What do you think about lifesitenews?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamalChristophr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Believe_85 said:
I’m not saying he/she is bearing false witness against me. I meant people say the site spreads lies. I asked for someone to show a false report.
Click to expand...
Don’t hold your breath.

The most damning piece of actual evidence was that one or two combox commentators were banned from commenting on LifeSite for saying something against Roy Moore or something to that effect.

This actually pales in comparison to those banned from YouTube or Twitter or university campuses merely for defending conservative or Christian values. Yet these same individuals who will denounce LifeSite or EWTN or Fr Z for allegedly “attacking” the Pope will say absolutely nothing about the underhanded way in which Google, YouTube, Twitter or universities deal with conservatives or free speech issues.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they are anti-Francis.

I started a similar thread to this one about LifeSiteNews with the same observations a few weeks ago.

Sad.
40.png
Is LifeSiteNews anti-Francis? Catholic News
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...
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
Yes, they are anti-Francis.

I started a similar thread to this one about LifeSiteNews with the same observations a few weeks ago.

Sad.

Is LifeSiteNews anti-Francis?
Click to expand...
Actually, your underlying premise is just false. You assume that being critical of certain actions or words of Pope Francis equates to being “anti-Francis.” That would be plainly false since it amounts to claiming that in order NOT to be “anti-Francis,” a person would have to agree with him on everything he says and does. Since when has that been the gold-standard for Catholicism?

Paul had issues with Peter and the way Peter was dealing with Gentile Christians.

Catherine of Siena had issues with several of the Avignon popes.

We could also legitimately discuss the Renaissance popes, or Stephen VI (VII)

You need to better grasp the concept of papal infallibility and what that entails.

So much of this issue revolves around the desire of many for simple answers to complex issues, which is understandable given the fact we live in an age where the sheer amount of information we need to deal with is overwhelming and sorting out truth from fiction is a severe challenge. It is understandable, to some extent, why people want to simplify things by finding quick and easy reasons to dismiss sources of information which don’t fit their pet ideologies. That, I think is a mistake, though, because we need to search for truth rather than comfort or easy solutions.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
Actually, your underlying premise is just false. You assume that being critical of certain actions or words of Pope Francis equates to being “anti-Francis.” That would be plainly false since it amounts to claiming that in order NOT to be “anti-Francis,” a person would have to agree with him on everything he says and does.
Click to expand...
It would mean fact-checking Francis-related stories via the Vatican and not sensationalizing headlines to attract and feed an anti-Francis crowd.
 
gracepoole said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Actually, your underlying premise is just false. You assume that being critical of certain actions or words of Pope Francis equates to being “anti-Francis.” That would be plainly false since it amounts to claiming that in order NOT to be “anti-Francis,” a person would have to agree with him on everything he says and does.
Click to expand...
It would mean fact-checking Francis-related stories via the Vatican and not sensationalizing headlines to attract and feed an anti-Francis crowd.
Click to expand...
Assuming that the Vatican is clear and meticulous about its statements of fact, and doesn’t leave hanging dubias in its wake.
 
Well, I’ve not noticed it to be pro-Francis.

I stay away from sources that tend to divide, especially extreme ones that do so within the Church.
 
Last edited:
I like them. They write on pro-life issues that most news sources wouldn’t dare mention because it doesn’t fit the narrative.They even have a Catholic section.
 
I think they’re good in a number of things, such as you have mentioned. It seems to me that individuals within LSN or the agency as whole has an ax to grind with Pope Francis, and they will take aim at every opportunity. It seems they have made it their own personal crusade.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
Well, I’ve not noticed it to be pro-Francis.

I stay away from sources that tend to divide, especially extreme ones that do so within the Church.
Click to expand...
Why do they need to be “pro-Francis” in the sense you imply? Isn’t that necessity a source of possible division as when Paul complained about members of the early Church being for Paul or for Apollos? Why do persons, besides the Trinity, need to be brought up at all? That just seems to create an opening for ad hominem comments or rhetoric to take hold.

The truth of teachings ought to be what any discussion should to be concerned with, personalities not so much.
 
Last edited:
Because most of the people who try to be anti-Francis at every opportunity are those who, at the same time, are suspicious of his pastoral approach and would rather not have a Church of Mercy and accompaniment.

I just rather not get my Catholic feed from people who are inclined to attack this Pope over and over again.
 
Last edited:
Your post reveals your real concerns and they seem to be much larger than little Lifesite News.
 
I meant the pope, but the other might not be too far off the mark. I’m just referring mainly to a personal style of thinking and expressing oneself. I think our pope is somewhat divergent from what has been seen for quite a long time in the papacy in terms of personality and communication. That’s my impression.
 
Last edited:
Pope Francis is an intelligent, savvy man. I find it difficult to believe that he simply doesn’t know what he’s doing or that I know what he should be doing better. There are plenty who like his divergent approach. I’m not yet willing to say it’s a problem with long lasting consequences.
 
If you follow the secular media this year you already know the kinds of themes th e Vatican will promote next year. But some important themes are omitted by cnn, and then omitted by the Vatican. That’s why LSN is needed, to cover those twice neglected themes.
 
I do not want to put pennies in the pocket of LSN by clicking there to research stories.

They have run a bajillion stories against the Affordable Care Act always stating the so called “abortion mandate”. At the same time, they gush about Mr Trump, calling him the “most pro life president in American history” (Nov 16, 2017). Never mind that he has flip flopped on abortion many times, that he has not defunded planned parenthood as promised, that he wishes to reduce care to the poorest of the poor, is a-okay with abortion loopholes in legislation. They might as well name the paper RepublicanLifeNews.

They have recently run headlines that say “The Democrats have kicked out the last pro-life Democrat” when the following pro-life Democrats are active:

Tim Bjorkman SD
Paul Spencer, Arkansas
Dan Lipinski, Illinois (who was elected to Congress in 2004, and has consistently been a champion of whole-life issues during all four terms.Dan is the cosponsor of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (HR 5939), the Patients First Act (H.R. 877), and the Protect Life Act (HR 5111).

Joe Donnelly, Indiana
Collin Peterson, Minnesota

https://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php/109-2018-pro-life-democrat-candidates

LSN is blatantly partisan and they try to cloak it in a form of hyper-Catholicism.
 
Not everyone is left or right, there are those of us that just follow Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top