This excellent* article about Pope Francis is now several days old, but I think it is well worth an extra blog post.
In my eyes, it marks the definitive end of not only the “Francis Effect” (which has never existed beyond a predictable “novelty effect”), but of the tolerant attitude of the mainstream media concerning the continuous blunders and obvious incompetence and lack of basic intelligence of the man. The fact is, if a man thinks like an ass, talks like an ass and behaves like an ass, at some point the press will have to acknowledge that he is an ass or lose every credibility with the readers.
You read in this article phrases that I never thought (before 2013) I would read on the Washington Post about any Pope, ever. I do not even post examples, because in Mr Will’s article they are an incessant cannonade.
Is the man angry at the Church? Maybe, but he makes a solid argument for the absolute incompetence and vacuity of the man. His criticism is linked not to the Church’s ideology, but to those huge shortcomings of the man that everyone with a functioning brain can see without any difficulty.
Mr Will also, and very fittingly, tells us the man is just a plain cretin. This, an outlet like the Washington Post would never write openly. Therefore, the author uses kind euphemisms, like when he slams “his woolly sentiments that have the intellectual tone of fortune cookies” or that veritable pearl, “[Francis] neglects the duty to be as intelligent as one can be”.
Note here that even one who writes that the Church thought that is was “settled science that Galileo was heretic” (ruler on Mr Will’s fingers for that, and he should document himself better before writing such nonsense) still he gets very well that “Secular people with anti-Catholic agendas drain his prestige, a dwindling asset, into promotion of policies inimical to the most vulnerable people and unrelated to what once was the papacy’s very different salvific mission”. (emphasis mine).
Francis enjoyed a “Pope bonus”. That bonus is now gone. You can’t tell the world that in the man in white we have in front of us an 1A, ISO-certifiable, incompetent ass. But at some point, you’ll have to hint at it, and all but say it for your intelligent readers. Because at some point, your very credibility will be on the line.
*No. I do not approve of everything he writes, nor will you. Still: excellent.
And it came to pass the oh so shocking news from Ireland revealed themselves as one of the most hysterical pieces of anti-Catholic hysteria in the hysterical history of the hysterically Anti-Catholic, and utterly anti-historical, Washington Post.
The deaths apparently all, or reasonably all, accounted for. Most of them apparently certified at the time with regular death certificate. The records obviously public since inception. The percentages of child death mortality certainly not much different from what happened, in comparable situations, all over the West in those years. The use of the septic tank very possibly due to the fear of contagion, that is: to the desire to protect the health of the children. It now appears there might not have been any use of the septic tank, at all.
Boy, what an embarrassment. At the Washington Post they must fancy themselves half-stoned college student experimenting with their own little mini-rag.
This wasn’t only rabid anti-Catholicism. This was anti-Catholicism so virulent that it could not even wait to have a clearer target to shoot at.
Catherine Corless might have been brutally and shamelessly misrepresented, or she might have given some ground to misrepresent her. In both cases, when the person cited as source distances herself so clearly from the media outlet and accuses them of misrepresentation, a sound newspaper would start thinking whether heads should not roll, because here it appears as I write the fabrication has been on a scale that has nothing to do with journalism anymore.
I am old enough to remember my grand-aunts talk to me and my cousins of children mortality in no dubious terms. It was, in fact, the normality of the world they had grown in. To them, what was new was the great amount of children who survived in my time!
The journalists of the Washington Post have no basic historic knowledge, having spent their school and university years talking about women or gender issues instead of learning some history; therefore, they find it utterly natural to jump in excitement every time something is different than in their own little world.
Someone should have the nerve to tell them that no, there was no penicillin around in those times; and no Wi-fi, no smartphones; not even the Internet!
Now, this story here will die very fast. Unless, there is, the enemies of the Church seize the moment.
I talk, here, of all those prelates for whom the preconciliar Church is the enemy, and no effort must be spared to accuse, discredit, and vilify them. They could, methinks, start where the potheads of the Washington Post will have to stop, and start the usual pious exercise of self-flagellation that is, if you look at it, a very thinly disguised flaying of the pre-conciliar Church. They could stage all the media circus of the “apologies”, the “enquiries”, and the rest, at the end of which a clear message would stand: the pre-conciliar Church was rubbish and we are all wretched sinners anyway, so why single out adulterers and sofomites?
Yes, I am more scared of the enemies within than of those without.
It’s the V II in its latest version, released in March 2013, and called Bergoglio 1.0.
I am seriously beginning to think liberal journalist must pass an idiocy exam before being considered for the job, so that they match the IQ of their readers.
The “Washington Post” informs us there are fears Pope Emeritus Benedict might, after the election of the new Pope, influence his successor. Even the ghost of rivalries and divided loyalties is mentioned, with the excuse the Vatican excludes it. The circumstance Bishop Gaenswein will “work for both” is also found a rather disquieting element.
The Washington Post therefore instructs his readers about the following:
1) The Pope has resigned in order to influence his successor. His objective is, of course, that the new Pope does what he would be doing. That he would be doing If he were Pope, that is…. Aaarrgghhh!!!
2) It is clear to everyone with some perception now (though not to the WaPo readers, obviously) that the Pope resigned because he felt he could not be the Pope whom the Church now needs. After which, he would proceed to exert on his successor a strength of character and steely determination he never had in all his previous years. As they say, life begins at 86…
3) Catholics being a bunch of anarchists always ready to follow whomever wears a white tunic, there is a clear danger of division: cue the armoured troops of the “Benedictites”, attacking the Vatican at the cry “Papacy or death”. I can picture the former Pontiff surveying the troops, proudly riding his white purebread, his armour glittering in the Roman sun…
4) The new Pope can’t decide who his aides will be. Gaenswein is on the menu, and Gaenswein will have to be. The same as with a Mother-in-law, you get the whole package and can’t decide to deselect this or that from the, erm, list of standard equipment.
5) Gaenswein is a very powerful man. You get Gaenswein (which you must; see point 4) and you’re screwed. Pope Emeritus and he himself will cast a long shadow over your papacy. There’s no escape. You certainly can’t have these things as you like. Who do you think you are, the Pope?!
Seriously, those who like the WaPo should have their IQ measured. Wait…
On reflection, perhaps better not…
The Washington Post has an involuntarily funny article about the new translation of the Novus Ordo.
The incredulous reader discovers therein that for some Catholic priests (or bishops!) the faithful are nothing more than, well, morons. But they can’t be the conservative ones as they delight in the not-so-easy Tridentine Mass, so the intellectually challenged faithful must be rather the “progressive” ones.
The Rev. Thomas Reese informs us that the people in the pews will “have to learn new responses” (“have to”: gives the idea of nasty obligation and heavy chore at the same time). He is undoubtedly right: they will have to say “and with your spirit” – an expression of unbelievable difficulty, apparently – instead of the “and also with you” learnt with such a big effort after Vatican II.
Another genius, a bishop called Trautman, laments the “slavishly literal” translations from the Latin. More artistic, fantasy-laden translations would probably have kept him happy; or probably everything that does not sound similar to the Latin version. This Bishop Trautman previously ran the liturgy committee. This explains a couple of things.
The article describes the great challenges facing the poor faithful and whilst I do understand that for many liberals this might well be a struggle – after all, if you don’t get that Catholicism is incompatible with abortion, why should you be able to say “and with your spirit” without extensive training? – I do not think that words like “consubstantial,” “inviolate,” “oblation,” “ignominy” and “suffused” will pose any big obstacle that a good dictionary (even an online one) would not dispel.
For instance, oblation is here, explained in a way even rev. Reese’s parishioners would understand and completely free of charge. Now if Rev. Reese would explain what part of “the act of making a religious offering” is difficult to understand, this would give us a better idea of how stupid he thinks his parishioners are.
Besides, I truly hope that every priest or bishop ever daring to say that the concept of transubstantiation is too difficult for his parishioners is immediately defrocked and no questions asked.
Still, liberal priests now have about fifteen months to explain such complicated words like “ignominy” to their, we understand, not too bright parishioners. But look at the bright side: it might teach them to think with their own head rather than slavishly follow the liberal rants of their priest or bishop.