G
Confusion over Pope’s comments threatens campaign against Philippines repro health bill
- Status
M
Man
Guest
The people of the Philippines will suffer from increased access to condoms, and disease will be spread thereby, should that happen, just as it happened and continues to happen in Africa.
M
Man
Guest
I doubt the law intends to regulate brothels.
J
JReducation
Guest
There is no confusion. The confusion is being caused by people who did not read what he said, took a single statement from a two page statement on this subject and are using it to their political ends.
We cannot blame this on the pope. The pope made a statement that is true. A person who stops to think about the dangers of AIDS is taking a step toward the right direction. That does not constitute a sanction of condoms. In fact, if one reads the two pages, he explains why the condoms don’t work and why they are not a moral means to a good end. The use of the condom is a sign of good intention, that’s not the same as saying that the use itself is good. He makes this very clear. But it seems like the pro-choice people are going to spin this for their purposes.
They’re going to find out the hardway that you cannot separate science from faith. When you do, deny the truth of faith and you abuse the purpose of science, which is to study truths found through creation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
We cannot blame this on the pope. The pope made a statement that is true. A person who stops to think about the dangers of AIDS is taking a step toward the right direction. That does not constitute a sanction of condoms. In fact, if one reads the two pages, he explains why the condoms don’t work and why they are not a moral means to a good end. The use of the condom is a sign of good intention, that’s not the same as saying that the use itself is good. He makes this very clear. But it seems like the pro-choice people are going to spin this for their purposes.
They’re going to find out the hardway that you cannot separate science from faith. When you do, deny the truth of faith and you abuse the purpose of science, which is to study truths found through creation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
Cojuanco
Guest
Having several relatives in the Old Country, the problem isn’t the Pope - it’s our beloved[/sarcasm] President using a misquoted passage to advance a political agenda, as well as to distract from some of the problems arising from his administration - for example, the Hostage Crisis, and the utter refusal to even try land reform (which shouldn’t be surprising, as his family owns one of the country’s great estates).
This is caused in part by tensions that have accompanied the development of the country, namely between the urban elite (who tend to be more liberal and Western-oriented, not always in a good way - this also includes the Diaspora, many of whom now have voting rights, and are influenced by the Global North’s view on social issues) and the masses (who tend to be socially conservative, especially the peasants.) President Arroyo, being a Christian Democrat, was of course beholden to the Church and the voters who still take religions seriously, and her predecessor, Estrada, depended greatly on the votes of the masa (common man), who, as we’ve said before, tend to have a generally good opinion of the Church. The present President, however, has a significant amount of his votes from the urban middle and upper classes - precisely the demographic that would support something like this.
Also, the fact that the President can try to ride roughshod over the Church is helped by the fact that he is elected to one, nonrenewable term of six years - so basically he thinks he can do whatever he wants, because he doesn’t have to face the voters ever again. That, and he’s trying to pander to the younger, well-heeled members of the Diaspora, who live in countries like the United States, and in areas that tend to be socially liberal (notice he made the first move in America, not in Manila).
So yeah, this isn’t the Pope’s fault. If you have to blame anyone, blame the elites and (shocking, I know) the Americans.
This is caused in part by tensions that have accompanied the development of the country, namely between the urban elite (who tend to be more liberal and Western-oriented, not always in a good way - this also includes the Diaspora, many of whom now have voting rights, and are influenced by the Global North’s view on social issues) and the masses (who tend to be socially conservative, especially the peasants.) President Arroyo, being a Christian Democrat, was of course beholden to the Church and the voters who still take religions seriously, and her predecessor, Estrada, depended greatly on the votes of the masa (common man), who, as we’ve said before, tend to have a generally good opinion of the Church. The present President, however, has a significant amount of his votes from the urban middle and upper classes - precisely the demographic that would support something like this.
Also, the fact that the President can try to ride roughshod over the Church is helped by the fact that he is elected to one, nonrenewable term of six years - so basically he thinks he can do whatever he wants, because he doesn’t have to face the voters ever again. That, and he’s trying to pander to the younger, well-heeled members of the Diaspora, who live in countries like the United States, and in areas that tend to be socially liberal (notice he made the first move in America, not in Manila).
So yeah, this isn’t the Pope’s fault. If you have to blame anyone, blame the elites and (shocking, I know) the Americans.
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe that modern popes are often “Media Martyrs”. With the explosion of mass communication, everyone has an opinion and everyone gets to air it. What is most interesting is that Catholics often pay more attention to the journalists than to the pastors.
I have spoken to four people who have read this book. Then I have spoken on this particular statement to over 100 people. So, only 4% of the people with whom I’ve discussed the book, have actually read it.
The fascinating part of it is that those of us who have read it found many more interesting points in the book than this one. This one is important because the other points in the book are not safe for the media to touch or they are boring for the media.
For example, what he said about Bishop Williamson is very hard and powerful. No on on CAF, except me, has mentioned it. What he said about Islam and the dialogue with Islam is important in a world where Islam is growing, but the media won’t touch that, because it’s afraid of upsetting the Muslims. What the Holy Father said about the sexual abuse scandal was not interesting enough to the media. What he said about Fatima, no one wants to touch, because it’s not interesting or it challenges what many people believe. The he spoke about the role of the papacy itself and how it’s changing. No one thought that was interesting; yet that statement will influence future popes.
There was so much wealth in that interview and so many references to other documents, events, and principles. But this one is exploitable.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
Cojuanco
Guest
Well, in this case, the President apparently was going to advocate for this immoral bill, and the recent comments by the Pope (or the way they were spun by the media) just in his view justified an action he was already going to undertake (though I’m not sure if he’s really willing to risk eternal salvation by signing the bill if passed - the bishops are threatening to excommunicate him, and they seem willing to do it.)
Frankly, I’m ashamed by the way the Manila elites are lapping it up, thinking that since it’s what’s done in America, then it must be right. I mean, is this what we’ve descended to, worshipping Uncle Sam and Mammon rather than God? Is the nation that valiantly resisted the Spanish and the Japanese going to sell itself for thirty pieces of silver because it’s denominated in American currency?
Frankly, I’m ashamed by the way the Manila elites are lapping it up, thinking that since it’s what’s done in America, then it must be right. I mean, is this what we’ve descended to, worshipping Uncle Sam and Mammon rather than God? Is the nation that valiantly resisted the Spanish and the Japanese going to sell itself for thirty pieces of silver because it’s denominated in American currency?
M
Man
Guest
If they read full coverage of any quote used, it is obvious that the pope has changed nothing, except giving some counsel on the use of certain pastoral methods, perhaps.
It is unfortunate that we are not in a political environment in which we can have an intellectual debate in a fair way, but in which the only choice, more and more, is to caricature and malign those who disagree. Well, I do not consent, and will continue to attempt to testify to the truth.
It is unfortunate that we are not in a political environment in which we can have an intellectual debate in a fair way, but in which the only choice, more and more, is to caricature and malign those who disagree. Well, I do not consent, and will continue to attempt to testify to the truth.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m not there, but it sounds like they are taking the Holy Father’s example and not the whole statement. The statement goes on for two pages. The example was used because Seewald got a little confused and asked for a clarification. The Holy Father used a very spontaneous example. But the point that he makes in this section of the book is no different from prevoius statements.
It is very easy to take anyone’s examples and turn them into the message. Sometimes, this is done because the journalist needs to sell his work and this is a good spin. And sometimes it happens because the journalist really does not understand the message and distorts it as he tries to explain it to his readers.
This does not just happen with a pope. This happens with any public figure. We have to be ready to stand up and politely say, “Wait a minute, allow me to point something out,” or “Allow me to help you understand what was said.” That’s why it’s important for Catholics to stay on top of these publications.
I realize that it’s not easy. There are many. It costs money to buy these books. Some people (like me) have a stack of books waiting to be read.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
It is very easy to take anyone’s examples and turn them into the message. Sometimes, this is done because the journalist needs to sell his work and this is a good spin. And sometimes it happens because the journalist really does not understand the message and distorts it as he tries to explain it to his readers.
This does not just happen with a pope. This happens with any public figure. We have to be ready to stand up and politely say, “Wait a minute, allow me to point something out,” or “Allow me to help you understand what was said.” That’s why it’s important for Catholics to stay on top of these publications.
I realize that it’s not easy. There are many. It costs money to buy these books. Some people (like me) have a stack of books waiting to be read.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Man
Guest
Journalists are easy enough to sell article ideas and teach things to. They’ll often see a person with such information as a lead to learn something in their specialty. They spin things for their audience as well. Sadly, they seem to come up on one side or another, such as by allowing a definition to slide without questioning it, or cherry picking controversial quotes regarding the statement. This is understandable, as they write for certain audience, but it does not assist in their duty to add substantially to the public debate, and many times, it can result in a less informed public. It is important to understand the media.I’m not there, but it sounds like they are taking the Holy Father’s example and not the whole statement. The statement goes on for two pages. The example was used because Seewald got a little confused and asked for a clarification. The Holy Father used a very spontaneous example. But the point that he makes in this section of the book is no different from prevoius statements.
It is very easy to take anyone’s examples and turn them into the message. Sometimes, this is done because the journalist needs to sell his work and this is a good spin. And sometimes it happens because the journalist really does not understand the message and distorts it as he tries to explain it to his readers.
This does not just happen with a pope. This happens with any public figure. We have to be ready to stand up and politely say, “Wait a minute, allow me to point something out,” or “Allow me to help you understand what was said.” That’s why it’s important for Catholics to stay on top of these publications.
I realize that it’s not easy. There are many. It costs money to buy these books. Some people (like me) have a stack of books waiting to be read.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I agree with you that this happens. But I also agree with the Holy Father when he speaks about journalists in this book. He actually shows a great deal of respect for them. He said that it is too easy to use them as a scapegoat, often forgetting that they to may not understand. He points out that many journalists print what they think they understand and that they do so in good conscience. He warns the readers of this book not to be so quick to condemn journalists. He also tells journalsits that they have a moral duty to inform on the truth. However, he accepts that they are not always malicious and that they do have human limitations.
He is very strongly opposed to what many of us do out here. He does not like the vilinization of journalists. He pointed to the sex abuse scandal. He said that the Church owed them. Had it not been for journalists, the Vatican would never have found out many things. Even though many journalists wrote with a vengance, nonetheless, they did the Church and the state a service.
He encoiurages us to strike a balance when we talk about journalists, just as he encourages journalists to try to go for balance when they speak about the Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Man
Guest
Then, lets go beyond the journalists themselves, to the editors, and realize that they meet and make decisions regarding linguistics that can be used to color a message to their desired tone. For instance, they do not allow pro-life people self identify are fetal rights activists, and instead use anti-abortion (both of which are generally true, but the use of a negative is more likely to be found offensive), or they favorably spin language regarding gay marriage by repeatedly letting them be for marriage equality. Thus, they subtly influence the social dynamics by using linguistics. It is very sad that they will not allow the pro-life people to be seen as a civil rights movement, when it is far more logically so than the pro-gay marriage people. This is rationally one of the most offensive things that the media does, and so, it is not at all surprising that a particular set of groups is generally malicious toward the media.I agree with you that this happens. But I also agree with the Holy Father when he speaks about journalists in this book. He actually shows a great deal of respect for them. He said that it is too easy to use them as a scapegoat, often forgetting that they to may not understand. He points out that many journalists print what they think they understand and that they do so in good conscience. He warns the readers of this book not to be so quick to condemn journalists. He also tells journalsits that they have a moral duty to inform on the truth. However, he accepts that they are not always malicious and that they do have human limitations.
He is very strongly opposed to what many of us do out here. He does not like the vilinization of journalists. He pointed to the sex abuse scandal. He said that the Church owed them. Had it not been for journalists, the Vatican would never have found out many things. Even though many journalists wrote with a vengance, nonetheless, they did the Church and the state a service.
He encoiurages us to strike a balance when we talk about journalists, just as he encourages journalists to try to go for balance when they speak about the Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
What has happened here is that the movement for inclusion and tolerance has become exclusive and intolerant. It wants to exclude the voice of the Church from the public square and it is intolerant when the Church forces her way into the public square. Unfortunately, half of these folks are Catholic.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status