More theological guidance from the LA Times

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

Cal_Catholic

Guest
Newspaper opinion piece says John Paul II’s papacy was “reign of terror,” and that Vatican is “less credible” under Benedict XVI

Full article…
 
The great thing about the L A Times, and the New York Times, is that they are pretty dependable sources for the wrong information. In elections one can automatically disregard whoever/whatever they endorse. This greatly winnows the number of options which must be researched.😃
 
Both the LA and NY times should be placed under fiction in the bookstores.
 
Obviously, the world of theology would be nothing more than a heap of dust without Robert E. Doud, The NY Times, and the LA Times.

Viva La Papa:thumbsup:
 
This article, along with its “reign of terror” comment, shows the conscious, intentional assault on the Church which moves carefully, deliberately and with guidance from the Holy Spirit of God. Unlike private clubs started by men, which are free to do as they wish, the Church is also looked upon as a man derived, as opposed to Christ derived, sort of club. How dare the head of this “club” threaten its members by withholding Communion? The Pope and other Church leaders have made clear decisions. Of course, those who do not want to follow Church teaching need to consider the consequences.

Living as a devout Catholic in a society that is partly secular sometimes means separating oneself from its most vocal defenders. Of course, a more liberal Church is desired. Just say OK to abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and divorce - what’s the big deal?

As Catholics, we need to put our faith into practice daily. We need to understand it. We need to stop imitating the world around us that no longer wants to feel guilt or shame or sinfulness; that no longer believes in modesty or decency or self-restraint.

God bless,
Ed
 
I don’t know much about the LA Times. But I have read the NY Times for decades, and it probably is the best daily paper in the USA. Well, USA Today is excellent, also.
Code: 
 Most critics of the NY Times either don't read the paper or are so far to one extreme or the other that they can't abide a moderate point of view on most issues. Both the crazy left and crazy right attack it. You can't blame a paper because it carries columnists who are both liberal and conservative. 

 That's one reason I love the Times. Over a span of years you get a wide variety of views on those pages that carry editorials, op-eds, and letters. I try to get along without the Times as it has become wildly expensive, but I trot to the library every few days to catch up. You find considerable material there that you rarely find anywhere else.

Forgive me if I offend anyone, but those who attack the NY Times are likely to echo the nonsense of Bill O'Reilly and those like him who work hard at manufacturing sensationalism, make sweeping generalizations, and create angry division among Americans. They would likely prefer such tabloids as the NY Daily News and the NY Post who specialize in getting readers riled up. I much prefer a calmer, wiser, more intelligent approach and it's far better for America. That's the approach of the NY Times.
 
In order to increase declining circulation, the LA Times and NY Times will now be printed on softer paper and sold in rolls.
 
Here is a link to the op-ed piece which is the subject of this thread: latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-doud15nov15,0,6954903.story?coll=la-opinion-center
It must be possible for a Catholic to oppose abortion on the grounds of the church’s moral teaching and still be in favor of choice in the public sector. A public official who happens to be Catholic represents many people, not only Catholics. Each of those constituents has a conscience, and many do not hold that abortion is the taking of a full human life. A Catholic public official must support the liberty of conscience of each constituent, even above his or her personal moral convictions. In the opinion of many, the question of abortion is so intimate to the woman involved that her conscience must be the ultimate court of appeal in the matter. Her conscience may not be properly informed, or may even be malicious, but it is a matter of her conscience in the final appeal. To deny a woman access to proper medical care as a matter of public policy runs counter to the spirit of democracy, as well as the traditional Catholic view on the freedom of conscience.
Click to expand...
I wish Mr. Doud well, but I am glad he is no longer teaching college.
 
Who cares what the NY Times or the LA Times say about the Popes? These are purely secular publications whose *raison d’etre *is to sell advertising and make money. They write on about the 5th grade level. Their reasoning is usually (but not always) shallow. It has to be to appeal to their readership. And, sensationalism sells. Think about it. Would anyone posting rational items in these forums make a serious decision based on opinion pieces in either of the Times papers? I doubt it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top