The March for Life media blackout

The annual March for Life is the mainstream media's favorite event not to cover, as Get Religion notes.

That's one of the reasons why there's AMP NEWS. We'll be there.

Don't waste time on John A. Farrell's argument for Obama

Some folks are making interesting arguments for why a Catholic could support Obama.

John Aloysius Farrell of US News & World Report is not one of them.

Farrell has previously, by his own admission, compared the leadership of the Catholic Church to the Taliban, although he admits that was probably "a little over the top." Excuse me, a little?!

Now, in his pro-Obama argument "An Obama Vote Is No Sin for Catholics, Even With His Abortion Views", he first gets this wrong:

As a matter of church doctrine, Catholics are free to vote for any candidates whose stands they like on foreign policy, the economy, or other issues.

Of course not! A Catholic is not "free" to vote for Hitler if they like his policy on aggressive foreign expansion (Farrell apparently likes Nazi analogies). Anyway, liking a candidate on a single issue is not enough - they also have to be morally acceptable on important issues.

C'mon John - you have to admit that the above is just a stupid line, and claiming that it represents "church doctrine" doesn't help your cause with anyone who has ever cracked a catechism open.

Next wrongness:

And as a matter of practical politics, Catholic voters who vote Republican because they think the GOP is a strong foe of abortion have been sold a bill of goods.

In the 35 years since Roe v. Wade guaranteed a right of abortion for women, the Republicans, though dominating American politics, have consistently failed to take the tough political steps necessary to outlaw the practice.

This is a huge mis-reading of American history. Republicans have worked hard to reduce the incidence of abortion, and have been stymied in their attempts to do more by democrats. Are the republicans perfect on this issue? Of course not. Are they better than democrats on average? Yes.

And why do pro-abortion groups love democrats? Are they being sold a bill of goods by the democrats? What say you, Farrell?

Oh gosh, I'm sorry I asked. His solution:

If the Catholic clergy truly believes that abortion is so intrinsic an evil—a sin above sins—then it's time to blink at the lesser transgressions of birth control and sex education. Not just in America, but around the world.

You want to reduce the number of abortions? Distribute condoms and show teens how to use them.

I'm sorry, I've stopped listening. It's amazing how easy it is for Farrell to transition from an arguable claim about the legitimacy of voting for Obama to ... flat-out dissent from and opposition to Church teaching. No wonder he finds such a fast friend in Doug Kmiec, whom he quotes more than anyone else in the article.

It would be nice if we could all come together and condemn Farrell's ignorant, un-Catholic portrayal of the issues. He does his readers a disservice by claiming he speaks as an informed Catholic. I certainly do not see much evidence of being either.

The Seven New Deadly Sins ... That Are Not.

This is a classic case of British tabloid sensationalism. The headlines:

"Recycle or go to Hell, warns Vatican" - UK Telegraph

"Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?" - UK Times

Oh come now.

Margaret at InsideCatholic has the right response. (breath, count to 10, move on).

Still, Reuters isn't far behind. At least they note that the Archbishop spoke mostly about bioethics.

And my heart goes out to poor Ed Morrissey at Hot Air who tries to make sense of all this.

If anyone has access to the original L'Osservatore Romano text, I'd appreciate a gander.

update: a little traction on the story from the CNS NewsHub. AP coverage here. So. Many. Errors.

update 2: Phil Lawler on "Not "new sins" but an old media blind spot. Clarifying for us what needed to be clarified, but better than most of us could do it, and succinctly:

'Archbishop Girotti said that the modern world does not understand the nature of sin. With their coverage of the interview, the mass media unintentionally underlined the prelate's point."

Report: "Religious Delusion Hampers Nanotechnology"

If that headline had you scratching your head, it should.

Science Daily reports:

Addressing scientists Feb. 15, 2008 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences communication, presented new survey results that show religion exerts far more influence on public views of technology in the United States than in Europe.

In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.

Europeans however, do not look so ascance at the technology:

In European surveys that posed identical questions about nanotechnology to people in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology. In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology.

Now, here's where things get interesting. Why, do the authors claim, is there a disparity?

The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion: "The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives. The importance of religion in these different countries that shows up in data set after data set parallels exactly the differences we're seeing in terms of moral views. European countries have a much more secular perspective."

The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele.

Wow. "Nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together."

Let's be clear for a moment. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with nanotechnology, properly termed. And certainly putting it in the same category as "stem cell research" is wrong. The only thing these two things share in common is being microscopic.

If these findings are true, it highlights a distressing reality that educated Catholics have to face: evangelicals and fundamentalists who constittue the so-called "moral majority" in America are an embarassment to us all when they evidence such poor critical thinking skills.

Just look at one example of the criticism this news has provoked:

Hmm. Nanotech could most likely cure cancer, extend life, solve the renewable energy dilemma, and lead to drastically reduced poverty, among other things. Guess who’s against it?

That’s right folks, let’s keep life on earth backward and miserable so we can keep focused on that oh-so-precious afterlife.

The idiocracy is in full-swing in the US of A.

It would be easier to answer this sort of charicature if folks educated themselves before answering surveys.

A more pointed criticism, this from a Wall Street Journal blog:

If you don’t have a super-fast, super-small computer in a few years, blame the moral majority. It turns out that most Americans find nanotechnology, the scientific field most likely to produce such a breakthrough, morally unacceptable.

Frankly, I think that's drastically over-valuing the effect of the "moral majority" lobby. Also, it's a huge generalization, but one that brings out the untenable nature of claiming nanotechnology is "immoral".

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd like to find out how the survey questions were phrased. If the question was along the lines of "do you think nanotechnology has the potential to be abused"? Than sure, that's something one could defensibly argue. As is normally the case, the devil is in the details.

And I truly don't want to think that Americans would rule-out nanotechnology for such poor reasons.

From the original article in Science Daily, a further claim:

The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.

"They still oppose it," he says. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed."

The new study has critical implications for how experts explain the technology and its applications, Scheufele says. It means the scientific community needs to do a far better job of placing the technology in context and in understanding the attitudes of the American public.

This at least gives the respondents a bit more benefit of the doubt. Far more likely than the "nanotechnology reminds me of stem cell research and is therefore wrong" argument is something along the lines of "nanotechnology represents a deep alteration of nature and so must be explored with caution." I agree with that.

There's another dimension to take into consideration - the fusion of nanotechnology and biotechnology. The human application of nanotechnology, for instance, could pose ethical dilemmas. But such is true for all medical procedures, interventions and treatments. What one should not confuse however, is the moral quality of the technology, and the moral quality of the use of that technology. They are separate questions.

Bottom line, there is no reason to rule out nanotechnology because it is technology, or because it is "nano."

So, what should we take from this survey, and its subsequent reporting?

• Many Americans are uneasy about nanotechnology for "religious" reasons
• Those reasons are either not understood or not well presented by the survey takers
• People continually looking for an excuse to blame things on "fundamentalists", have found one
• Two tasks must be taken up: a) educating those who try to take "mental short cuts" about the distinction between technology and the uses of technology b) educating those who charicature "religious reasoning" about the essential role of prudence in scientific discovery and research.

Oddly enough: "Nanotechnology is currently used in 85 personal care products. " - Cosmetic Design

Did the Pope condemn "climate change prophets of doom"?

Earlier this week (the day it was issued), I blogged that Pope Benedict had released his Message for the 2008 Day of World Peace. Paragraphs 7 & 8 of that document are entitled "The family, the human community and the environment." Vatican analyst John Allen, in his coverage of the document, said that it represented a "distinctively Catholic shade of green." An excerpt:

On the environmental front, however, Benedict is also well aware that his budding eco-advocacy has drawn fire from critics who warn that it gives aid and comfort to radical secular environmentalists, including thinkers who deny any special moral status to human beings or who reject Biblical notions of human stewardship of the earth as excessively "anthropocentric."

Thus in today’s message, Benedict was careful to signal that he’s not ready to sign up for an “Earth First!” membership card.

I think that's a fairly accurate read of the situation, and nothing here should surprise anyone who is aware of the Church's long-standing tradition of respecting the environment but giving humanity priority.

Today, however, the UK Daily Mail tried to make the Pope's message sensational:

"The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom"

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

Of course, you don't find the DM using any quotation marks because the Pope said nothing so specific.

I think two excerpts from the actual document are most pertinent to this question:

#7 ...Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances....

#8 ...In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions...

Here Pope Benedict is making the simple (but almost universally-ignored) observation that the rush to arrive at a "consensus" in the man-made global-warming debate is a disservice to humanity (when it spreads overblown fears and promotes useless "solutions"), and furthermore that artificial, ideologically-driven consensus violates the usual methods of good scientific hypothesis-testing.

Pope Benedict spends a large portion of his message speaking about the role prudence should play:

"Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying."

He also succintly lays out the two poles of morality that should guide decision-making about the environment:

Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves.

In what remains (I've already quoted practically everything he has to say), Pope Benedict notes:

• The poor must not be excluded their share in the goods of creation.
• By the same token, the costs of preserving the environment must be shared justly.
• Technologically advanced countries should reassess their levels of consumption (a good reminder at Christmas ) and search for alternative sources of energy for greater efficiency.
• Emerging countries should not have their energy reserves exploited by richer nations.

Three comments that the Pope makes I'm still pondering:

• "Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours..."

Frankly, I think the international agencies currently in existence are most guilty of the temptation to be "inhibited by ideological pressure" and for that reason "draw hasty conclusions." So why exactly would more help a situation that is already plagued by the existing ones?

• "...more important [than international agencies], however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation."

Again, those who are not cooperating seem to be the same folks who are resisting the temptation to - wait for it - "draw hasty conclusions" and become "inhibited by ideological pressure." Isn't that so?

And then this single line:

• "The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short."

Sadly, sometimes I think these documents embrace ambiguous phrasing to leave some "hedge room." The problem is, this sentence can be taken to mean precisely whatever it is you take to be the problem and then imbues this self-defined problem with a sense of urgency ("time is short"). In a debate charged with a) lack of clarity and b) exaggeration ... this exhibits both, in my opinion.

Meanwhile, I wouldn't get too perturbed by the UK Daily Mail story. If you need any sense of that publication's journalistic integrity, you need only take a look at the poll it is running today: "Are American Women Better Groomed than British Females?"

The answer looming on the horizon is complex ... and time is short!

Favorable "U.S. Bishops" review of The Golden Compass given much press

As predicted, many columnists are taking the favorable review of The Golden Compass issued by the USCCB's office for Film and Broadcasting as "gospel." A sample:

“The Golden Compass” — and Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy of novels on which it is based — has been criticized in some quarters for being anti-religious and specifically anti-Catholic.

But the U.S. Conference of Bishops recently issued its official review of the film — and it’s a rave.

Writing for the Catholic News Service (catholicnews.com), critics Harry Forbes and John Mulderig call the movie “lavish, well-acted and fast-paced.”

“The good news,” they write, “is that the first book’s explicit references to this church have been completely excised, with only the term Magisterium retained. The choice is still a bit unfortunate, however, as the word refers so specifically to the church’s teaching authority. Yet the film’s only clue that the Magisterium is a religious body comes in the form of the icons which decorate one of their local headquarters. - Robert W. Butler of the Kansas City Star

As Jim Lackey of CNS News clarifies, "technically it’s not our review; we simply distribute film office reviews to the Catholic press".

And once again, an important distinction is lost upon those looking to support their a priori.

AFP: "Catholic coloring book warns US kids of pedophile priests"

AFP:

New York's Roman Catholic Church is trying a novel approach to alert children to the danger of being sexually assaulted by a priest, with an abuse-themed coloring book, officials said Tuesday.

"Being Friends, Being Safe, Being Catholic," was distributed earlier this year to several hundred schools in the New York area as part of the church's Safe Environment Program, a spokeswoman from the city's Archdiocese said.

One image in the book features a guardian angel hovering over an altar boy with a priest lurking in the background.

"For safety's sake, a child and an adult shouldn't be alone in a closed room together," the angel counsels. In another, the angel warns of a sexual predator attempting to chat with a child over the Internet.

Yes, the idea is a bit hokey. And if the subject matter weren't so grave, it might well be filed in the "oddly-enough" category. But frankly, this story is mostly a pretense to bring up the same old facts and figures. Look where it goes from here:

David Clohessy, head of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, cautiously welcomed the initiative, but said it did not go far enough.

"We applaud the intent but worry a bit about the approach... it does still feel like almost every step taken by the hierarchy is one that's been prompted by external pressure," he told AFP.

The scale of child abuse by priests remained hidden in the United States for years until the Archbishop of Boston confessed in 2002 to protecting a priest he knew had sexually abused young members of his church.

According to the group "Bishop Accountability," some 3,000 priests out of the 42,000 across the country have since been denounced, some of whom have been investigated and convicted.

Since the scandal broke, US Catholic authorities have paid out close to 2.8 billion dollars in damages, forcing many dioceses to sell off their assets.

To review:

• The AFP seems to think that SNAP is the *only* advocacy group for children's protection in the U.S. Never mind the fact that their ambitions for change in the Church go far beyond child safety. You can't satisfy SNAP. Every time the Church tries to do something, it is criticized.
• The second source the article goes to is "Bishop Accountability", another organization that does far more than try to keep bishops accountable for genuine mistakes.
• Then come the statistics, also gleaned from Bishop Accountability. And the money. Can't forget that.

But finally, and most incongruously: what picture does the AFP choose to accompany this article?

Pope Benedict meeting with the Cardinals in Rome. ("Pope Benedict XVI (C) leads a prayer session at the Vatican November 2007.")

Nevermind what was being discussed at the time. The Archdiocese of New York publishes a coloring book to prevent abuse? It must have been personally ordered by Pope Benedict at the Vatican!

It's like writing an article about employees of Michigan Electric failing to recycle properly and attaching to that coverage a photograph of President Bush meeting with the EPA.

Only someone woefully ignorant, or blithely able to collapse widely-disparate elements of an organization together when it serves his purposes, could match this photograph with a story about a coloring book.\

update: Zadok the Roman from the comments:

"One image in the book features a guardian angel hovering over an altar boy with a priest lurking in the background."

A priest lurking in the background?

Fortunately the picture itself is much more innocuous: [see the full article here.]

Agreed - "lurking"?!

Coca-Cola promotes Golden Compass to address "perilous state of the polar bear"

A nice snapshot of contemporary values:

I saw that Coca-Cola is promoting the movie [The Golden Compass], and I wrote to them to express my feelings about it -- including mentioning that the villains are called "The Magisterium" in the movie. Here is the response I got:

"We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns." The Golden Compass movie is a story about friendship, love, loyalty, tolerance, courage and responsibility. This movie also provides an opportunity for Coca-Cola to help raise awareness about climate change and the perilous state of the polar bear."

"We do not believe that this fantasy movie is an attack on any religion. We would never support a film that intentionally antagonized or condemned any faith."

If they receive more letters about this, it's possible it may accomplish something. ~ Rick Kephart

Frankly, until someone makes a compelling case that this movie diminishes the survival chances of the polar bear, or somehow inhibits climage change, I doubt we'll see anything accomplished.

Pope calls for "everything possible to be done to halt the spread of AIDS"

From today's Vatican bulletino:

INCREASE EFFORTS TO HALT THE SPREAD OF AIDS

At the end of today's general audience, which was held in the Paul VI Hall, the Pope launched an appeal for everything possible to be done to halt the spread of AIDS.

"December 1," he said, "marks World AIDS Day. I remain spiritually close to everyone suffering from this terrible sickness, and to their families, especially those who have lost a loved one. To everyone I give assurances of my prayers.

"Furthermore, I wish to exhort all people of good will to increase their efforts to halt the spread of the HIV virus, to combat the disdain which is often directed towards people who are affected by it, and to care for the sick, especially those who are still children."

Beyond being true, it's also a smart move to preemptively mention this issue in advance of Saturday's "World AIDS day". Doing so pulls a bit of the rug out from under those who perennially criticize the Church for not endorsing the distribution of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV, as Reuters is wont to do (and thereby falsely claim that the Church doesn't care about those infected with HIV/AIDS):

AIDS activists have often sharply criticised the Church over its position on condoms.

In recent years, several top Church officials have called for a change in Vatican policy on condoms to allow their use by married couples where one partner is affected by HIV or AIDS.

But the Vatican has been loath to issue any document that could be interpreted as a green light for the use of condoms to stop the spread of AIDS, fearing it would endorse promiscuity.

Or, to put it another way, the Vatican is loath to issue any document that could be interpreted as a green light for continuing the prevalence of sexual promiscuity that exacerbates the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Note the difference.

"World Day for Media" - but is anyone listening?

Zenit reports:

The theme Benedict XVI chose for the 2008 World Communications Day focuses on the media at the service of truth.

The Pope chose "The Media: At the Crossroads Between Activism and Service. Seeking the Truth in Order to Share It With Others” as the theme for the 42nd world day, to be celebrated in most countries on the Sunday before Pentecost, this year, May 4.

Archbishop Claudio Celli, president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, said: "The theme chosen by the Holy Father for World Communications Day calls on us to reflect on the role played by the media and especially the increasing risk of their becoming self-absorbed and no longer tools at the service of truth -- something that is meant to be sought and shared."

World Communications Day is the only worldwide celebration called for by the Second Vatican Council, in its decree “Inter Mirifica."

The Holy Father’s message for World Communications Day is traditionally published in conjunction with the Memorial of St. Francis de Sales, patron of writers, Jan. 24.

This is all well and good. At the same time though, is anyone listening? I don't think it's a very radical idea to most Catholics that the media should be evaluated critically sometimes. Most conservative folks in the U.S. have plenty of people telling them to not trust the liberal media. And I can't think that TV producers are even aware of this event.

Am I missing something?

Honestly, I think the best thing to ever come from it is this picture of our beloved John Paul the Great:

Of course, this picture alone might make the whole thing worthwhile. I used to have that model laptop in college.

When people refuse to let reality get them down...

... they get featured in Newsweek.

Via the incomparable Diogenes.

Update: I was thinking about this story a little bit more and I've decided something: I work for Newsweek. I've always felt like I deserved to work there and, well, now I do. I intend to submit my first article tomorrow. If they reject it, or make the absurd claim that I don't, in fact, work for them, I'm going to go public and proclaim:

"I work for Newsweek. Not Surprisingly, the Heirarchy of Newsweek does not approve."

What is causing the depopulation in Russia?

This no longer qualifies as an "offbeat" story. The following is a demonstration of the critical depopulation situation in Russia caused by rampant contraception, sterilization and abortion (there are, for instance, more abortions than live births in Russia each year - 13:10).

Reuters:

The governor of a central Russian province urged couples to skip work on Wednesday and make love instead to help boost Russia's low birth-rate.

And if a woman gives birth in exactly nine months time -- on Russia's national day on June 12 -- she will qualify for a prize, perhaps even winning a new home.

"It's normally something for the home -- a fridge or a television set," Yelena Yakovleva at the Ulyanovsk regional administration press office, said.

"It doesn't matter if it's a girl or a boy."

...This year a record 78 babies were born on June 12 at the main hospital in the regional capital of Ulyanovsk, beating the 2006 total of 26, said chief doctor Andrei Malykh.

...A mass wedding and special lessons for children at school on how to deal with having a brother or sister are also planned in Ulyanovsk city, which is about 900 km (560 miles) from Moscow.

At the town's central post office, a sign urges locals to write love letters for free to anywhere in Russia, with postage pre-paid.

This week First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, a possible successor to President Vladimir Putin, said he wanted to stabilise the population at about 142 million by 2015 and boost it back to 145 million by 2025.

But I ask you, to what factors does Reuters attribute the problem of underpopulation?

Russia wants to reverse a trend in which the population is shrinking by about 700,000 people a year as births fail to outpace a high death rate boosted by AIDS, alcoholism and suicide.

This is what the AP says:

Russia's population has dropped since the 1991 Soviet collapse, fed by declining birth rates, a low life expectancy, a spike in emigration, a frayed health care system and other factors. The country — the world's largest — now has just 141.4 million citizens, making it one of the most sparsely settled nations. And experts estimate the population could fall below 100 million by 2050.

At least this paragraph mentions "declining birth rates", although it fails to explain the causes for this phenomenon that I mention.

How bad is the situation?

Last year, President Vladimir Putin called the demographic crisis the country's most acute problem and announced a broad effort to boost the birthrate, including cash subsidies for couples giving birth to more than one child. Women who give birth to their second or third child receive $10,000 vouchers to pay for education or home repairs.

More acute than global warming? My, that's saying something.

Correction: *this* headline wins the "most twisted" contest.

Update: I think Brandon may have found one that beats even the previous record holder:

"Dismay And Anger As Pope Benedict Declares That Protestants Cannot Have Churches" - Free Internet Press

Now that's just stupid!

(and from the comment box, as honorable mention: "Vatican: Protestants not true Christians".)

Original post: How on earth does the Vatican releasing a document entitled "Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" prompt the headline ....

"Vatican hits 'wounded' Christian churches." - ABC News.au

.... as if the image we're supposed to conjure up in our heads is anything else than a big bully walking around a playground and "hitting" a "wounded" little kid.

Oh. My.

Reuters' pre-MP report: less good.

Yesterday I summarized the NYT's pre-MP coverage and declared it not so bad.

Today, Reuters released its coverage ("Pope to authorize Latin mass in coming days") and it is less not so bad, in fact, it is bad.

From the opening lines:

"Pope Benedict will tell Roman Catholic priests in coming days that they can say mass in Latin as a concession to traditionalists.

However, the move has raised concern about reviving parts of the old liturgy that Jews consider anti-Semitic."

There's a one-two punch. The document described as a "concession to traditionalists" and "anti-Semitic" one after the other.

Moving on:

The Latin liturgy was sidelined by the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s in favor of local languages in an attempt to make worship more accessible to the bulk of churchgoers.

After months of speculation that the old rite, known as the Tridentine mass, could return, the Vatican said on Thursday the Pope had met senior clerics a day earlier to discuss "the content and the spirit" of a papal document on the matter.

...

The document is known as a 'motu propio' and will be issued in Latin, still the official language of the Vatican.

...

Traditionalists can now say mass in Latin only with prior permission from a bishop, and the liturgy is heard only rarely.

Good job, guys, you couldn't even spell "motu proprio" correctly. Seriously, how unprofessional.

The article ends with three paragraphs on the bogus anti-Semitic accusation, and ends with the obligatory "Pope Benedict stirred inter-faith tensions with the Muslim world last year by making a speech in Germany including a medieval quote about Islam being spread by violence."

Really, you'd think he hadn't done anything in between that speech and issuing this document.

An extreme example of Limbo mischaracterization

The mind boggles. Simply boggles.

Look at this Washington Post headline and its byline on the recent Limbo decision:

Mercy trumps 'theological hypothesis'

Panel rules that Catholics are free to reject church's teachings on limbo

Now, a little golden gem from the article's body:

While the church is often viewed as a top-down organization in which bishops tell ordinary Catholics what to believe, the commission's report suggests that in this case, the process worked partly in reverse.

And don't worry, Alan Cooperman also managed to bring up the "sensus fidelium."

Really - where to begin?

Philadelphia Church of God & modern ultramontanism

Today I stumbled across this article published by The Trumpet, a publication of the Philadelphia Church of God. In their "about us" page, they claim in their journalism to "show how current events are fulfilling the biblically prophesied description of the prevailing state of affairs just before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ."

Evidently, one of the current events they are tracking is the growing secular influence and political power of the Catholic Church, as paragraphs such as this one reveal:

"This is about more than just blocking laws that promote immorality. The Catholic Church is seeking to unite Europe under the power of religion—the Catholic religion, and Catholic laws. The Bible prophesies that this powerful entity will yet gain the power to enforce the policies—including Sunday worship—it now calls upon Europeans to uphold." (emphasis added - source.)

Another article contains similar warnings about papal encroachment, from the very first lines:

"A political institution at its roots, the Roman Catholic Church is excelling itself in swinging the vote within former Soviet states to support membership of the European Union. The Czech Republic is the latest nation to heed the papal call to a 'yes' vote, one of seven to respond to priestly admonitions to vote in favor of a return to their former cultural and spiritual 'roots.'" (emphasis added)

And this article outdoes itself with similar claims:

The modern successors of the Roman Caesars are intent on constructing a new empire, and understand the vast importance of the papacy in achieving this. Europe’s leaders and the Roman Catholic Church are working together towards the common goal of unity, with Rome providing a powerfully cohesive common religion to hold Europe together politically.

The author, writing several years ago, makes several connections between these goals and that of "Successive German chancellors" and even Hitler. They must have had a field day when Pope Benedict was elected.

And just in case any of the aspersions about the Papacy being the whore of Babylon are missed:

As portentous as such obvious Roman Catholic symbolism is, the British postage stamps issued in 1984 to commemorate the second election to the European Parliament went even further. They depicted a woman riding a beast over seven mounds or waves. Such imagery has startling similarities to passages from the book of Revelation which a succession of theologians from Wycliffe to Spurgeon has identified as representing papal Rome. (source.)

Why do I mention all this?

First, discovering modern examples of Roman Catholics being accused or suspected of ultramontanism / caesaropapism / whathaveyou is a favorite pastime for me and thus a recurring AmericanPapist feature.

Second, I found it fascinating to read an article like this one published in the Trumpet and to note the many similarities between its portrayal of the Catholic Church (particularly the actions of Pope Benedict) and the common portrayal of these same events by the secular media.

Really, they aren't that far off from one another. And if it wasn't for The Trumpet article making a last-paragraph mention of the bible, I might have mistaken it for just another media spin job.

Truly, liberal media bias and fundamentalist eschatology make strange bedfellows, but there you go.