Greg Krehbiel's Crowhill Weblog - Content

Thoughts on life — News, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and ethics

Other Crowhill sites:
Crowhill PublishingGreg's Book Publishing blog
Greg's Marketing blogGreg's Home Brewing blog

The delusional media

by Greg Krehbiel on 5 March 2013

When you see an article on religion from a mainstream news source, it’s a really good bet it was written by someone who doesn’t have a clue.

Once again, leftist commentators are having absurd delusions about the election of a new pope.

The next pope will almost certainly be chosen from the college of cardinals, and I don’t believe there is a single cardinal who approves of birth control, female priests or same-sex marriage, and there is no chance that the next pope will.

Liberals might think those are all good things. They might yearn for them. They might stamp their feet in fits of impotent rage that the Catholic Church doesn’t see the world the way they want them to. But … these articles are comically out of synch with reality.

-- 2013-03-05  »  Greg Krehbiel

Talkback x 9

  1. Ken Crawford
    5 March 2013 @ 12:29 pm

    Delusional is just the beginning. They’re also amazingly ignorant.

    1. The Ordinariate that allows Anglicans to come over to Catholicism is for whole congregations, thus those priests who come over are not filling the “growing number of vacancies, due to lack of celibate males”, they’re staying with their existing communities.

    2. It’s also ignorant to the fact that Episcopals and other traditional Protestant denominations also have clergy shortages despite allowing women and married people, so the theory that it’s due to the celibacy rule is all wet.

    3. He’s also unaware that in the traditional groups that allow marriage of priests (Orthodox, etc.) they must be married BEFORE they are ordained, similar to how permanent Deacons who’s wife’s die can not re-marry since they are now ordained. So even if the rules were to change, it would never solve his stated concern that “a man ordained as priest in the Catholic faith who wants to get married has to leave in order to do so.” That will always remain true.

    4. This description of Vatican II is ridiculous: ” Vatican II brought forward radical thought on issues from poverty and war to workplace justice and the family. The laity were given a say.” It did nothing of the sort. The church’s position on poverty, war, “workplace justice” and the family did not change and nor were the laity “given a say” (which ironically is what he is complaining about). While there were plenty of changes in Vatican II, these weren’t them.

    5. “Views on things like climate change, war and peace, the present capitalist economic model and poverty would all be welcome contributions to the public discourse, rather than lectures on gay marriage.” -> The Church has lots to say on all of those subjects, much of which he would like. He of course is unaware of all of them except the one he disagrees with.

    6. “A southern perspective will no doubt help in bringing forth a more prophetic leadership in the church at this time.” -> HA! If he only knew that the southern Catholics are even more “backward” than its European counterparts.

    Willful ignorance galore.

  2. pentamom pentamom
    5 March 2013 @ 1:24 pm

    But Ken, re #6 — how could that be? Their skin is dark!


  3. Robin R.
    5 March 2013 @ 1:37 pm

    I don’t think it matters very much who becomes pope – at least from a western perspective. The people in North America and Europe for whom it matters, I believe, do not make up great number, and this number is getting smaller and smaller. When it comes time for a new monarch in the UK this will be big news too, but hardly anyone will care – in spite of outbursts of illusion and sentimentality.

  4. RootCzar
    5 March 2013 @ 6:29 pm

    There’s a great deal of ‘delusional’ in all of this … too much.

    A delusional influential media … attempting to analyze a delusional efficacious religious organization … where’s that supposed to end up?

  5. John Krehbiel John Krehbiel
    6 March 2013 @ 8:49 am

    When you see an article on anything at all it’s a good bet they didn’t have a clue.

    Pretty much without exception, when the media report anything on which I have direct knowledge, they get it wrong. I have watched people say things, and had them misquoted in the paper (Al Haig was obviously talking about who was in charge at the White House, not presidential succession). I have been at an event that was completely mischaracterized in the paper (Greg, remember Ted’s graduation?)

    They always get science wrong, they always get economics wrong, hell, they get the traffic wrong.

  6. Greg Krehbiel GregK
    6 March 2013 @ 9:00 am

    John, I share your skepticism of the reliability of media reports. I’ve witnessed events and seen them mis-reported. I’ve told the reporters what happened and then seen myself misquoted. And when I know anything about a topic, the press invariably gets it wrong.

    However, I suspect it’s a matter of how much they care. Reporters really don’t care if the red car hit the blue car or the other way around. They really don’t care about gravity, or math. They really don’t care about religion.

    They do care about politics, but I think they only care about economics to the extent they think it affects politics.

  7. DSM
    6 March 2013 @ 10:12 am

    @RootCzar: What is a “delusional efficacious religious organization”? Or maybe better: what do you think the word “efficacious” means?

  8. RootCzar
    6 March 2013 @ 12:21 pm

    DSM – intending to convey both that the church is delusional and vastly effectual in terms of enacting its mores and instilling its pretense in its following. it was … sort of a backhanded compliment.

    Suffice to say, its an organization i have little or no regard for.

  9. Dave Krehbiel Dave Krehbiel
    6 March 2013 @ 12:55 pm

    @John: I agree with you that traditional media is a poor source of honest and accurate information.

    After all, their fundamental business model is, “if you pay us money, we will say whatever you want.”

    If they honestly want to be helpful to us, they would say things like, “you would be a lot healthier if you turn off the TV and took a walk” and “don’t drink Coke, don’t eat cookies, try reading a book.”