut-and-paste propaganda is a common media tactic and Im not sure anyone is victimized by it more than Pope Francis.
Youve probably read the headlines. Pope Francis urges global leaders to end tyranny of money" Pope Franciss stunning blow to conservatives" Pope Francis assures atheists: You dont have to believe in God to go to heaven" Pope Says Church Is Obsessed With Gays Abortion and Birth Control"; rinse wash and repeat. Yet these headlines range from delusion to possibly deception. By and large he said she said is not what the pope said.
Lets start with the recent big news the Jesuit magazine interview with Pope Francis called that stunning blow to conservatives." The stunned (and stunted) journalist who wrote that line The Guardians Andrew Brown used a Francis quotation" prevalent throughout the media. To wit: It is not necessary to talk about…abortion gay marriage and contraception all the time." Now its not surprising Brown didnt provide a link to the actual interview. Because not only is his cut-and-paste job missing an ellipsis (between and" and all the time") its an elliptical formulation that omits 58 words and 58 miles of meaning.
After saying he hadnt talked about abortion marriage and contraception much heres what the pope actually stated: The teaching of the church for that matter is clear and I am a son of the church but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time emphasis added." The media didnt omit the italicized words merely for brevitys sake. When Francis said that the teaching is clear" and hes a son of the church" he is reaffirming doctrine and his fidelity to it. Hes saying that the teachings in question are definitive set in stone and that he is loyal to mother Church as any good son" is to his mother.
Ironically the pope whom Catholics believe is Christs representative on Earth is receiving the same treatment Jesus himself did. Many liberals make their case for homosexual behavior by saying that Christ was silent on it. Of course Jesus didnt say anything about pedophilia either; this doesnt mean He would have tolerated it. Likewise its as silly to think that dogma is null and void unless continually espoused as it is to assume that a law is no longer on the books just because legislators dont talk about it constantly.
Of course one could still find fault with Franciss comments. While all the time" was surely just a manner of speaking in reality I hear far too little sermonizing at Mass about the moral teachings in question. Instead theres much nebulous talk about love." And while love is wonderful Id point out that a good physician makes the correct diagnosis and treats what the patient has not what he doesnt have. There is no powerful social movement whose placards state Down with Love!" and Give Hate a Chance!" As far as abortion and marriage go however the left has sought (and largely succeeded) in changing a tried-and-true status quo and traditionalists talk about these issues is simply responses commensurate with the lefts cultural-attack talk. We dont hose people down indiscriminately; we simply try to douse as many fires as the cultural pyromaniacs light.
Having said all this the main difference between Pope Francis and his two predecessors is one of style emphasis and tactics not dogma. Dogma cannot be changed.
One problem between the pope and secular world involves communication breakdown: terms and phrases have different connotations and sometimes different meanings to a devout Catholic than to a modernist. Consider for example Franciss July remark about homosexual priests Who am I to judge?" This was widely viewed as deviation from Catholic doctrine but the pope averred otherwise in the Jesuit interview explaining I said what the catechism says." But what long-held Catholic doctrine did Franciss comment reflect?
The catechism states that while homosexual behavior is gravely sinful homosexual tendencies are not (the catechism labels them disordered"). This is simply common sense. A person generally doesnt ask for the feelings he has and they often result from early childhood influences over which he has no control. His responsibility lies in whether or not he chooses to act upon those feelings.
This brings us to the rub: when the pope says homosexual" he thinks of a person with the tendency but takes for granted that a priest so burdened will strive to live a celibate life. When secularists hear the word however they generally think of a person engaging in homosexuality. Thus while Francis was saying he wouldnt judge" a person bearing the homosexual cross nobly the secular world heard I wont judge the behavior."
This misunderstanding is easy to fathom. Who am I to judge?" has become a code-phrase meaning Theres nothing wrong with homosexual acts." But the pope is not of our culture; hes a South American and I suspect he didnt understand the code-phrase and how its interpreted by secular Western ears.
But some interpretations" of the popes words are damnably much farther afield. Consider the Independents headline: Pope Francis assures atheists: You dont have to believe in God to go to heaven." Not surprisingly this paper also suddenly forgot how to use the hyperlink feature in its reportage (what the pope actually wrote).
But Francis never said You dont have to believe in God to go to heaven."
In fact he never used the word Heaven" in what was a 2688-word letter even once.
What the pope said that the media is spinning was Gods mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience." The Independent also quotes the pope as saying Sin even for those who have no faith exists when people disobey their conscience." Perhaps the paper has a (much) different translation from the Italian but I find that line nowhere in the letter. Anyway the letter is actually quite good on balance. As for insight into what Francis meant space constraints here preclude deep theological expositions but The Telegraphs Tim Stanley provides a decent explanation here.
Yet The Telegraph also had its Independent-of-truth moment when publishing Pope Francis urges global leaders to end tyranny of money" which as you could guess by now also omits a link to the popes actual words. The paper writes He the pope said free-market capitalism had created a tyranny…. That isunchecked capitalism had created a new invisible and at times virtual tyranny said the former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio." The reality?
Francis never used the phrase tyranny of money" or the term free-market capitalism."
In fact he never mentioned capitalism" or the free market" even once.
The popes actual theme in what in this case was a speech was that financiers politicians and economists should cultivate a God-centered ethics and Francis used the word ethics" or ethical" eight times and God" four times in a speech that took mere minutes to deliver. And author of The Telegraph article Nick Squires? He used the word ethical" just once…in passing.
He didnt mention God" at all.
And while he didnt present his cut-and-paste add-and-subtract mix-and-match formulations as direct Francis quotations many readers would either assume they were or in the least wouldnt figure that he had Zimmermanned" the pope. But its not surprising the media is reluctant to report on a God-centered ethics.
They apparently are sorely lacking in it themselves.
Yet there are many reasons why media distort the popes words. First theyll do anything for eyeball-grabbing headlines. Second Catholic theology has been forged over 2000 years is very deep and thus doesnt lend itself to sound-bite presentation. More significantly it cannot be understood by sound-bite commentators with 15-second attention spans who sadly interpret things knee-jerk style via the prism of their own prejudices. Third and in keeping with this liberals exist in a realm of rationalization anyway and thus can truly convince themselves that their feelings-derived sense" of someones meaning is gospel. The fourth factor is simple.
Leftists are dishonest.
Yet even many well-meaning people dont understand the Church. For one thing theres the aforementioned factor: the secular and devout Catholic worlds often speak different languages with words and phrases holding different meanings. As for doctrine the Church isnt some journalist with hormone-imbalance-induced mood swings. Defined doctrine (dogma) cannot change and new doctrines wont be forged with reporters. What a pope says in an interview doesnt change doctrine any more than what a president says in an interview changes American law.
But then there is a more insidious reason for the medias papal spin. Not only do the militant secularists assume the Church will eventually get with the times" and embrace its agenda (it feels so obviously correct you see) but they know if they can break the Catholic Church if they can get its imprimatur cultural domination is theirs. And hey if you cant break it fake it. With image being reality" making the low-info masses believe the Church has seen the light" may be sufficiently demoralizing.
The last significant factor is one Id like my Christian brethren to consider very very seriously. By creating the illusion that the Church is abandoning certain unchanging moral principles the media can widen the rift between the Church and some traditionalist Protestants. Beware the divide-and-conquer devils among us.
Having said all this Pope Francis certainly gives the media much grist for the mill. One issue is his gregariousness he said he loves being around people and he talks to anyone and everyone about anything and everything. This is dangerous for any public figure. Moreover while the pope is orthodox and in that sense neither liberal nor conservative Catholic doctrine doesnt address every issue and all its nuance. And given that Franciss instincts are it seems to me somewhat modernistic Im not confident in his pronouncements on matters beyond doctrine (or in his sense of priority). I think his grasp of economics is especially suspect.
And while the popes tactic of stressing Christs love and salvation message to the exclusion of certain moral doctrines is well-intended I dont believe it will work. The militant secularists arent interested in conciliation or compromise but in the complete and utter destruction of Christianity. They take no prisoners.
So say your prayers; theyre needed now more than ever. And I will say that Pope Francis may inspire me to expand my prayer life. For the first time ever I may start praying for laryngitis.