The Odious Stuart Varney…

The Odious Stuart Varney… December 11, 2013

…assists Adam Shaw’s assault on pope Francis by carrying forward the video portion of the FOX war on the Holy Father (warning: some typical Daily Show crudities):

This is not going to change because a) Pope Francis is not going to change his dangerous insistence that people are more important than money and b) the Thing that Used to be Conservatism and its organs of propaganda are built to attack, not learn. Varney and Kudlow, like FOX video game reviewer Adam Shaw are making clear Murdoch’s stance toward this dangerous heretic pope.  He will be shouted down and conservative Catholics are supposed to fall in line with Murdoch, not the Church. My hope in Christ is that the sheep know their Shepherd’s voice and will not follow a stranger.

The shout down strategies that are emerging from the Manufacturers of Thought for the Thing that Used to be Conservatism across the Rightwingsphere media are a mix of the following:

  • the pope is evil and an enemy of the True Faith and only the conservative dissenter embodies this;
  • the pope’s evil viziers are evil and are leading him astray from the true faith that only the conservative dissenter truly embodies;
  • the pope is stupid and naive and doesn’t understand what he is talking about, due to his Ivory Tower clerical ignorance of the Real World, or his Third World Argentinian bumpkinness that does not grasp the power and glory of American capitalism, embodied now only by faithful conservative dissenters who really know what’s going on and who also embody the true Catholic faith;
  • the pope is a vain rock star caught up with the hype of damn libruls who love him and is just saying crap to keep up his stock with them, unlike the conservative dissenter who embodies the true Catholic faith by resisting the siren call of media popularity;
  • the pope is a well-meaning sentimentalist who does not understand hard facts of life.  Real Catholics (i.e. dissenting conservatives) pat him on the head and then set about the real work of real people in the real world as they embody the ideal of the faith in hard work and business as usual;
  • the pope is a meddling fool who is trying to destroy the Church, unlike the conservative dissenter, who embodies all that is right and true about the Faith;
  • the pope has been totally mistranslated and it is impossible to tell what he means at all. Maybe someday an absolutely perfect translation will be made. But till that time we need to just ignore him and stick to the teachings of conservative dissenters, who embody all that you really need to know about *real* Catholic teaching;
  • the pope is a liberal mole bent on destroying both the Church and our way of life due to his Marxist hatred of God, puppies, and free enterprise.  Dissenting conservatives, who embody the real faith, can see this clearly;
  • the pope is trying to destroy the work of his predecessors in his unbridled malice toward Real Catholics and his love of the Church’s enemies. Dissenting conservatives, who embody the real faith, can see this clearly;
  • the pope is not speaking infallibly and, as everybody knows, that means you are completely at liberty to totally ignore what he says and pay attention to the really sober and reliable tropes, slogans, and nostrums of conservative dissenters who are drawing a discreet veil over the out of control old Marxist in the Vatican until this unfortunate bout of papal Tourette’s syndrome passes. It is their office to do this since they embody what it means to be a Real Catholic and it is therefore their job to defend the Church from the pope as brave Larry Kudlow, courageous Stuart Varney, and gutsy Adam “Francis is Obama, God help us” Shaw have stepped up to do.

Bottom line: “Shut up,” FOX explained.

"Do you think those baptisms were valid? Mother Teresa and her nuns said to the ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Hey Mark! You got $250 mil laying around?"

The Feast of the Holy Child ..."
"I have had a question for quite a while, and since your comment is quite ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Mark, in charity, perhaps you should try. It's clear how frustrated you are. And it ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • One: I’m pretty certain Varney is an Anglican, from England, so it’s a potentially different kind of relationship to the Pope. Also the Pope, I don’t think, specified what any nation’s minimum wage has to be.

    Two: This Pope has not called his right-leaning critics “odious”, or anything of that sort, so far as I know. One thing I’ve had to reflect on is how inclusive, and against intra-Catholic hostility, he looks to be. So I feel like your approach is against much of what he’s doing even when you’re defending him. I think at times he wants us to try harder to understand why Catholics sincerely come to believe or do things that go against the faith. (I think he’s maybe naive if he thinks we can all work out if we’re just patient and communicative, but I can see the appeal in the idea)

    Three: Many of us “conservative Catholics” want to like him, but do feel connected to the elements of continuity of the Church and its teachings. Reading Leo XIII, etc is part of what makes me uncertain on some things he’s said. It is not against the faith to wonder how to reconcile what he’s saying about equality with some previous denunciations of radical egalitarianism. It is not against the faith to think that the Pope is maybe not an economist. It is not against the faith, at least I sure hope not, to notice if he mixes up something and makes a slip on some fact. If the Pope said, for example, that Greece today is more violent than at any point in its history I’m pretty certain we’re not required to agree to that. If he said that Mars is the fifth planet we would not be required to look for a dwarf planet closer to the Sun than Mars. This is not what being Catholic requires or at least I certainly hope not.

    • Marion (Mael Muire)

      I’ve heard that Stuart Varney is a Catholic, and the Wikipedia article states that he and his wife have six children.

      I very much like what your wrote, Thomas R. I try to receive with filial reverence and gratitude whatever any of the Popes have to say about any subject, and try ever to prayerfully and seriously reflect on their words, asking the Good Lord to bring them to fullness in my life, in the life of my parish and of my country, according to His will and purpose. One thing troubles me a little, though, I haven’t been able to help wondering whether Pope Francis would approve of our (some of us) devotion to the most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to chaplets and novenas, to holy pictures, to Adoration and Benediction, and Holy Hours, Latin hymns, to Scholasticism, etc. Because there have been indications that perhaps the Holy Father would rather not see those aspects of the Church’s patrimony promoted.

      But I could be mistaken on that.

      Anyway, I’ve further made up my mind to to leave the question of the Pope’s attitudes to traditional devotions in God’s hands, and to just stay as devoted as possible – to them, and to him, and to Him.

      • Rosemarie


        Pope Francis recently gave out rosaries:

        And I heard that he says it himself. So he doesn’t disapprove of the Rosary.

        He also had that Worldwide Holy Hour of Eucharistic Adoration back in June, which ended with him doing the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament:

        He certainly uses holy images (he’s prayed before statues of Mary, for instance.) In Argentina he promoted devotion to Our Lady Untier of Knots, which involves both a sacred image and a novena to her.

        I don’t think Pope Francis is really hostile to traditional Catholic devotions.

        • Marion (Mael Muire)

          Rosemarie, I am so glad you told us that. This helps. Thank you!

          • I’ll admit I don’t think I was exactly worried about that. I don’t think he’s against any traditional devotion and glad he’s not.

            • Marion (Mael Muire)

              Thomas R., when the Holy Father was first elected, there were reports – second-hand, perhaps – that some Catholics had contacted the Vatican with their plans to offer a specified number of prayers for his intentions. That in response, there had been some remark to the effect that these people needed to get out of the 1940s. Now, who knows who actually made that remark? Or if anyone actually did? Anyway, I confess, the remark made an impression on me at the time, although, I try not to let it bother me too much.

              Maybe I shouldn’t even believe it. I don’t know.

          • Rosemarie


            You’re welcome. 🙂

      • capaxdei

        Pope Francis has publicly said he prays the Rosary daily, and publicly encouraged Catholics to do the same. He has said he makes a daily holy hour before the Eucharist. He has said a fair amount in favor of, even in defense of, popular piety, and of course he is incomprehensible apart from his devotion to Mary (Undoer of Knots (the painting and the person) is a particular favorite of his, and he literally went out of his way to venerate Our Lady of Aparecida (the statue and the person) this past summer).

        The only counter-indication I’ve noticed was the report of his alleged criticism of spiritual bouquets, and even that was limited to the counting, not the offering, of prayers.

        If he doesn’t approve of Scholasticism, well… nobody’s perfect.

        • Marion (Mael Muire)

          Thanks, Capaxdei. It was the spiritual bouquet question that caused me some confusion. I appreciate you and others setting me straight.

    • chezami

      Nope. He’s a Catholic.

      • Really? The only thing I found that said so is something from Father Sirico, but that was a commenter. Maybe it was in the video, but I sometimes have problems getting videos to work.

        Okay, but I’d sure thought he was high Anglican. Where did you find out one way or other?

  • Asra Badra

    This pope is pretty popular, in the non Christian as well as Christian World. The Catholic church, as you well know, is in schism. There is no way all will follow him or anyone else. Stuart Varney? Never heard of him.

  • Ordinary citizen

    The pope has been attacked for yrs by the Left. I’m not all that familiar with Patheos but I assume they defended the pope on those occasions with equal vigor.

    • TheRealAaron

      Patheos is a collection of hundreds of blogs by people of numerous religions (and atheism) and political viewpoints. Mark Shea, this individual blogger, has defended the pope from basically everyone who’s wrong about him.

      My point being, this sounds like you’re trying to change the subject.

    • chezami

      Yes, I have.

  • Andy

    The problem for most American rightwing/reactionary dissenters from the moral message of Pope Francis is that they can not see with a lens other than that of American Exceptionalism. They view the entire world as wanting to be like the US. They view any comments that do not meet the test of supporting everything that America does as being anti-America.

    The pope is making a moral argument that the world’s economic system – note the the world’s system – has moved to the phase of making people commodities, that excessive consumerism is the one of the roots of this problem. I guess that this message does not resonate with Varney et al. because without excessive consumerism they would have little to do except find a different line of work.

    It is fascinating that to me that so many people who claim to be conservative were quick to point out that what Benedict said was to be followed unless it dealt with economics. That what JPII said was vital as long as it was directed towards the defeat of communism. In their eyes it seems that only pelvic issues are the purview of the pope and all else must support the current economic system, which is not really capitalism. You know economic issues are prudential.

    The problem is that Pope Francis is making a moral argument – a moral statement. Morals are the currency of the church. Constantly looking at factual slips is a way of saying we don’t have to follow his moral teachings. Looking for words that may have an alternative meaning means that we don’t have to follow his moral teaching. It says to me that the worship of mammon is alive and well, and seems to be living well in our current system of economics.

    • I think that you are simply incorrect that business journalism (Varney’s profession) would go away absent excessive consumerism. I can’t even imagine a world where that’s plausible. Goods/services must be assigned to one use or another. Journalists will talk about that. This is the heart of business journalism.

      If the assignments go very wrong, people die. This makes the business journalist’s task important.

      Pope Francis isn’t even making that many technical errors. I think that the statistical case for spillover effects is somewhat stronger in the professional literature than the Pope makes out. This is a tiny quibble, hardly worth mentioning, but it’s the level that a proper critique of Evangeli Gaudium has to operate on. I wish other experts were that careful outside the strict confines of their specialties. We’d have a much higher level of political discussion.

      • Andy

        If Varney and other business journalist stuck to their field of expertise I might agree with you. However, I see most business journalists operating outside of their expertise. One can argue what that is – however, as I said the pope is making a moral argument/statement, not a business one. When Varney moves into that area he is outside of his field.

        • The problem is that the Pope’s moral argument is not the one that Jon Stewart says it is and the one that Mark Shea is applauding. Papal exhortations filtered through jewish comedians are not necessarily unreliable but do need to be examined carefully to make sure that distortions haven’t crept in. In this case they have.

          • Andy

            I am actually referring to what the Pope wrote and what Varney actually said – i watch Stewart occasionally when my daughter is home – otherwise I don’t watch him.

            • I don’t disagree that Varney is operating outside his field. The problem is that Pope Francis chose to overload his terms and defined that overload (which is what you are supposed to do) but Stewart et al are ignoring the overload.

    • Actually I think all Americans, not just Right-wing ones, look to the Church with too US-oriented eyes. Although I think the statement about “trickle-down” does seem to be a pretty overt reference to Reagan and Thatcher.

      And I’m not saying we can just ignore him or what he says doesn’t matter. But I think it should still be okay to want to put the Pope in a context of Church teaching and history. From that I’d say the Church is for regulations that protect the workers and against unregulated markets. But I don’t think the Church is necessarily for an absolute leveling of all incomes. (Which isn’t possible anyway. Mao may have come close as you can get to that, but even then higher ranking people tended to have better resources) It is ideal/good to live communally, as in monasteries, where all is shared but not everyone is going to be monastic.

      Money is a tool, to use to help others. If you are using your profits to better your community and hire workers than making money would not, I don’t think, be wrong. Too many rich aren’t really doing that. But maybe more worrisome is some almost celebrate rich selfish people like the late Steve Jobs.

  • Evan

    I’m confused. I thought the Obama administration moving the embassy to the Vatican was an outrage, an effort to break away from Rome, and a “slap in the face to the Church.” But if Obama and Francis are really no different, why would the reactionary right-wing media be complaining about the embassy move?

    I don’t what to think, next thing I know, you’ll be telling me George Lucas’ two best creations were Jar Jar Binks and the Star Wars Holiday Special.

    • chezami

      The Right Wing Noise Machine is built to attack, not learn or teach or think. Demanding consistency or coherence is outside the mission parameters. Obama is an enemy. Francis is an enemy. Destroy them by any means necessary.

  • HornOrSilk

    One of my favorite comments we see is that the Church, and the Pope, shouldn’t speak about economics (and economic systems). Seriously? They loved it when Popes spoke against Communism (an economic system with economic ideals). They want their cake against Communism, but they don’t want the solid meat of the Gospel.

    • Dan

      Many Catholic commentators are Republicans or Democrats first, Catholics second. Essentially, their jobs are to shoehorn Catholic teaching to fit into their political party’s platform so that Catholics will vote for that party. Mark is not one of these people: he is channeling Mercutio and calling a pox on both of their houses.

    • The shallowness of the Fox response to Evangelii Gaudium largely comes from the problem that Fox is not a conservative outlet. It is a Murdoch production and like all of his outlets, strives to find an underserved segment in the population and dominate news and entertainment provision to that underserved segment. In the UK it’s page three topless girls and in the US it’s Fox.

      Since Fox is faking it (pretty well most days), Fox does sometimes get tripped up when something new comes on the scene. And Pope Francis is simply not the same old, same old.

      • jaybird1951

        Once again, I object to making the comments of a couple of people into an attack on the entire Fox network. There is no evidence that they were directed by the producers or Murdoch himself to express those opinions, there is no “war.” This morning a top official at Fox News wrote a very fine article about Pope Francis, well worth reading. Further evidence of no war.

        • My working assumption has been that Mark Shea may be egregiously wrong but he doesn’t lie and certainly not to the extent you imply.

  • Cypressclimber

    Firing back at over-the-top reactions to the pope is like shooting fish in a barrel. Meanwhile, it seems to me that our genial host, likewise, has only two words for those who are not totally on board with the pope’s economics-related observations: “shut up.”

    • Bill

      You know you can make legitimate points without sounding condescending

      • Cypressclimber

        You think my comments were condescending? Howso?

    • jaybird1951

      I would add that there is no Fox ‘war’ on Pope Francis. He never watches the channel but I do in the evening. I have not observed a ‘war’ of any kind against Francis but objections from a few individuals, who are expressing their own views and not under the direction of Fox management. Mark has this unfortunate tendency to generalize based on snippets he comes across on the internet.

  • John

    So what the Pope is really saying is that all the world’s economic problems are mostly caused by the Thing that used to be Conservatism? That the Left is right in its critiques of ‘trickle down” and this thing called “Globalization” is nothing but Reaganomics writ large and is pushed almost entirely by right-wingers and not, say, by Leftists the world over?
    That consequently none of the critiques of the document are honest – THOU SHALL NOT DISAGREE if thou are from that rightwing side whereas if thou aren’t well, welcome young soul and don’t worry about being wrong or fuzzy about something, we know you mean well…?
    I happen to think both Left and SOME on the right are wrong about Francis. Because according to my read of the letter, those who rule the global markets and global finance are NOT ‘conservative tea partier rightwinger GOPer conservatives” at all and never have been. It’s not Reaganomics that rules the WTO. It’s not conservative FOX viewing republicans that run the Federal Reserve or the top 4 banks in the world. Neither Bill Gates nor Warren Buffet are “right wingers” and together they have far more direct impact on the poor domestically and internationally than “conservative capitalism” does.

  • Unfortunately, you are distorting Pope Francis’ message and assisting in the left’s attempt at hijacking what is a nuanced and correct line by the Pope into cartoonish support for a discredited economic system that Pope Francis actually condemns.

    I am on the right. I support Pope Francis. I believe that part of what he is attempting, very bravely, is to get us beyond Marx and create a landing space for the left to safely leave those evil ideas behind once and for all. This is not a simple task, nor is it an easy one. The Pope entirely has my sympathy and support in it.

    There is no minimum wage rate that the same heart strings argument cannot be deployed in support of. Past a certain point, the employment destroying effect of the minimum wage on net reduces the dignity of the poor by incenting business owners to maximize automation for exactly those jobs that the poor qualify for. I believe that a $15 minimum wage rate at SeaTac (the law under discussion in the first Varney clip) does exactly that. But it is not surprising that a business beat reporter wants to speak in the language of his specialty. This also means nothing about whether he is ultimately right or wrong on the underlying point of whether a $15 minimum wage is a good idea.

    Take a look at the SeaTac real estate listings on Zillow ( ). You’ll find reasonably priced houses and 50% of the front page listings being foreclosures. This is a community with a major unemployment problem. Raising the minimum wage makes it worse. There is little dignity to being foreclosed and it is utterly predictable that the incidence of foreclosure will go up because of this law. I think Pope Francis wouldn’t like that. Neither do I.

    I think that the second Varney clip shows Varney trying to get beyond his comfort zone and talk about the moral case which I just outlined above. He doesn’t do it very well in the clip. This does not make him odious. It makes him at worst clumsy and possibly the victim of a Daily Show editor who took Varney out of context (I don’t watch Fox so don’t have the context myself).

    I believe that Jon Stewart is functionally shilling for neo-serfdom and that neo-serfdom is odious. I’m not sure Stewart realizes it though which is more charity than Mark Shea is willing to extend to Stuart Varney.

    • foulweatherfan

      Excellent post.

  • John

    Blessed John Paul II, in Centessimus Annus, number 42 spells out that whereas Marxism was both wrong and immoral as an economic and political system, Market capitalism is not intrinsically evil but MAY be evil depending on the players involved and the degree they value things over people. I’ve yet to read any prominent conservative writer, blogger, or wonk that would disagree with this. Precisely to the degree rule of law is called for wherein we’re all held to the same rules, we hold people more important than things.
    In Francis’ letter, beginning in paragraph 200 and concluding long after 204, the context of his economic critique does not call for STATE run economies but DOES call for the rule of law that respects inalienable human rights…and points out that the black market (drugs, sex, etc.) is by definition ‘unregulated’ but also that on the top end, to the degree states and corporations operate beyond the laws that they enforce on the rest of us, these actors are doing wrong.
    Now based on JUST WHAT THE LETTER SAYS….. THERE’S NO WAY A PERSON CAN HONESTLY LAY the Pope’s ire at the feet of 1980’s era “Reaganomics” or current American right-wing theory or praxis inasmuch as these forces are not the ones running the current, actual praxis of Globalization.
    The Markets are not a monolith whereby to critique the status quo necessarily means you must critique ‘free markets’ per se. Not at all…. apart from black markets there are no markets that are not controlled by states or monopolies. The ones actually in charge are “markets” but they’re not free and they’re not peopled and run by right-wing conservative tea partier republicans.

    • As a practical matter, I think that the poor are much more humiliated by the economic exclusion of too high minimum wage rates leading to high unemployment than they are humiliated by low wages. The cure for low wages is increasing labor demand by new company formation and jobs. That is both sustainable and something we don’t have to wait to do. You can go to any job board on the Internet and go hire somebody right now.

      The cure for too high legal limits on worker salaries setting up minimum employable productivity level that regularly humiliates the poor is, unfortunately slower and harder.

      • HornOrSilk

        What utter garbage. Poor humiliated they can’t be an unpaid slave laborer, really? Seriously?

        • The minimum wage outside Seatac is over $9 in Washington state. Adding $5 is not a minor economic difficulty for employers. $9 is not an unreasonable starting wage. If you would care to let me know at what point justice is satisfied I would be interested in your opinion.

  • AquinasMan

    Meh. It’s an exhortation. We do well to ponder his words, but the paroxysms of outrage against those who disagree are as ridiculous as those who are terrified this document is anything more than an extremely long op-ed piece with nuggets of wisdom and maybe some items that don’t add up. In others words, it requires discernment by all parties. Much may be distilled into formalized teaching in coming years, and others parts may not. Maybe all of it; maybe none of it. Taking an absolute stand either way (It’s TRASH… no, it’s GOLDEN!) is not productive. Read it, pray on it, and ask for grace.

    • capaxdei

      This document is absolutely more than an extremely long op-ed piece. It is (among other things) a call for the Church to leave the church and hit the streets. Where that call is not heeded, for whatever self-referential reason — because, say, they were too busy trying to count coup against THEM, or prevent THEM from counting coup against US — the Church will wither away.

    • Dan C

      This is novel in that a huge portion of the document links work for justice and peace, and directly work with the poor, IS Evangelization. That is unmistakeable.

      Also, he puts into a papal document exactly how an evaluative schema for an economic system works when one really believes in tech preferential option for the poor z

      This makes this document important.

  • Elmwood

    The church isn’t opposed to the free market, it’s opposed to unregulated capitalism otherwise known as “trickle down wealth”. Most would associate trickle down wealth with supply side economics of the Reagan administration and many economic policies endorsed by fiscal conservatives in the GOP.

    The kind of capitalism supported by the church is one that: has a strong juridical framework at the service of a freedom which is ethical and religious, and not individualistic and materialistic. This is not a capitalism most GOPers would support because it presupposes a strong regulatory framework designed to serve humanity in totality rather than focusing solely on profit and efficiency.

    Furthermore, the biggest error of the GOP has been the vast resources wasted on the arms race, i.e. industrial military complex:

    An insane arms race swallowed up the resources needed for the development of national economies and for assistance to the less developed nations. Scientific and technological progress, which should have contributed to man’s well-being, was transformed into an instrument of war: science and technology were directed to the production of ever more efficient and destructive weapons. (Centesimus Annus)

    Considering we are basically spending more money on national defense than ever, we are still in an “insane arms race”.

    • Yeah I think some on the Right have taken it to mean things it doesn’t or they believe the economy should be ran in a way no real economy would. The Vatican site seems to indicate he is not saying business and markets are necessarily bad.

      But we are experiencing a period of increasing inequality, not that all economic inequality is necessarily wrong, and where corporate profits are not leading to more jobs. Most societies, including the US under Reagan, do have systems of wealth-redistribution and regulation. And Catholics can’t/mustn’t think that our moral or ethical imperatives on treating people with dignity go out the window when we run a business.

      Does that mean the minimum wage must be $15 an hour? I don’t think that’s exactly what he’s saying. (Particularly as in some nations that would be huge wages. There are even places in the US where $15 an hour would be good, not simply “living”, wages for a single person)

  • peggy

    I have to go to PSR, but I will say, having watched the video, Varney was appropriate until he got into wanting his spiritual and political life separated. He is no different from any progressive dissenter Catholic in that sentiment, but I do not think we are obliged to agree beyond some general principles with the Holy Father on economics. I think Varney does not understand the pope’s sentiments. I have no idea whether Varney is Catholic. His comments and passion seem to indicate his personal opinion.

    And Kudlow is from CNBC, I believe. Is CNBC and its parent on the attack? And was that a CBS report that said the pope opposed “unfettered markets” though the doc doesn’t say so.

    I do not see a FOX attack on the Holy Father. Many on the right are discussing and debating the exhortation and seeking to understand what the Holy Father is saying. With the exception of Shaw (fired by USCCB) and Varney, I am not aware of any outright disrecpectful or mocking assault from the right that Mark imagines here.
    I am sure the audience and Stewart love capitalism and its benefits as much as Varney and Kudlow do.

  • Dan C

    Sadly, once again, this comedian gets it while these Catholic apologists for wealth (and this is a success, by the way) continue to convince many that religion is about worship and pelvic behavior. Varney, Kudlow, and Napolitano all say the same thing (its one of the circulating talking points). The second one: Francis is from Argentina, he doesn’t really understand the US (its kind of like the Benedict story- well, you know, he’s old). The third denial mechanism is that Francis just needs to be agreed with on some broader points.

    The lack of coherence on this thinking is my most interesting reference, anyntwo of these cannot be true or reasonable.

  • jaybird1951

    As further proof of the Fox News’ purported “war” on Pope Francis, I recommend an article this morning by John Moody, EVP and Executive editor at the network. I tried to link it here but couldn’t manage the trick.

    • Rosemarie


      You probably mean this one:

      But it’s not going to convince anyone whose mind is already made up that Fox News is “at war with the pope” and wants to destroy Catholics’ loyalty to him. If anti-Fox readers click through and read it at all, they’ll probably say it’s just the channel’s sneaky way of hiding their war on the pope by releasing a half-hearted article praising him so that they keep up their “fair and balanced” facade. Or something like that. It’s awfully clever of Fox News to pretend to be fair and balanced by presenting various opinions on a matter.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    “Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.” (Oscar Wilde)
    Pretty much sums up Western Capitalism today.
    Pretty much sums up Western Capitalism today.

  • Claudia Sperlich

    My English is not too good, but I think this man on TV is suffering from hysteria.