The Pope. the media, and their immaculate perception
Sometimes popularity is just that.
This is time to inject another popular subject, the Pope. (some comparison is in order) Since he became Pontiff, Francis has enjoyed great reviews. On the surface it seems to be all about likability. But as with Obama, it is much more. Now Time has Francis on the cover. With Obama, media would have your opinion based on his sweeping likability and charisma, despite his statements and actions to the contrary. Likability rules.
As Pope he has ventured on a different path, some of it good and some controversial. Will he make controversy the norm rather than the straight and narrow? Time will tell. (pardon the pun) For media and fellow travelers, they found plenty to praise him about and do. It is uncanny how media are such fans. I don’t remember these circumstances before. They still took issue with John Paul II, and they definitely took exceptions with his successor when they could. And before him, Pope St Pius condemned “Modernism” as the “synthesis of all heresies” which spawned a flurry of criticism.
There is always some public scrutiny to the Pope, some of it on the hierarchy of the Church in Rome. Still it is there. Again, remember the secular Left and their disagreement with
religion Christianity and the church in general. Of course, there’s the separation of Church and State crowd, who never find much likable about Christians, evangelicals, or the Catholic Church. Now comes glowing praise for Francis. Nothing adequately explains it. Sure they use him — or their perception of him — to criticize his predecessors and the Church. Does anyone notice their targeted praise? Anyone believe they suddenly came to their senses and changed course, just as Francis came on the scene?
But if media had its wish, they aren’t too proud to say Francis sort of fits their vision.(so it seems) It doesn’t change them. (Jesus is the only one that could change their hearts — Apostle Paul was an example of that) They applaud most of his decisions because, much like Obama, they think they know who he is – better than everyone else. So far, Francis has done little to dispel their notions.
To some, it’s nice to have press in general as an ally for the Pope. (that should sound alarms) It seems too good to be true. Careful what you wish for. Nevertheless, they continue their romance. They are drawn by his humanity. They are casting their vote for so-called “social justice”. Where are all those separatists and critics now? But like the process when the Left was smitten by Obama, Francis has not experienced real dissent either. … or maybe he won’t as long as he remains agreeable to the Left. They might even defend him.
My question would be does anyone see a mutual lasting alliance here? If so, it might start to resemble the Russian model.(in previous post) Maybe not exactly but in the mutual respect for power, ultimately faced in the same authoritarian direction. (as long as politics hold ) Given progressives’ infatuation with Francis, it might be worth considering that materialism is the underpinning for their state/Church relationship in Russia. Is that where this alliance is headed? It may not sound like Francis but, again, what does it matter? The Left gets to frame all things – and they’ve defined him so far.
Listen to who praises the Pope, who praises Putin, and who praises Obama. See it doesn’t really matter what or who the Pope is, it’s who the media thinks he is that counts. Well, since they think it is their job to define everything, why shouldn’t they get to define the Pope? What is to prevent them?
For now, the lamestream is in frenzy-mode hanging on Pope Francis’s every word. (visions of campaign candidate Obama) It is possible that he is not the progressive socialist the Left thinks he is. But because he comes from S.A, particularly Argentina, and has great humanity, he lends himself to their mold. Once media defines something it is hard to change.
Now the Pope has enough defenders and I am not on the short list, but someone does appear to be taking liberty in translating his words. Slight of hand? For what reason?
Note: progressives are not above slight of hand either. In fact, it is their forte. (For example, “level playing field”, “hatespeech” etc.)
As the authority, JMG, says: (2nd link)
“willfully mistranslated, to give Certain Types of Politician very desirable “papal cover” and this is , happening completely by design and, sadly, it’s going according to plan.”
Then suddenly you have Obama referencing the Pope’s words in a scripted speech on inequality. Coincidence? Barry is not above borrowing the words of someone if he thinks it helps make his case for his political ideology. It’s very convenient.
Apparently, just like media, Barry’s teleprompter found a new source. So Elizabeth Warren, Governor Deval Patrick move over, and using Warren Buffett is getting a bit old.
RightRing | Bullright