It never ceases to amaze me.
Liberal news anchors who are not members of the Catholic Church seem to think that they have some kind of right to impose their opinions upon an institution. Why is it so important to them? Are they going to be denied the Eucharist? How can you be denied something for which you never ask? Are they worried about not learning the new responses during Mass? What impact will the selection of this Pope have on their spiritual life – assuming that liberal news anchors have any? I’m sure that I don’t care who the president of the Southern Baptist Convention is. What impact will a spiritual leader have on their secular life? And why don’t I hear the same push for foreign countries to select certain leaders as they campaign, if not for a specific papal candidate, at least for the desired qualities in the new Pope?
I mean, really, was this comment necessary? With that snarky little grin that Pelley has?
Scott Pelley’s liberal bias got the better of him on Monday’s CBS Evening News as he interviewed three American seminarians studying in Rome. When one seminarian expressed his hope that next pope continues the “beautiful legacy of John Paul II and Benedict XVI,” Pelley replied incredulously, “But you mentioned two popes who have a reputation for being doctrinally conservative. And this is something you’d like to see carried on?”
Why must the Church change its message? If it changes its message to be popular, it no longer is a “rock” on which Christ built his Church. It’s more like a dinghy afloat on the ocean, going wherever the tidal forces take it.
Speaking of “dingy,” there is this interview excerpt:
MASON: There – there has been resistance to this, though. I mean, the Vatican, back in the spring, said the American nuns were pushing radical feminist themes. How did you react to that?
DEACON: Well, my understanding of feminism is – and I like this definition – feminism is the radical idea that women are people. (King and Mason laugh) And if he wants to be calling us radical feminist, with that in mind, I accept that definition. I accept that definition.
KING: And the latest poll shows that 69 percent of American Catholics think it’s a good idea for priests to be able to marry. Where do you stand on that?
DEACON: I – I think that’s a good idea as well. It’s – it’s a discipline that the Church has imposed historically over the last thousand years, and it doesn’t seem to be working anymore. And I would think-
If the celibate priesthood isn’t working, isn’t that a problem for the Church? I would think that these opinionated wissholes hated the Church so much, they’d be rejoicing over it’s eventual demise. Instead, they are dead set on remaking the Church in their own contemporary, liberal image.
If you want to design a faith, you just go for it. Go open the local church of Billy Joe Bob and grow it into a major religion. The Scientologists have done that, so can Mr. Pelley and his ilk. Quit screwing around with mine. We’ll pick our own Pope and follow our own doctrines, thank you very much.