I promise you that what you’re about to read is the most outrageous case of media bias you’ll see this year. It’s also major league anti-Catholic as well but they do that so often over there it’s hardly worth noting. But in this case Time Magazine actually calls Pope Benedict “Ebenezer Scrooge” for the Vatican’s decision not to endorse an EU proposal calling for an end to legal discrimination against homosexuals. The Vatican’s reason, according to Archbishop Celestino Migliore, was a fear that the resolution could end up punishing countries which don’t allow gay marriage.
Reasonable enough reason, right? But not even nearly good enough for the uber-leftist Time Magazine. This is how Time begins their slander:
Those nicknames from the past — God’s Rottweiler, the Panzercardinal — don’t seem to stick anymore. After acquiring a reputation as an aggressive, doctrine-enforcing Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI has surprised many with his gentle manner and his writings on Christian love. But with the Christmas season upon us, there is growing proof that the 82-year-old Pope is also quite willing to play the part of Scrooge to defend his often rigid view of Church doctrine.
You see, to Time Magazine if you’re against gay marriage you’re a mean old evil Scrooge.
Now as if that’s not bad enough, the writer then criticizes Pope Benedict’s stance on the placement of the “sign of peace” during the Liturgy and just simply writes that the Pope is against people wishing “peace” to each other. Get this:
Though there is no indication if or when the proposed movement of the peace would happen, this change would respond to a desire by the Pope to rein in some of the excesses that he sees in the ways the faith is currently celebrated. And to those who wonder why not just let everyone to say ‘peace’ when and where they please for Christmases to come, one can imagine Benedict flashing that gentle smile, tilting his head ever so slightly and declaring: Bah Humbug!
Does this writer think Mass is freaking Woodstock where we all just go around wishing peace to each other. Can you believe this garbage? This writer clearly has no idea what he’s talking about yet feels free to make his opinion known of how the Pope should handle the Liturgy. I cancelled my subscription to Time years ago. I hope you’ll do the same.
HT Newsbusters
December 5, 2008 at 11:17 pm
If this is what goes for intelligent commentary I’m afraid someone needs to call time on Time. Maybe Chime would be a more apt title, like MSM in general. I find that as a rule of thumb if MSM say something one can be pretty sure the truth is the exact opposite.
December 5, 2008 at 11:19 pm
First they were Palin’ around with turkeys, and now this? God have mercy on us all.
December 6, 2008 at 12:17 am
God’s ways are clearly not the ways of selfish men. Immature, petulant and condemning of God’s law. This is what we have today. Very sad. What Christ had to put up with— and it continues today.
December 6, 2008 at 12:33 am
Every time I think I can’t be shocked anymore, I am shocked.
Unbelievable.
December 6, 2008 at 12:58 am
The writer shows a profound lack of knowledge – about both the Pope and Ebenezer Scrooge. So now the Pope is “a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner? “
December 6, 2008 at 1:42 am
Ellyn,
do you have the book on you at all times so you can open it up to quote at length? Impressive.
December 6, 2008 at 1:51 am
All times…
Because you, like, never know when the topic will come up. (And it beats Catcher in the Rye.)
December 6, 2008 at 3:25 am
TIME Magazine’s Jeff Israely wrote that? I am surprised that TIME is still around. Who reads it? But I am not surprised that it is as fatuously leftwing as it has been for decades.
Do they still have a man or person of the year award…or given the progressive nature of leftist thought does that now also include the entire animal and plant kingdoms?
December 6, 2008 at 3:50 am
God bless the work of Bill Donohue. I just checked the site and they didn’t comment on it yet, but hopefully they will soon.
The odd thing is I really don’t see how much more homosexuals in Europe need. No, they still cannot get married in the church. But that’s pretty much the only difference here. What more do they want? And why does the EU need to call the vatican in on this one? Just plain messed up here.
December 6, 2008 at 3:52 am
John…Jeff Israely? Hmmm. You don’t say. Hmmm…..
December 6, 2008 at 10:55 am
Easy
December 6, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“His often rigid view.” As if the Holy Father had opinions (cf C.S. Lewis’ SURPRISED BY JOY)! As someone (perhaps in this excellent blog) said, the news seems to be run by people forever locked in The Terrible Twos.
— Mack
December 6, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Of course he thinks the Mass is freaking Woodstock. The great problem is that it is not just a few wacko journalists who are under that delusion. Kit
December 6, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Any time you want the homosexual line on anything, just dip into the msm. It’s right there.
Usually is infinitely more subtle, embedded in the assumptions underlying an article or story.
We simply absorb it.
To me the shocking thing about this story is the author’s complete hamhandedness. Obviously he missed the class on subtlety.
December 6, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Matthew, to pretend it doesn’t exist is the same as pretending abortion doesn’t exist in America. It may not be PC to call it out, but it’s definitely there. The Boston Globe made a fortune on deriling the church once the “new management” came in. But how many times did the Globe report on the number of Jewish babies diagnosed with herpes in NYC? How many times did they report on the number or rabbis fleeing to Israel once accused of child molestation?
I’m not saying it’s a conspiracy. But it is a tendency and a trend within that community.
December 6, 2008 at 8:41 pm
When I read stuff like that Time article, I wonder what’s in it for anybody. It’s drivel, and any Catholic would know it, and who else would care? The best theory I’ve read was applied to the NY Times, which has been hemorrhaging readers: the NY Times (and by extension, Time) is no longer for a general readership. It’s for a clique of people who all believe the same things, and like being massaged by their same-thoughts.
Maybe sort of like Jewish-conspiracy theorists.
December 7, 2008 at 12:27 am
The law said nothing about gay marriage. It was protection for individual humans, and like it or not, they, like all of us, are created by God. While I agree that Time was out of bounds on their language, I’m simply stunned that every time gay rights are mentioned, people believe their only goal is destroying Christian marriage. Divorce, not gay rights, is the real threat to marriage.
December 7, 2008 at 1:11 am
So who gets to be Tiny Tim?
December 8, 2008 at 3:12 am
Perhaps it’s time that the West (especially, the U.S.) woke up to what the EU is becoming: an authoritarian, if not totalitarian, super-state that pronounces to be the final arbiter for individual nations’ internal social policies. This is far more than a confederation of states that retain individual rights. It seems that, in the EU, Brussels’ perogatives outweigh the individual state’s legitimate concerns.
Then again, given the rapid Muslimization of Europe, the EU’s views on same-sex marriage will become irrelevant more quickly than anybody realizes.
October 23, 2009 at 12:12 pm
"an authoritarian, if not totalitarian, super-state that pronounces to be the final arbiter for individual nations' internal social policies."
We can't have that – they'll be horning in on the US's schtick. This planet's only big enough for one major power to tell everyone else what to do.
Didn't Nostradamus predict this Pope was the Anti-Christ? Hmm.