remarkably good coverage.
They continue to report that he supports military action against IS, however. Though this may be *true* in a sense, omitting his entire statement on *stopping* IS is sort of misleading and seems to me an obviously attempt to pull him to the side of the US government anxious to beat the war drums to get troops on the ground in Syria. The narrative is to stop IS, which is not entirely true. The US government wants to re-engage Assad more directly, in which case they will be helping IS and Al Qaeda as they did before with those groups and the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. If the US government were sincere about stopping IS, they would have stepped in long ago and actually sided with the soft dictators they helped those groups remove. Putin/Russia stopped the US government from dethroning Assad by successfully tying the US with these extremist groups. So now you have this perfect storm developing. IS gives the US the excuse to get back into the fray more directly which will inevitably lead to the removal of Assad (though they are telling us that isn’t the case). At the same time the news of the Russian *invasion* of the Ukraine that really isn’t an invasion at all breaks. The UN are all over it as if Russia is equivalent to IS. This is to discredit the Russians to make any further accusations by Russia that the US is unreasonably determined to destabilise the Middle East further by supporting the extremists in their removal of Assad fall flat. The US has their apparent *moral* justification as it is being reported to get directly involved in Syria while at the same time eroding the image of the only authority than has the ability to legitimately stop them in their meddling. Pope Francis, I’m afraid, is being used by the media (the mouthpiece of the US government) to gather more support for his side. I don’t think that the pope had in his thinking to become allies with the allies of the groups he says needs to be *stopped, nothing more*. If the media were to antagonise the pope, they would appear to be unreasonable and anti-Christian… which would expose them as being the true mouthpiece of the American warmongering government. I’m always wary of receiving compliments from a source that just a few years ago was attacking the Catholic Church because it was against the policy of forcing Catholic organisations to implicitly fund abortions and contraception. Never receive compliments from someone who is traditionally antagonistic to you… they aren’t compliments, they are flattery. And flattery is always backed by ulterior motives.
CNN gave good coverage of Popes Benedict and JPII too. Just not always. Which is true for most outlets when it comes to covering things. Most get some things right.
In the same way as a stopped clock gives the correct time twice a day?
Disturbing when the Culture of Death praises the Vicar of Christ. I don’t trust them
Time was when Catholics rejoiced if people listened to the Holy Father. Now the Greatest Catholics of All Time get upset with the Holy Father because the Wrong People are listening to him.
I’m no nutbag traditionalist (I like traditional things but don’t judge anyone for having different tastes), but I don’t trust the motives of the media. Sure, it’s good that they have been treating Pope Francis fairly. It will help change the minds of those whose only source of understanding is via their channels and perhaps even lead to some conversions. But, there is always a caveat. They are always one statement away from stabbing him (and us Catholics) in the back. That’s why I suggest shrugging the shoulders and moving on. I’d trust my colleagues or managers more when they give me an *extra mile award* and wait for my acceptance of such an illustrious compliment so that they can sandbag me with weekend work or someone else’s job.
So, forgive me if I’m not rejoicing in a compliment from Grima Wormtongue.