Is LifeSiteNews anti-Francis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Annie said:
The closest current one I could find: Cardinal's words on same-sex blessings show church's broader dilemma | National Catholic Reporter

There have been more egregious examples, but you asked for a current one. I started avoiding them when they supported abortion for the poor little girl in Brazil.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link.

I guess someone could be offended by this article if they thought LGBTQ Catholic should have no voice at all. However, I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out the obvious and hoping for doctrinal change.
 
How does one hope for doctrinal change? That would be like hoping that gravity will change to accommodate flying from place to place instead of walking.
 
Annie said:
How does one hope for doctrinal change? That would be like hoping that gravity will change to accommodate flying from place to place instead of walking.
Click to expand...
Doctrines are not dogma.

Doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed.

Any doctrine that the Church arrives at largely through the process of reason is subject to modification in light of new evidence that must be considered in the reasoning process.

For example, the reasoning process that lead the Church to adopt its doctrine that “error has no rights” when it comes to Religious Liberty in late antiquity was predicated on the form of government & church state relations that existed at that time. When these forms were disrupted (e.g. the French Revolution) and a new form of government emerged (i.e., the liberal democracy) in the late 18th and early 19th century, it eventually prompted a total reversal of the doctrine at Vatican II, such that now the Church’s Doctrine on Religious Liberty states that freedom of conscience and religious expression is “a natural right of man”.

On the surface, that looks like a 100% reversal, but it is not. This is because at Vatican II, the Bishops realized that maintaining the old doctrine in the face of newly emerging realities would be a violation of actual dogma - such as the revealed truth that man is created in the image of God and all that flows from this. It is dogma that cannot be changed or altered without undermining the Gospel.

Not everyone agreed. The folks at SSPX schismed over this and other changes made at Vatican II.
 
Last edited:
Luke6_37 said:
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:
Click to expand...
Al Kresta had a very good program on this. He had a guest from both sides of the issue. So you had a chance to see everything instead of only one point of view.
 
LOL well it’s been confirmed, from my perspective at least. I just realized I was BANNED from LifeSiteNews.com Now, I’m very careful when I comment and reply online – I try not to be overly angry, or insulting, or attack people personally. Sometimes I can be passionate, but I would never think I come across as obscene or rude or the like.

And as a Catholic, my views are not extreme. I would say I’m pretty orthodox.

So the fact that I’ve been BANNED from the website shows how narrow-minded their perspective is. I’ve been on Catholic Answers Forums for 10 years, and I do not comment in any different way on here as other Catholic sites online. I think it’s just ridiculous. I do not know what comment provoked my being BANNED, but surely it was just me stating an alternative Catholic opinion.

Oh well.
 
Luke6_37 said:
I guess someone could be offended by this article if they thought LGBTQ Catholic should have no voice at all.
Click to expand...
But do you see what I mean about title’s. This was just an interview. It was not about any dilemma for the Church. That part, the part most people read first, is opinion and spin.
 
catholic1seeks said:
So the fact that I’ve been BANNED from the website shows how narrow-minded their perspective is.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, some people are so naive as to see the uniformity of opinion in comments as some sign of correctness, instead of selection.
 
I mean I’d hope I’m someone who likes dialogue and genuine discussion. Just makes me feel strange that I was banned because I really don’t know what I did wrong. I hardly ever even participate over there. I may have commented on 2 or 3 articles, tops.

Regardless, and even if we ignore the specific perspective of LifeSiteNews, it’s really sad to see how Catholics online have become extremely divisive and bitter. This goes for everyone, not just Catholics. But it’s as if there is this blogger orthodoxy that must be maintained.

Catholicism strives with many opinions, approaches, and spiritualities… so long as they center around the tenets of the faith and the sacraments. Upholding one theological approach or liturgical tradition or political ideology or specific opinion as if it is THE ONLY orthodox Catholic view is dangerous and scandalous.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
40.png
Luke6_37:
I guess someone could be offended by this article if they thought LGBTQ Catholic should have no voice at all.
Click to expand...
But do you see what I mean about title’s. This was just an interview. It was not about any dilemma for the Church. That part, the part most people read first, is opinion and spin.
Click to expand...
I am a little confused. Are we talking about LSN or NCR? I agree that the headlines on LSN are sensational click-bait kind of stuff that turns every debate in the Church into a scandal. However, the article @Annie linked to about the Church experiencing a dilemma is from NCR.

I think the dilemma with regard to LGBTQ community is real. It has always been that way when the church needs to express both unconditional love and conditional acceptance - especially when it comes to something as central to a person as his or her self image and sexual identity.

Personally, I think the problem ultimately stems from an obsession with sexuality on both extremes of the issue.
 
catholic1seeks said:
I mean I’d hope I’m someone who likes dialogue and genuine discussion. Just makes me feel strange that I was banned because I really don’t know what I did wrong. I hardly ever even participate over there. I may have commented on 2 or 3 articles, tops.

Regardless, and even if we ignore the specific perspective of LifeSiteNews, it’s really sad to see how Catholics online have become extremely divisive and bitter. This goes for everyone, not just Catholics. But it’s as if there is this blogger orthodoxy that must be maintained.

Catholicism strives with many opinions, approaches, and spiritualities… so long as they center around the tenets of the faith and the sacraments. Upholding one theological approach or liturgical tradition or political ideology or specific opinion as if it is THE ONLY orthodox Catholic view is dangerous and scandalous.
Click to expand...
There has always been acrimonious debates within the church, but the internet has certainly emboldened the right-wing fringe for sure by deliberately creating echo chambers like the one you encountered at LSN. I find that folks on both extremes of the distribution - both right and left, tend to be very fragile and easily offended when confronted with opposition. They are the snowflakes who run to the moderators for being treated unfairly as soon as they are personally challenged - even if it is over the dumbest things. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is what happened to you.

CAF is not immune to that sort of thing. I find it amazing that even on this site there are people who act like agents of the Inquisition. They will accuse a good priest like Fr. James Martin, S.J. of heresy and call for his excommunication, just because they don’t like what he’s saying. Then when you try to explain it to them, they turn on you and refuse to open their minds to anything but their own narrow way of thinking.
 
Are you saying either we have to recognize and maybe somehow celebrate LBGT unions in the church or we are forbidding LBGT people a voice?
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
40.png
Luke6_37:
40.png
Annie:
The closest current one I could find: Cardinal's words on same-sex blessings show church's broader dilemma | National Catholic Reporter

There have been more egregious examples, but you asked for a current one. I started avoiding them when they supported abortion for the poor little girl in Brazil.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link.

I guess someone could be offended by this article if they thought LGBTQ Catholic should have no voice at all. However, I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out the obvious and hoping for doctrinal change.
Click to expand...
Are you saying either we have to recognize and maybe somehow celebrate LBGT unions in the church or we are forbidding LBGT people a voice?
Click to expand...
Read this exchange again and then explain to me how you came up with your last comment.
 
Luke6_37 said:
I am a little confused. Are we talking about LSN or NCR? I agree that the headlines on LSN are sensational click-bait kind of stuff that turns every debate in the Church into a scandal. However, the article @Annie linked to about the Church experiencing a dilemma is from NCR.
Click to expand...
LSN is the topic. The NCR came up as having similar problems, so I guess it can get thrown in, with others as examples of on-line sites that practice editorializing in the name of news; basically glorified blogs with larger staff. Now the who LGBTQRS thing is a rabbit going down a trail, but I still have to like one of your post for seeing conservatives as snowflakes as well.

But no, the topic is specifically the position of the LSN on Pope Francis.
 
Last edited:
Luke6_37 said:
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:

With China, Vatican diplomats must make the best of a bad situation | National Catholic Reporter

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!
Click to expand...
Well, EWTN is far most in line with God than the National “Catholic” Reporter.

The National “Catholic” Reporter has been on the list of organizations not allowed to call themselves Catholic since their beginning. Their local Bishops have historically denounced them as being not Catholic.
 
phil19034 said:
40.png
Luke6_37:
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:

With China, Vatican diplomats must make the best of a bad situation | National Catholic Reporter

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!
Click to expand...
Well, EWTN is far most in line with God than the National “Catholic” Reporter.

The National “Catholic” Reporter has been on the list of organizations not allowed to call themselves Catholic since their beginning. Their local Bishops have historically denounced them as being not Catholic.
Click to expand...
I hear folks on this forum trash talk NCR all the time, but they never provide a source. What evidence do you have to support your claim? Also, Fr. Z’s opinion doesn’t count. He’s too fringy.

I decided to look it up and couldn’t find anything but this Wikipedia article. The and according to it, the relationship between NCR and the hierachy has been strained in the past, but lately its been far more cordial.

National Catholic Reporter - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

I have nothing against EWTN, but I stand by my comment that Pope Francis has been getting better press on NCR lately.
 
Last edited:
Luke6_37 said:
I hear folks on this forum trash talk NCR all the time, but they never provide a source. What evidence do you have to support your claim?
Click to expand...
If an organization claims to be Catholic, the onus of proof is on them. Can you show where they have been approved?

Otherwise, they are a reporter about Catholicism, like any other MSM, not a Catholic organization. They are in the same category as Catholics for Choice, in that they are openly in disobedience to the Church.
Can. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.
Click to expand...
Here is a case of disobedience to St. John Paul the Great.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/parish/editorial-ordination-women-would-correct-injustice

If I had a guy running around the Church that thought the rules for child protection did not apply to him, I would consider him a threat for being a child predator. If there is an organization that is doing the same, then of course I consider them a threat for being a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top