Is LifeSiteNews anti-Francis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
Is LifeSiteNews.com just another website that is More Catholic than the Pope?

Why are there so many conservative groups who try to criticize the Pope at every turn?
 
catholic1seeks said:
Is LifeSiteNews.com just another website that is More Catholic than the Pope?

Why are there so many conservative groups who try to criticize the Pope at every turn?
Click to expand...
Pope Francis seeks to building bridges, while the readers and editors of LifeSiteNews only want to build walls.

To understand the conflict, you should read this article by Massimo Faggioli for context:

www.commonwealmagazine.org

Why Should We Read Spadaro on ‘Catholic Integralism’? | Commonweal Magazine

Giving voice to how non-American Catholics see the U.S. situation
www.commonwealmagazine.org www.commonwealmagazine.org

and then the original article, because you should always check primary sources:


Here’s an excerpt:
Some who profess themselves to be Catholic express themselves in ways that until recently were unknown in their tradition and using tones much closer to Evangelicals. They are defined as value voters as far as attracting electoral mass support is concerned. There is a well-defined world of ecumenical convergence between sectors that are paradoxically competitors when it comes to confessional belonging. This meeting over shared objectives happens around such themes as abortion, same-sex marriage, religious education in schools and other matters generally considered moral or tied to values. Both Evangelical and Catholic Integralists condemn traditional ecumenism and yet promote an ecumenism of conflict that unites them in the nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state.

…

Clearly there is an enormous difference between these concepts and the ecumenism employed by Pope Francis with various Christian bodies and other religious confessions. His is an ecumenism that moves under the urge of inclusion, peace, encounter and bridges. This presence of opposing ecumenisms – and their contrasting perceptions of the faith and visions of the world where religions have irreconcilable roles – is perhaps the least known and most dramatic aspect of the spread of Integralist fundamentalism. Here we can understand why the pontiff is so committed to working against “walls” and any kind of “war of religion.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I do not like articles that attack our Pope.
I do not however agree with everything the Pope says or does
That being said, LifeSiteNews serves an important function bringing pro-life news to the public. The regular media does not cover pro-life topics when they have a choice. And when they do cover pro-life topics they certainly are as slanted in their coverage as LifeSite.
 
Last edited:
The article in Commonwheal comparing Catholic “integralists” to fundamental evangelicals demonstrates how little the author understands orthodox Catholics. It seemed to be more of a hit piece against those Catholics with whom he disagrees. Where is his commitment to ecumenism?
 
I_trust said:
The article in Commonwheal comparing Catholic “integralists” to fundamental evangelicals demonstrates how little the author understands orthodox Catholics. It seemed to be more of a hit piece against those Catholics with whom he disagrees. Where is his commitment to ecumenism?
Click to expand...
The Commonweal piece is about the article in La Civiltà Cattolica. I only included it to provide some context on the magazine and its editor. The excerpt is from the article in La Civiltà Cattolica.

The article doesn’t say anything about orthodox Catholics. It talks about Catholics who view politics as extension of their faith and align themselves politically with Evangelical Fundamentalists. Their model of engagement with the political opposition is one of conflict rather than dialogue and accommodation. They even attack Pope Francis as “liberal” for emphasizing mercy rather than doctrinal purity.

The OP wanted to know why LifeSiteNews prints so many hit pieces on Pope Francis. I thought this was a good explanation.
 
My opinion, the website leaves a “bad taste in the mouth.”
The headlines are topics that promote outrage … too often the body of the article, or checking other sources reveals there is more to the story. Exaggeration brings doubt. I am a hopeless/hopeful relier on other than the subject website, therefore I tend to (dismiss) ignore it.
 
I don’t think he should be fired just because he has a certain Catholic perspective.

However, sometimes it comes across quite obnoxiously and ends up tainting EWTN overall.
 
Eh, I tend to be a truth-seeker. What is uncomftable is every Catholic who thinks he knows better than the magisterium – whether on the Left or Right. But its particularly awkward (to say the least) regarding those on the right who can’t stand a merciful, pastoral, simple approach like Pope Francis is taking the church.
 
Either we accept the Magesterial interpetations of the past, accept those of the present, or accept that the plain language of any past Magesterial document or statement is indecipherable except by the “because we said so” explanation that they are not in conflict of whoever is currently in charge, thus rendering the entire exercise of communication between clergy and laity irrelevant. It puts the laity in a tough position. Why even publish your reasoning if you’re going to claim that it is indecipherable to all people except the current regime?

Lifesite is a good resource.
 
ChunkMonk said:
Either we accept the Magesterial interpetations of the past, accept those of the present, or accept that the plain language of any past Magesterial document or statement is indecipherable except by the “because we said so” explanation that they are not in conflict of whoever is currently in charge, thus rendering the entire exercise of communication between clergy and laity irrelevant. It puts the laity in a tough position. Why even publish your reasoning if you’re going to claim that it is indecipherable to all people except the current regime?
Click to expand...
This is what Martin Luther said about reading scripture. He thought that anyone who was able to read should be able to interpret its “plain language”. Well, he was wrong.

Best to leave doctrinal debates it up to the bishops and theologians who have the knowledge and charism to discern the nuances of meaning of what was written in the past. The laity just don’t have the skill set to do it right.

As I have stated elsewhere. Those who profess to be orthodox Catholics have been acting very protestant lately.
 
It appears he isn’t just targeting Arroyo, but also Robert Royal and Father Gerald Murray a.k.a. the “Papal Posse” on EWTN’s “The World Over” as well. I’ll tell you something, I trust Fr. Gerald Murray tremendously, and Robert Royal as well. Father Antonio Spadaro…not so much.

www.lifesitenews.com

Why papal adviser is angry with EWTN’s 'Papal Posse' - LifeSite

'Papal Posse' members criticized three segments from papal adviser Father Antonio Spadaro’s lecture at Georgetown University.
www.lifesitenews.com www.lifesitenews.com
 
Last edited:
To illustrate the contrast in tone regarding the situation in China and why ETWN is being called out for sowing discord, read this article from the other side of the Catholic spectrum:

www.ncronline.org

With China, Vatican diplomats must make the best of a bad situation

Signs of the Times: The Vatican's job is to make martyrdom unnecessary wherever possible. This is why negotiations are conducted by diplomats, not saints or martyrs.
www.ncronline.org www.ncronline.org

Times are certainly changing. National Catholic Reporter is now more in line with the Vatican than ETWN. The Holy Spirit does like to shake things up now and then!
 
“Times are certainly changing. National Catholic Reporter is now more in line with the Vatican than ETWN.”

Without doubt, the above statement is one of the most ridiculously funny lines I’ve ever read here at CAF. What a hoot!!!
 
Last edited:
Close, but not quite. My point isn’t that each man should be a denomination unto himself and that scripture is beholden to his interpretation, my point is that even the men who wrote the previous teachings would agree that the current teachings are mutually exclusive from their own. The casual observer would agree. Hence the only party saying they are compatible with the past is the current regime. And when challenged they retreat behind the reasoning: “you don’t have the special power to understand the nuance.”

Forget whether I think its right or wrong, regardless of how I or you or any one feels about it, focus on the fact. Teaching is now beholden to the private interpretation and changes whenever a new regime comes into power. One wonders why then they even bother pretending otherwise: why publish their “reasoning” at all, if no one except themselves is capable of comprehending it? Just publish their conclusion and say “we’re the bosses, so reality is what we say it is.”

To me, the current attitude among a certain theological wing of the Church actually reflect Martin Luther much more than the ‘traditionalist’ wing.
 
Mark121359 said:
“Times are certainly changing. National Catholic Reporter is now more in line with the Vatican than ETWN.”

Without doubt, the above statement is one of the most ridiculously funny lines I’ve ever read here at CAF. What a hoot!!!
Click to expand...
The truth can be funny sometimes. However, the articles printed by NCR are far more supportive of Rome than that what’s coming off ETWN & LifeSiteNews.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top