Top Vatican communications officer resigns after 'Lettergate' fiasco

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let’s not make this a thread about Jagged, nor about whether Pope Francis has “enemies”. Threads are good if they focus on the initial topic. Please let’s all try to refer only to the incident, and to the persons known to have been directly involved.
 
No, I’m not moving any goalposts. You use the word “enemies,” then you better come up with a whole helluva lot more than LifeSiteNews!
 
jagged said:
40.png
Imdaman:
I would certainly never call you a fool even if I think you are one. I’m was just pointing out the inconsistencies in your conspiracy theory meter being very subjective. Please point out an example of these enemies you speak of so I can be more aware of them.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you won’t call me a fool even if you think I’m one. I’ll return the favor.

I don’t think it’s much of a conspiracy. The Pope has enemies. These enemies use attack articles on the Pope to raise funds. The funds make them rich. It’s basically a Catholic version of tele-evangelism…
Click to expand...
There you go judging again. You must be one of those enemies also because you go against PF when he says who am I to judge.

You keep throwing out these judgement and still not given a shred of evidence or an example of what these enemies do to prove they are indeed enemies. It is more mental masturbation from you. A lot of work spit and drool but no baby!

For the record I didn’t call you a fool nor do I think you are one. I guess I didn’t make myself clear enough for you!
 
jagged said:
40.png
Mark121359:
Give us some examples. Who are some of these enemies of the pope as you see them?
Click to expand...
Sure, here an example from Steve Jalsevac, founder of LifeSiteNews, said in a comment for the post “On EWTN orthodox Catholic author warns Pope Francis has deliberately created confusion”

“To continue denying the grave problems with this papacy is inexcusable and serious personal negligence. One cannot be a faithful Catholic, meaning faithful to Jesus Christ, while continuing to defend Bergoglio.”
Click to expand...
Link please, no offence but I do not trust you to give an accurate account or context. Please give us a link. I also believe that PF is creating confusion in the Church. You can see this everywhere. I have examples of it in my own parish. These remarried couples go up for Communion with the complete understanding that they are now allowed to. This is confusion.
 
jagged said:
40.png
Mark121359:
No, I’m not moving any goalposts. You use the word “enemies,” then you better come up with a whole helluva lot more than LifeSiteNews!
Click to expand...
Why do I have to come up with a helluva lot more than one example? You asked for an example and I gave it. So, yes, you are moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...
Maybe because you made a bold statement like “PF is surrounded by enemies” This is untruth. Does that mean you are an ememy of truth.
 
commenter said:
Let’s not make this a thread about Jagged, nor about whether Pope Francis has “enemies”. Threads are good if they focus on the initial topic. Please let’s all try to refer only to the incident, and to the persons known to have been directly involved.
Click to expand...
Sorry commenter jagged throws out these wild accusations all the time with no proof. He needs to be called on it sometimes.
 
The issue of whether any particular entity which disagrees with the pope is “an enemy” is always going to be debatable due to differing ideas of enmity and differing views on the issue at hand.

Does your calling people an enemy of the Pope help sort out the issue at hand or distract from it? Quite honestly, I think I could make an argument that you are an enemy of the Pope by saying that because you do not try to clarify matters for those who are confused, you are hindering rather than helping him 😉
 
Well, I.put a wink at the end to show I was just being rhetorical.

Seriously, whether or not the source is an enemy is not really relevant to what is being reported, and focusing on that aspect is, I think, unhelpful to what you presumably want to accomplish.

The reality is that I can read an article on HP and decide what part is news and what part is blather, research the issue if I have to, and then comment on the content of the article rather than attacking the messenger. That way I may cause others who approve of HP to reconsider their position.

I personally believe that photoshopping the letter was fraud, and that is really bad. To misuse the written by the Pope Emeritus was a bad thing to do. In fact, I think it was much worse than what LSN does. Whether LSN is “an enemy” of the Pope’s or not is not relevant to the report.

So why are you trying to redirect our attention from the news mentioned in the article to the vehicle of the news?
 
The Vatican media office engaging in unethical journalistic practices in this regard is a fact.

The criticism of LSN as allegedly “anti-pope Francis” is a subjective judgment.
 
.Jagged, there are so many ways to include your opinion of LSN into a comment on the article itself, like so can’t believe they used a headline like this when the story seems to focus more on another point which I think X, Y, and Z about. See what I mean? Or even, I didn’t trust LSN slant on this, but when I read an article at XYZ about the event, I found that blah, blah, blah.

That way you can let your reader know that you don’t trust LSN while commenting on the thing the article is about.
 
Now, about what you said about the article: I believe that it was an error on the part of the Vatican and, even if it was not done with ill-intent or to protect the Pope emeritus in some way, they were foolish not to realize that the enemies of the Pope would use it against them.

Excellent point! I hadn’t thought that in their zeal to protect Pope Francis from Pope Benedict 16 that they might have lost their perspective.
 
I’m sorry, I misunderstood you.

Honestly? I think you do not know much about the publishing process. These people have a book they want to advertise. They send copies to Pope Emeritus hoping he will say positive things about the book which they can then use in advertising. He sends a letter: they are really happy! Halfway through reading the letter, their hearts drop. He’s not really saying many good things about their project. One of them says Darn, we can’t use this! Another one says, well, wait a second, the first part is great! let’s just use the first part! And the They start adjusting the books and the letter. It all comes down to those last couple of lines on the fist page, which are pretty negative. If people see those… And there’s no way to place the books to hide just those lines… Oh, that’s ok, we’ll just blur them. By now the whole thing has become just an advertising problem; they’re not really thinking about ethics.

And a really stupid action occurs, causing a worse problem than they had started off with.
 
Thanks for posting this. There does seem to indeed be a deep sense of theological insecurity in the Vatican these days when their PR team has to result to such underhanded tactics to justify the theological “continuity” between this papacy and the last.
 
Thank you mrdrifter for the link.

I think it is important to read the blog post to understand what is going on and why.
 
Annie said:
Excellent point! I hadn’t thought that in their zeal to protect Pope Francis from Pope Benedict 16 that they might have lost their perspective.
Click to expand...
Could be.
And it also could be that Benedict didn t need to read 11 volumes to know about Pope Francis’ theology. He knows him,he has had read him,he has heard him.
And it could be that there wasn t any need at all to expose a private letter.

I am sorry for Pope Benedict,he is over 90 already, just hope it doesn’t t hurt him.
 
Last edited:
[/quote]

Could be.
And it also could be that Benedict didn t need to read 11 volumes to know about Pope Francis’ theology. He knows him,he has had read him,he has heard him.
And it could be that there wasn t any need at all to expose a private letter.

I am sorry for Pope Benedict,he is over 90 already, just hope it doesn’t t hurt him.
[/quote]

There might not been any need but the communications dept thought they would use it to give legitimacy to PF writings. These writings might well be theologically sound and right on the mark. That is not the issue. The issue is that these knuckleheads thought they could do an end run around the truth and put words into Pope emeritus mouth to shore up the this legitimacy. You’re right this private letter should not have been used but since it was it is only fair that all of the letter is shown.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top