I'm upset about how the Pope's visit is being covered.

[edhopper]

First, I have no problem with the Pope coming here, or that faithful Catholics will go to see him at large events. He is the leader of their faith and that's part of Freedom of Religion.
But the way the press is acting like big PR shills for the Vatican is shameful. There is a lot about this Pope that deserves a closer look. His involvement with covering up molestation, his attitudes to science and women. I'm not saying the Press should be negative, just evenhanded and unbiased. Instead I see what amounts to info-commercials for his trip.
His trip could lead to larger discussions about our society and religion. But obviously, any thing that may sound the slightest bit controversial is forbidden.

[patrice]

1. That WOULD be wonderful. But I think it is up to us. Corporate media is dead to me. nt

[monmouth]

2. As a Catholic, I could not agree more. TV off, DU on!!....n/t

[mac2]

3. After seeing Bush sit up there with the Nuns talking about

Faith Based Charity right after he was elected President, I'm wondering if it isn't the state religion. That event and the appointment of five Catholic RWers on the Supreme Court.

Only they and few black church...oh and RWer Protestant clergy are allowed on CSPAN. Where there is a controversy or scandal they are on all over CSPAN telling about how concerned and good they are. CSPAN even shows the Catholic conferences and worry if the church will survive their scandals.

CSPAN is government TV and we cable users should not pay for it. If they want religious cable events, speakers, etc. they can pay for it on cable like HBO, etc. No way do I want my tax payer dollars or cable dollars going to give them a voice or air time.

PBS has taken time for them too. That's my tax dollars.

No money should be used from the public treasury for religion period. Bush has given favored religious groups billions of public dollars to his "religious crony groups" and for votes. It is unconstitutional and could result in the downfall of democracy for a theocracy. As a religion in our democracy they are not being good citizens by violating separation. They profit very well on tax exempt status which has made them very wealthy. Fact is the Vatican depends on American Catholics for their wealth (they complained when the dollar fell). Without freedom of religion and that tax status they would not be so powerful or exist at all.

Make no mistake there is a war between religious groups in this country to have political power and choose their own candidates for public office. I have complained to my representatives but they are Catholic and ignore it. I have to wonder if I want to ever elect any of them to public office again since they are self interested.

If the Pope visits America, he should use his own money for security and rent the stadiums,etc. All of it is for private religious group use. Not to bring more Americans into their church at our expense. They have enough of our tax dollars.

I agree this Pope has crimes he should answer to. As a powerful religious leader he is not above God's or anyone's law. The church leaders lack credibility by allowing him to be in power as their spiritual leader. Where is a Martin Luther like man for his church today?

[mac2]

4. Ya I'd like to discuss where is the Catholic charities to feed

their starving around the world? The homeless, street kids in Italy, etc. They start religious wars and walk away. They leave large families in poverty but won't support or care for them. The rest of society is to do that.

[hlthe2b]

5. Wow... You must not remember the circus around John Paul II

trips. I even remember his early trip to Denver. His every bowel movement was covered, down to his "golden" shoe strings worn on his "jogging shoes" and every thing "POPE" was commercialized, with "POPE ON A ROPE" shower soap being quite the de rigeur.

I have real issues with Ratzinger, (who I will never likely accept as a POPE), even more than I had with John Paul II, but at least he has refused to meet with Bush*. I'll give him that.

[TZ]

10. Correction

He *is* meeting privately with Bush. He's just not attending a state dinner being held in his honor.
But I am annoyed with this pope on a pedestal coverage. If I have to watch one more stupid story about the carving of his "throne" by local artists I'm gonna bash my head in.

[hlthe2b]

11. Hi ya TurtleSue....

Given no tv watching at my house (I watch Olberman on my cell phone and that's about it), it probably hasn't been so apparent to me. Of course the XM radio ads for the pope's coming to America are annoying, but probaly less so than the constant infomercials to fight the IRS or credit card debt...

At least the Ratzinger isn't giving Bush the pomp and ceremony he was craving.

[Dorian Gray]

29. He is meeting with Bush

His arrival in the US at the Rose Garden and the next day. He's just not attending a scheduled dinner. Which is probably a slight, but it's not like he's ignoring Bush. (So you can go back to thinking lowly about him if you'd like.)

[crikkett]

6. I think it's called 'freedom of speech'

and the beauty of it is that you're not required to like what they say.

His trip would lead to larger discussions about our society and religion if you start talking about that instead of complaining how other people aren't doing your work for you.

[mac2]

7. Or do?

[edhopper]

13. Yes, tomorrow night on my newscast

I will have a discussion about this.
Read the OP again.

[crikkett]

24. So far you had 299 chances = pageviews on this thread

=299 missed chances to change the subject to what you want to talk about, which doesn't seem to be any conversation greater than "gripe about the news".

Do you get my point now?

[edhopper]

27. No I don't

the pageviews to postings seems about average for this Forum. So what's your point. My point was about the Media coverage of the Papal visit, why would I want to change the subject. If I wanted to have a different conversation, I would start a new thread.

[ZombieHorde]

8. His involvement with covering up molestation

If I remember right, that was the last Pope's scandal. This Pope is fairly new.

[np33]

9. There isn't enough media

coverage on the child molestation epidemic in the Catholic church? Its gotten to the point where if you even mention that your Catholic the discussion almost immediately starts turning to "geez those priests and little boys". Can't the Pope just go somewhere on a goodwill mission why does everything have to politicized?

[TZ]

12. The Pope is coming to Washington DC....(where I live)

and you don't expect it to be politicized?:rofl:

[edhopper]

15. I wish it was politicized

instead we are getting nothing but hearts and flowers coverage. No actual news reporting about the Pope or the Catholic Church.

[edhopper]

16. So here's a retorical question

If the top Sunni Cleric were coming here from Saudi Arabia. Religious leader hundreds of millions. Would the press gush all over how amazing it will be and all the wonderful rallies and services he will have.

[mac2]

26. Not protestors would be in the streets declaring him a

"terrorist".

[np33]

19. self delete

self delete

[np33]

20. Okay

Whats your point? The pope is here on a Goodwill mission to bring about positive messages so I don't really understand the necessity to harp on every negative associated with the church.

[edhopper]

22. And if Hugo Chavez, or Amadenajad

came on a mission of peace to talk to Americans, would they get the same completely positive treatment.
Even Pres. Sarkozy or Gordon Brown are treated with some scrutiny.
I just saw a news report on CBS, the only interviews about the Pope were with Catholic priests. Guess what, they all think he's great.

[np33]

36. Apples and Oranges

Your talking about Politics vs Religion.
The American government has pretty much branded Chavez and Amadenajad as anti-christ so I think its a bit foolish to think that the American media would not cover them with a slant (which I do not agree with). What news programs were you watching? Sarkozy's coverage consisted of talking about personal affairs and his recent marriage. And Brown barely rated as a news story on most news outlets.

[trotsky]

23. Maybe because we're bothered by child rape.

And maybe because it's NOT just a parish here or there, it is a clear, systematic, and proven history of covering up, reassigning, basically doing anything to protect pedophile priests at the expense of children. It's disgusting and the church still hasn't shown they are doing anything differently.

[np33]

37. So then

what should be the response to the Catholic Church and the Catholics living in this country? I am not minimizing the abuse and the cover-ups that took place in the church but there seems to be a complete disregard for the positives the Church has contributed to the world for the past 2000 years. So if you are going to speak fairly which I believe this whole discussion is about that then speak about the positives as well as the negatives.

[edhopper]

14. He was John Paul II's assistant who

oversaw the church's response to the scandal. He has more to account for than John Paul II on this.

[katherine20]

17. Catholics Not Happy Either

I can tell you a lot of Catholics are not happy about the coverage either. Too much on silly or secondary matters. The Pope is coming to give a message of peace at the UN and to affirm the American model of religious freedom (it is the 200th anniversary of the first US archdiocese).

(and of course the right wing Catholics are not happy with the music of the Mass!)

[ZombieHorde]

18. Oh. Then carry on I guess. nt

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. He was DIRECTLY responsible for the scandal

Before his election, he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, previously known as the Holy Inquisition. The chief job of the CDF is "to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence," according to the Pastor Bonus encyclical issued June 28, 1988 by John-Paul II. As such, it was his job and duty to investigate and, when appropriate, discipline the clergy who committed these crimes. Not only did he not do this, he ordered bishops to cover things up rather than allow the Roman Catholic church to fall into "disrepute and scandal."

[mac2]

25. "disrepute and scandal."

Which has happened because he allowed it to fall into such a hole.

[Dorian Gray]

28. Interesting

Most of the news stories here (in NYC) regarding his visit are about the logistics. (His itinerary and what he will do while here.) I have no problem with fair coverage, though editorial coverage (really positive or negative feelings re: the Pope) don't have a place in the news. (JMO)

[edhopper]

31. So the wall to wall coverage

Sunday morning of his service at Yankee Stadium and St. Pats. Only talking to priests and over-enthused faithful. On EVERY local channel was just logistics. This wasn't news coverage, it was an infomercial.

[Dorian Gray]

32. Well...

my response was before he actually LANDED here. At that point, when the OP was about the over-abundance of news reporting about it, I didn't see it.

After the weekend while he was in NYC, yes, it was Pope TV all the time.

Personally, I didn't have a problem with it and watched much of it, though I was really surprised that all the major stations showed the full Mass at Yankee Stadium.

[katherine20]

34. Better than CSPAN?!

"I was really surprised that all the major stations showed the full Mass at Yankee Stadium."

Ahh, that's why I like C-SPAN so much. Just show it, without the bs commentary. They rarely add anything of value.

[Dorian Gray]

35. I watched it on NY One

which kept the commentary to a minimum, though probably not as minimal as C-Span.

[Realityhack]

30. I agree. n/t

[Rabrrrrrr]

33. Oh, come on - the media can't even report on US politics or news without bullshit and spin.

How can you expect them to cover the Pope's visit with any sense of journalistic integrity, when they can't even manage it when reporting on celebrities' doings, let alone anything that's actually important?

You're living in the past, man.