Another "gentle critique" of the modern news media

It would seem that the stable of whores who call themselves the modern news media, not being content with having trashed the name and the life of the governor of our northmost state, because of her temerity in running against The Chosen One, have decided to use the same tactics against the Holy Father as well.

We know the tactics well: look through every thing that the opponent has done, examine his or her trash, set investigators on every small detail of his or her life, and see what dirt you can find. If you cannot find any bad thing that one’s foe has done, then look to the foe’s family. Surely one can find a child born out of wedlock, or a charge of drunk driving in one’s spouse. Of course, it does not matter if the parents later wed, or if the spouse had been charged before the spouses married. Parade the shameful facts and declare the foe to be unfit for office, whether that office be the vice-presidency of the United States, or the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Of course, in the case of the Holy Father, it was a bit more difficult. Paparazzi and other poltroons find it hard to gain access to the Vatican. There are those little matters of the Swiss Guard while His Holiness is at home, or His diplomatic staff while He is abroad. It also does not help when faced with trying to find dirt on a man of the highest probity and privacy, as is certainly the case for the life of the man who, from priesthood to professorship to papacy, has shown himself in all things to be both a complex genius and a simple saint. It is even more difficult when His Holiness’ only close living relative is such a good and gentle man as His brother, Fr. Georg Ratzinger.

But, as all bad journalists know, when the going gets tough, the tough dig deeper. Look at every thing that the foe has done, every friend, every action, however minor. Look! The Pope has lifted the ban of excommunication on four bishops ordained by the schismatic, Archbishop LeFebvre. Let’s look at every single thing that these four men have said or written or done. Maybe we can find something we can use there.

And look! One of the four is a nutter who, in one of his sermons, questions whether the Holocaust ever happened. Let’s parade this out and repeat the shout: “The Pope is a Holocaust denier! The Pope is a Holocaust denier!”

Of course, it does not matter that His Holiness may have acted in a spirit of generosity to attempt to end a schism which had been plaguing the Roman Catholic Church for the last forty or so years. Nor does it matter that His Holiness has done much in support of modern Judaism and the state of Israel, and has roundly and repeatedly condemned ha-Shoah, that greatest of the evils of the Nazis. Nor does it even matter that His Holiness may not have known of the statements of this one idiot bishop, or that He acted immediately to condemn that statement once it had been brought to his attention. “To the guillotine! Off with his head!”

Now I can understand the motives of the secular press in acting as they have. Anti-Catholicism has long been known to be the one remaining “politically correct” bigotry. I suppose that it must be fun to trash someone whose positions one is in disagreement with; at least, this must be fun for the small minded.

Of course, the actions of the press in this and in so many other things, give repeated proof that they have long ago abandoned even their claim of impartiality and objectivity for what they actually stand for: partisanship and propaganda. Even the brightest stars of the Left have figured this one out. If you have any doubt of that, I suggest that you may want to read Edward S. Herman’s and Noam Chomsky’s excellent work, Manufacturing Consent.

In the words of the late H. G. Wells: “They have sold their birthright for a pot of message.” That sentence may well serve as an epitaph for the modern press. I can only take wry pleasure in the fact that the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and a score of other rags are quickly becoming as financially as they are morally bankrupt. With any luck, or if there is any justice, much of the electronic “news” media will soon follow suit. And there are some strong signs that that is in fact beginning to be the case.

What I can not understand is the reaction of a number of so-called Roman Catholics, who are joining in the present rush to judgment against His Holiness. In addition to being played for fools by the press, they are showing that they either do not know their own faith, or that they are unwilling or unable to practice it.

If I remember it right, one of the canons of the Second Ecumenical Counsel states that the Bishop of Rome is to be given the primacy of honor by all the faithful. I would think that “primacy of honor” would include such paltry matters as “giving the benefit of the doubt” or “presuming innocence until proven guilty” or “actually listening to what His Holiness has to say in the matter”. This is what even the glitterati of the press would call “a no-brainer”.

But I am given to understand that there are some RCs who seem to feel that the Second Vatican Counsel has abrogated all previous ecumenical councils. I should rather like to know where it is in the Council documents that such a momentous doctrine was published and promulgated. So far, I have been unable to find it anywhere in the documents of Vatican II, and I have read and looked long and hard. Be that as it may, if one looks at the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, or Lumen Gentium, at paragraph 25, one finds instead the following:

“. . .Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

I would personally think that this “religious submission of mind and will”, from the context given, would include such matters as actually listening to His Holiness, and giving Him the benefit of the doubt as regards his motives and intents in taking the actions that He has. Perhaps, though, such people as Fr. Hans Kung (who has been most vocal in the present foolishness) believe that there will be a Third Vatican Council, summoned by the People of God, which will abrogate all previous councils, including Vatican II, and will free that People from such retrograde “submission”. If so, I suggest that such people re-read Psalm II. You know, the one starting with “Why do the heathen rage?” God may have other things in mind.

Finally, I suspect that some RCs are of the mind that regardless of what they do, there is no law against what they are doing. If so, for those legalistic minds which can only understand laws and punishments, I would suggest that such people read Canon 1373 of the Code of Canon Law, which states that “One who publicly either stirs up hostilities or hatred among subjects against the Apostolic See or against an ordinary on account of some act of ecclesiastical power or ministry or incites subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or by other just penalties.”

In other words, folks, it’s not just Tradition, or Church Authority, or even just a good idea. It’s the law.

Now, I know that the canonists are not apt these days to construe Canon 1373 too strictly against those raising legitimate criticisms against Church leaders. Meaning no disrespect to His Holiness, who I believe has suffered unjustly from the above-mentioned media thugs, but it might be simple prudence these days, when trying to do good, to take some care to “vet” the people whom one is trying to help, if only to anticipate and avoid such pitfalls. After all, under the watchful eye of the media elites, no good deed goes unpunished.

In the same way, those who have offered useful critiques to the bishops who allowed child abuse to continue under their oversight, or those who have suggested that certain liturgical abuses have gone on for far too long, should not have to suffer for their critiques.

But when people say that the Pope, or any of his bishops, should be deposed, or should resign, because of simple mob rule, then I begin to think that those who call for such deposition, or resignation, out of simple justice, should themselves face the same accusers, and the same fate. I am tempted to say: “Where is Savanarola when you really need him?”

But I will not say that, or at least, not outside of quotes. Those great philosophers, Monty Python’s Flying Circus, have spoken truth when they said: “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!” Nor should they. But our Lord has also said, “According to the measure that you measure out to others, it will be measured out to you.” For those who suggest, or demand, that the Pope be deposed because of some imagined imperfection, then I am sorely tempted to suggest the following: “May the same be done to you, according to your will.”

As for me, this uncharity of the unfaithful has tempted me to respond with such uncharity of my own that, as I am writing this on a Saturday night, I will go tomorrow to the Divine Liturgy, if God so permits me, and as per the counsel of the good Fr. Z, I shall pray, as I always do, for His Holiness, the Pope of Rome, for the priesthood, for the diaconate in Christ, and for all the clergy and people. And I will pray also:

Lord, have mercy.