52 Guitars: Week 26
Have We Ever Seen Such Craziness?


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"Further, it is ludicrous to suggest that a man who denies comprehensive reproductive health care (including all forms of birth control including condoms and abortion) and comprehensive family planning is a man who cares about the poor of this world."

Wow. Unless you allow widespread contraception and abortion, you don't care for the poor. Really?

"The new sexist, nun-hating, poverty-perpetuating, pedophile-protecting homophobe is the same as the old sexist, nun-hating, poverty-perpetuating, pedophile-protecting homophobe, but gosh how the media loves him."

Yeah. That's him all right. Hate, hate, hate.

"In April of 2014, Pope Francis announced his plan for a fall meeting of senior clerics to discuss topics including contraception and gay marriage."

Wait. Is this the Synod on the Family?

"This apparently does not apply to the Pope’s lavish apartment in the Apostolic Palace. According to NBC News Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi, '…the pope will be using the offices in the Apostolic Palace and its grand, frescoed reception rooms to meet heads of state and delegations, and will continue to appear each Sunday to deliver a blessing from the window of the papal apartments overlooking St. Peter’s Square.'"

Are they suggesting that the walls be white washed? Thus depriving the world of some beauty? Well, I guess that's happened in the Church before in recent memory.

"The current PR mission is all about reversing the incredible decline in fundraising under the last pope from the U.S. Catholic Church in particular."

Oh right. I had a suspicion that's what I was. Glad I didn't fall for it and send a fat check to Peter's Pence.

I am laughing my head off--but silently so that I won't keep my granddaughter awake.

I'm sorry to hear that 7 out of 10 Catholics are completely ignorant about what the Pope has been saying, but it doesn't really surprise me too much.


Heh. I read this and bookmarked it several days ago, and didn't look at it again when I posted this link. I had already half-forgotten how wacko it is, and y'all have reminded me.

But: "Unless you allow widespread contraception and abortion, you don't care for the poor. Really?"

Yes, that is really what they believe, or at least is the kind of thing they say, on the strength of their anger. I don't think they ever step back and consider whether what they're saying really makes much sense or not.

"Are they suggesting that the walls be white washed?"

I wonder if anyone ever gets worked up about governments having nice places to receive diplomats. It might be worse for the Church to waste money than for secular governments, but if it's a waste of money that could be used to help the poor, it's a waste in both cases.

The bit about the Pope refusing to meet victims of child abuse that took place on his watch is disturbing, though. I'd hoped - well, assumed - he'd live up to Benedict's standards, which included willingness to meet abuse victims.

Well, Godescalc, do we even know the straight story about that? I never believe anything I read about the Pope in the secular media, good or bad.


I wasn't aware of that, either. In fact I had the vague impression that he had done something of that sort, but I don't follow papal news very closely at all.

He's meeting with victims of abuse from Ireland, US & England this week probably, but not, apparently, from Brazil.


I found this article to be quite reassuring. I was getting worried. :/

"I am laughing my head off--but silently so that I won't keep my granddaughter awake."


Salon was always bad but now it's turning into The Onion.

I used to get Salon and Slate mixed up, and would straighten myself out by remembering that Salon was the further left and Slate was more moderate. But the no-sex-assignment thing was from Slate.

John L. Allen Jr. wrote a detailed piece in the National Catholic Reporter about how then Cardinal Bergoglio handled sex abuse cases in Argentina. He starts by jumping off from the Washington Post story on two specific cases (this is the Post piece the Salon writer relied on):

In general, the [Washington Post] story suggested Bergoglio did not handle either case by the standards now accepted by the church in other parts of the world. It noted he did not meet victims, did not offer apologies or financial restitution, and did not take ecclesiastical action against the priests involved.

To begin with, here's an important point not made in the Post story or in most subsequent commentary: Neither Grassi nor Sasso is a priest of the Buenos Aires archdiocese, and thus they were never under Bergoglio's direct supervision. (Among other things, that means Bergoglio was never in a position to impose ecclesiastical punishment, which would have to be done by their own bishops.)

Beyond that, observers say the two situations should be considered separately because Bergoglio's degree of involvement differs.

The rest is here.

So often there are details like this that really change the picture as presented in the standard media "narrative."

Which is basically what I was saying eleven hours and 59 minutes before you posted this.


Aha. Thanks, Marianne. I suppose I should know by now to be a bit more skeptical of the media on certain subjects...

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)