We thought it may be a welcomed change for a day or two to observe some additional stories that pop-up. There still remains a lot of work to be done looking at the past half-century of how Congress, our President, as well as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), even the Mexican government of what has not been done.
Yea! Promises have been made in successive acts, bills, amendments to the law, and it still surprises me to this moment how the people charged with running (or ruining) the government, hence the nation, walk around in the clouds as though nothing ever happened.
So please enjoy the break; we have found an issue with language – and a writer who is trying real hard to sensationalize that was mentioned in two completely languages with religion being at the center of it.
For generations, homosexuality has largely been a taboo topic for the Vatican, ignored altogether, or treated as “an intrinsic moral evil,” in the words of the previous pope.
In that context, brief remarks by Pope Francis suggesting that he would not judge priests for their sexual orientation, made aboard the papal airplane on the way back from his first foreign trip, to Brazil, resonated through the church.
And we find no basis for this kind of sensationalism whatsoever. First and foremost any Christian anywhere and perhaps every other religion will say the same thing. Notwithstanding the Pope – it is never acceptable to cast judgment…period. The judgment issue is up to God and not mere humankind here on earth.
“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Francis told reporters, speaking in Italian but using the English word “gay.”
Now here is what the reporter wrote predicated upon what Francis said: “Francis’s words could not have been more different from those of Benedict XVI, who in 2005 wrote that homosexuality was “a strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil,” and an “objective disorder.”
What does the author think that he is doing? Pope Francis is mentioning one bit of conversation, and the writer immediately disregards what the Pope actually said and went further in this sort of tirade.
Vatican experts were quick to point out that Francis was not suggesting that the priests or anyone else should act on their homosexual tendencies, which the church considers a sin. But the fact that he made such comments — and used the word “gay” — was nevertheless revolutionary, and likely to generate significant discussion in local dioceses, where bishops are divided over whether to accept priests who are gay but celibate.
“It’s not a great opening in terms of contents, but the fact that he talked about it that way is a great novelty,” said Paolo Rodari, a Vatican expert at the Italian daily La Repubblica. Our question is, what makes this guy an “expert.”
More than a million people gathered for an open-air Mass on Copacabana Beach on Sunday. At one event, bishops danced on stage to upbeat music. The spectacle was clearly aimed at competing with Evangelical churches that have a more “pop” style.
This is precisely what a journalist is trained what not to do – grabbing something and then using your words to describe what it is that the Pope was trying to establish. Words such as, revolutionary, comparing Francis to Benedict XIV in ‘more different’, he made such comments, and a great novelty; subsequently, the writer was setting up his/or her ending with the notion of ‘bishops dancing’ to what? Upbeat music; furthermore, was this gathering at Copacabana Beach in some way wrong? Was it a “spectacle, and aimed at Evangelical churches”?
We think not!
This article appeared in what Michelle Malkin refers to as “fish paper or fish wrapper” now we understand why. Article published in The New York Times and written by by RACHEL DONADIO