You sound fully indoctrinated in thier work. You’ll find if you dig into the facts, just a little more than lifesitenews does, that you’ve been led by the nose. An example would be the recent story about Pope Francis denying the existence of hell, a story the reported in thier usual alarmist style. Yet, I have heard the pope talk about the devil and hell a number of times publicly during his pontificate.
Could it be possible that one of the issues with the way that Pope Francis speaks off the cuff is that he sometimes says inconsistent things? It might just be possible that the Pope wavers in his idea of hell such that he says one thing to the orthodox faithful but something slightly less dogmatic to the secular media, and that is why your response doesn’t quite answer what is at issue?
Perhaps it is the Pope who ought to be just slightly more reflective and careful about what he says? That might go a long way to resolving the issue.
I mean it isn’t just LifeSite that has problems with what Pope Francis does or does not say. Many conservative and orthodox Catholics are becoming just a little concerned about the Pope’s actual position.
Yes, I realize that many progressive types love the way the Pope speaks informally because they are chomping at the bit to see the Church “modernize” its views on the political and social hot button issues, but if you know anything of the ideological division that has existed within the Church since well before Vatican II you have a glimmer of understanding as to the forces at play that seek to fundamentally change the Church.
The Institute of Catholic Culture has some interesting and enlightening talks on the modernist heresy – one by Fr Paul Scalia – and Bishop Barron has several good ones on the three competing viewpoints that contested the forging of Vatican II documents and practices.
Many on CAF are modernist progressive types who have been molded by secular culture and not Church teaching so their critiques of LifeSite are not from Church teaching but from their political ideology masquerading as affinity and loyalty to the Pope.
Many of these currently rallying to take up defensive positions beside Francis were very likely Benedict’s harshest critics. It would actually be interesting to do a search on these posters’ comments on Benedict from years past. Unfortunately, most, I would guess, haven’t been on CAF that long. It is clear, though, that political issues are the main concern for many of these who don’t comment very much on Church history, theology, dogma or philosophy, reserving all of their “expertise” and vitriol for political or social topics.
