Get updates from Catholic and Enjoying It! delivered straight to your inbox
A bit of whimsy on MSM Pack Journalism re: things Catholic.
Link doesn’t work…
Works for me.
Ah, but is it because the link is unemployed, or because the link is lazy?
Long-term disability, maybe?
I don’t see the connection…
Mark; while I really enjoyed that, I would add that from what I’ve read it appears that Andy Warhol actually was both a devout and orthodox Catholic (and it’s not surprising; this is the kind of the thing the media buries under 50 feet of Earth). He was a Byzantine Catholic (always a good sign), served at homeless shelters (very good sign), and he was also a celibate virgin who happened to be gay (greatest of all signs?). The fact that he was gay but remained faithful to the teachings of the Church and a was an active member for his whole life speaks really well of him.
Wow! That’s pretty amazing to hear. Gives me new respect for Andy.
“Devout” is media-speak for “Identifies as (or was raised) Catholic, but agrees with whatever cool agenda we love in defiance of Catholic teaching.”
When the MSM post an editorial about the church it’s usually posted by a “catholic.”
The article starts off, “This week the church made a pronouncement about X. As a practicing catholic, who doesn’t agree on many of it’s teachings, I was (fill in the blank)” The fill in the blank can be shocked, not surprised, amused, disappointed etc…
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” (Hanlon’s Razor)
When it comes to the mainstream media, stupidity is always the safest bet. In the minds of most reports, “devout” = “doesn’t express obvious outrage and hatred for the Church when asked.”
Also, “fanatical” = “actually agrees with the Church.”
It’s stupid and wrong. But I don’t think it is outright malicious 99% of the time.
The father of lies has plenty malice towards Truth. Our mortal foes hate in error, but no less really.
I struggle with this. I’m not sure if it’s stupidity or being so adamant to attack the church they don’t bother to do the most basic research. The New York Times wrote several articles accusing Pope Benedict of not going after child molesting priests. If they would have done basic research they would have found out that these priests were already removed from their duties. One of them had served a term in prison and had none of them had any active role in the church. Also, they acted like he would have known about every investigation going on inside the entire Vatican. Jimmy Akin wrote several great articles showing why the Times reporting was so bad. They didn’t seem to have any clue on the basic mechanics of the church. It seemed like they were so excited to go after the church they didn’t do any research. That might be stupidity but it’s also seems to point to an unfair aggressiveness.
It seems like willful ignorance in many cases.
Yup. But sadly, willful ignorance is the most common kind.
Laurie Goodstein (sp?) may be that 1%
Unfortunately, sometimes the stupidity is due to a willful ignorance that is in turn due to malice.
I just figured “devout” was used where they’d rather have written “former”. But I agree: it is typically a meaningless adjective.