Posts Tagged ‘dishonorable media’

I would really like to see what “experts” are saying the Catholic Church is in turmoil. It is not for nothing that the story has a big correction at its head.

I submit that cafeteria Catholics and the media are seeing and trying to make turmoil where it doesn’t exist. As Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio… said

called upon the priests and people of the Diocese of Brooklyn to stand up with him and “besiege The New York Times. Send a message loud and clear that the Pope, our Church, and bishops and our priests will no longer be the personal punching bag of The New York Times.”

Bishop DiMarzio’s spirited defense of the Holy Father was based on the decision of The New York Times editors to, “Omit significant facts,” and ignore the reality that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Cardinal Ratzinger headed up, did not have competency over Canonical Trials in 1996. Moreover, Bishop DiMarzio continued “…the priest in question, Father Murphy was in the midst of a Canonical Trial. He died before a verdict was rendered.”

via Brutally Honest.

If the media bothered to look they would notice the huge attendance at events like the Catholic men’s conference among Catholics who actually believe and attend mass.

If Catholicism is so weak why was such a fuss made when dissenting nuns supported it? If Catholic opinion doesn’t matter why fund pseudo Catholic groups? In my opinion it is no coincidence that the scandals that struck the church were at their height as the church walked away from traditional practices.

I would suggest going to the Anchoress site and reading the whole thing as opposed to say Morning Joe trumpeting the BS class action case against the pope is a great example of this nonsense propagating the “big lie“:

Which brings us to Crimen sollicitationis. The document was crafted to ensure that if a Catholic were solicited to commit a sexual sin by a priest while going to confession, he or she could denounce that priest without being exposed to public scandal. Sinead O’Connor (and many, many others who have been flogging this particular Big Lie) have it precisely backwards. Crimen sollicitationis was not written to protect sexually abusive priests from punishment; it was written to enable the Church to get to the truth about predatory priests without embarrassing their victims or breaking the seal of confession. In fact, the protections required by Crimen sollicitationis encouraged victims of abuse to come forward. By requiring secrecy of the bishop and priests who handled any complaint about a priest-confessor who was a sexual predator, the Church tried to protect the confidentiality of the confessional and the privacy of the victim, not to prevent the crime from being reported to the police by the victim, who was never under any obligation of secrecy. The appropriate analogy is not to some Mafia-like international criminal conspiracy, but to the secrecy of those newspapers that choose not to print the names of rape victims.

The ignorance of American Catholics concerning their own faith in criminal, ironically foes of the church are using that ignorance to allow the former Bishops in Milwaukee to pass onto the pope their responsibility for turning a blind eye to their own problems.

Any Catholic who uses the New York Times in general and Maureen Dowd in particular as a source for their opinion of their church has real problems. Perhaps if they talked to the actual priest who served as the Judicial Vicar in the Milwaukee case they might learn something, oh sorry the NYT didn’t bother to even ask for an interview.

The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.

My suggestion to Mika and Barnicle is to read the whole thing until they have done so their comments on the case are simply uninformed gibberish. Perhaps they should try talking to or interviewing Fr. Thomas Brundage themselves before they jump on the Dowd bandwagon.

Update: I of course meant the “Dowd” bandwagon rather than the “Down” in the last sentence. I’ve corrected it.

Castro supporting media underestimating crowds of protests against Cuba.

CNN underestimating crowd at Sarah Palin event, where people are protesting Obama & Harry Reid.

If you want to see what is actually happening try Robert Stacy, or Nice Deb or Hotair. These are people I’ve met personally and I’ll vouch for their trustworthiness myself.

Update: Nice Deb links back and includes some pictures. Well technically it dozens is correct, there were hundreds or thousands of dozens.

The Seattle times reported that a rock was thrown through a congressman’s office in this building, on the 30th floor.

Land of the Giants!

The same people who believe that the Tea Party movement has 30 foot giants throwing rocks at windows probably believe the crowd estimates of these protests against Castro (photos via Babalu blog)

30 people march

30 people

173 people

About 173 people.

Those protests btw are to commemorate the crackdown of dissidents in Cuba known as Black Spring. At least one pop singer has spoken out about this, but for some reason wesmirch doesn’t find it interesting.

But don’t worry media fans and true believers. Andrew Breitbart is playing his own version of Win Ben Stein Money with $10,000 as the prize!

It’s time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point.

And surely if those cameras did not capture such abhorrence, then someone from the mainstream media — those who printed and broadcast his assertions without any reasonable questioning or investigation — must themselves surely have it on camera. Of course we already know they don’t. If they did, you’d have seen it by now.

That should be a piece of cake, after all the MSM media reported this as true and we believe the media don’t we?

Glenn Reynolds tell the tale.

I just noticed one formerly friendly journalist dissing me in the comments on a lefty blog, and when I checked my email I noticed that the friendly messages stopped right after I plugged his book.

You know if you treat people with respect you will earn respect, if you act like a weasel don’t expect people to remember you as anything but weaselly.

Glenn shows the class that the person he refers to doesn’t by not naming him. I suspect any subsequent book however won’t get a plug. Nothing like burning bridges is there?

Update: A lesson for the journalist in question: Instead of abandoning someone who does me a favor I sent a thank you note for the promotion of my attempt to make a living at this and got a very friendly reply…and ANOTHER Instalanche.

People are not a commodity to be used and discarded. They are our friends and brothers to be treasured and respected.