Cardinal levada decries New York Times Attack

[ethiopianheart]

Stresses Benedict XVI’s Action Against Child Abuse

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 1, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is denouncing the misinterpretation of facts and unfair journalism in a New York Times article attacking Benedict XVI.

The article, published March 25 by the Times, tried to implicate the Pope in the case of a priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, who was accused of abusing deaf children. It criticized the Pontiff for his actions while prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, before becoming Pope.

More…

 

[PAboy57]

Our Pope is a holy and good man. Typical Times reporting. thanks

 

[Another_Mary]

This brings to mind what I heard on a local (San Francisco) radio talk show last night. (Cardinal Levada was formerly Archbishop of the Archdiocese of SF and is not well thought of by, shall I say, some people there.)

This fill-in talk show host, who claimed to have been raised a Catholic, called Pope Benedict the anti-christ and had nothing civil to say about Cardinal Levada. She is supposed to be an attorney and yet based what she believes on the NY Times article. She even came right out and accused the pope of being an abuser himself.

I did not have the stomach to listen for long (someone else in the house had the radio tuned to that station). At one point, when a caller who was only mildly defending the pope or the church, made a comment about looking at the facts she went off on a screaming rant and I had visions of her being a diabolical serpent writhing around in the studio (you know how the radio is the theater of the mind…).

I realize that talk shows are looking for listeners and use controversy to get them, but this was way, way, way over the top.

If you have a strong constitution you can hear her at this link, but it will be overwritten by next week’s program on Thursday, April 8 (in case anyone is reading this after that date):

members.kgoradio.com/kgo_archives/player.php?day=4&hour=23

She starts her pope as anti-christ bit at around 13 minutes into the program.

 

[anode]

This brings to mind what I heard on a local (San Francisco) radio talk show last night. (Cardinal Levada was formerly Archbishop of the Archdiocese of SF and is not well thought of by, shall I say, some people there.)

This fill-in talk show host, who claimed to have been raised a Catholic, called Pope Benedict the anti-christ and had nothing civil to say about Cardinal Levada. She is supposed to be an attorney and yet based what she believes on the NY Times article. She even came right out and accused the pope of being an abuser himself.

I did not have the stomach to listen for long (someone else in the house had the radio tuned to that station). At one point, when a caller who was only mildly defending the pope or the church, made a comment about looking at the facts she went off on a screaming rant and I had visions of her being a diabolical serpent writhing around in the studio (you know how the radio is the theater of the mind…).

I realize that talk shows are looking for listeners and use controversy to get them, but this was way, way, way over the top.

If you have a strong constitution you can hear her at this link, but it will be overwritten by next week’s program on Thursday, April 8 (in case anyone is reading this after that date):

members.kgoradio.com/kgo_archives/player.php?day=4&hour=23

She starts her pope as anti-christ bit at around 13 minutes into the program.

I thought Obama was the anti-Christ.

 

[Neithan]

This fill-in talk show host, who claimed to have been raised a Catholic, called Pope Benedict the anti-christ and had nothing civil to say about Cardinal Levada. She is supposed to be an attorney and yet based what she believes on the NY Times article. She even came right out and accused the pope of being an abuser himself.

I did not have the stomach to listen for long (someone else in the house had the radio tuned to that station). At one point, when a caller who was only mildly defending the pope or the church, made a comment about looking at the facts she went off on a screaming rant and I had visions of her being a diabolical serpent writhing around in the studio (you know how the radio is the theater of the mind…).

Thank God for that last caller, who finally points out how the lawyer sourced by the NYT is receiving substantial remuneration for the story; and the guest host - a lawyer herself - interrupts with a blatant misdirect (“you don’t think the NYT sources its stories” which is not what he said) and hangs up on him. ending with a defence of lawyers who “should receive every red cent” for suing the Church (and this after she had told her audience that the Church only exists for money). Credibility=zero.