How many errors can you spot?

Seldom do I read the mainstream media – I even cancelled a free subscription to Newsweek – because it’s a waste of time.  The MSM are especially and notoriously inaccurate about Catholicism.  

The only times I do read MSM stories about Catholic events is to know what inaccuracies I’ll need to clarifiy in discussions.    When I do read an inaccurate portrayal of Catholicism, frequently I’ll play a game of “how many errors can you spot?” 

Take one of the articles making the rounds:  Kathleen Kennedy Townsend’s article in Newsweak about “Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does.”  

I’ve given you the first one in that sentence – the pope’s “job description” doesn’t include “representing” American Catholics.  The pope is Shepherd of God’s flock.

Another one:   “Conservatives in the church denounced Obama’s appearance as a nod by the premier Catholic university to a conciliatory politics that heralds the start of a slippery moral slope.”  Ya know, those ol’ meanie church conservatives who denounce conciliatory politics, of all things.  Except that Obama hasn’t done a single conciliatory action towards the pro-life community and the objection was to “honoring” Obama’s strongly pro-abortion actions.

And what’s up with “the American Catholic laity” as if all Catholic lay people hold the same views as she does?  The problem is that some use the phrase, “American Catholic Church” to mean something other than the Roman Catholic Church in America.

Skipping past the cherry picking in the next sentence, “The document gives moral credence to Obama’s message and to progressive politics writ large” is simply untrue and it’s untrue because of the cherry picking, the selective reading and ignoring what doesn’t fit the “progressive politics” agenda.  There is no charity in the violence of abortion.

Yes, the pope talks about involvement in politics, but in the context of bringing the secular world closer to the city of God, not discarding 2,000 years of Catholic thought.

The idea that Obama could teach anything  to the pope is hubris almost beyond belief.

“listening to the other has been a particular stumbling block for the Catholic hierarchy”  – This is sheer projection.   It’s the progressives who aren’t listening.  

“authority—not truth, not love—”   This is a false dichotomy.

“Wojtyla … fretting”   That brought a laugh.   His Theology of the Body hardly sounds like “fretting.”

The paragraph on the push for women’s ordination misses the boat regarding the underlying theology.

“Gallup poll”  – polls are not accurate for even secular politics.  To suggest that polls have any basis for  moral priniciple is simplistic and naive.

Well, you get the idea.  It’s late and I don’t think I can get through the last two and half paragraphs without a barf bag.  Maybe tomorrow.  So far, even in a cursory reading, I spotted eleven errors.  Anyone up for counting the errors in the last two and a half paragraphs and/or others I may have missed?


3 Responses to How many errors can you spot?

  1. dudethatscrazy says:

    The media has done a great injustice to the American people. I also choose to ignore or laugh at most of it.

  2. Dr. K says:

    The media would gain at least some credibility if it were to stop trying to make Obama into the next Kennedy, or worse, a messianic figure that all the talk show hosts swoon over. Those SNL parodies about how people react to Obama have been dead on.

    ~Dr. K

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: