Time’s Jeff Israely: The Pope is a 'Scrooge' For Defending Church Doctrine

Time’s Jeff Israely: The Pope is a 'Scrooge' For Defending Church Doctrine

By Matthew Balan (Bio | Archive)
December 5, 2008 - 15:29 ET

Time magazine’s Jeff Israely compared Pope Benedict XVI to Charles Dickens' most famous character in his latest column, which focuses on the “tough line on Church doctrine” the pontiff has taken: “...[T]here is growing proof that the 82-year-old Pope is...quite willing to play the part of Scrooge to defend his often rigid view of Church doctrine.” Israely later put Scrooge’s characteristic anti-Christmas exclamation in the mouth of the Holy Father: “...[O]ne can imagine Benedict flashing that gentle smile, tilting his head ever so slightly and declaring: Bah Humbug!”

The correspondent’s Thursday column on Time.com, titled “The Pope’s Christmas Gift: A Tough Line on Church Doctrine,” began with Israely apparently lamenting that the old nicknames for the Pope are no longer effective tools: “Those nicknames from the past — God's Rottweiler, the Panzercardinal — don't seem to stick anymore. After acquiring a reputation as an aggressive, doctrine-enforcing Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI has surprised many with his gentle manner and his writings on Christian love.” He then saw it fit to give the Pope the “Scrooge” nickname, just in time for Christmas: “But with the Christmas season upon us, there is growing proof that the 82-year-old Pope is also quite willing to play the part of Scrooge to defend his often rigid view of Church doctrine.”

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

How are the Pope and the Catholic Church being “rigid” this time around? The Holy See, which has permanent observer status at the United Nations, recently voiced its opposition to a proposed General Assembly resolution which calls for the end to legal discrimination against homosexuals. According to a December 1, 2008 article in The Times of London, all of the member nations of the European Union “have signed a draft declaration drawn up by France, which currently holds the rotating EU Presidency, condemning ‘discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.’”

Israely quoted from the Holy See’s nuncio to the UN, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, who expressed why the Church was against the resolution: “...Migliore said the Vatican's opposition to the U.N. proposal was driven by concern that countries that prohibit gay marriage would somehow be targeted. Said Migliore: ‘Countries that don't recognize the union between people of the same sex as marriage will be punished and pressured.’” The Time magazine correspondent then briefly tried to explain that the Church was off-base in its concerns: “The U.N. declaration does not in fact mention gay marriage, and most of the nations that support it themselves don’t allow people of the same sex to wed.”

The declaration may not mention “gay marriage” specifically, but the language of the resolution, “discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” is so general that the Holy See seems to be justified in its concerns. The Vatican’s spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, actually took this line of reasoning in explaining the Church’s stance: “[The resolution] introduces a declaration of political value that could result in systems of control, according to which, every norm -- not only legal, but also related to the life of social or religious groups -- which does not place every sexual orientation on exactly the same level could be considered as contrary to respect of human rights.”

Later, Israely turned to another issue in which he thinks Pope Benedict is being “rigid” -- the “sign of peace” during the Catholic Mass:

Benedict has said repeatedly that the Church is forced to speak out against the tide of secularization, especially in Catholicism’s home turf in Europe. His kindly manner notwithstanding, Benedict does not seem to hesitate doing or saying what he deems necessary to keep Catholicism from straying too far from its doctrinal tradition.

And that includes revisiting the Catholic liturgy if necessary. His top Vatican deputies are now studying a change to the mass that would affect the moment when members of the congregation are asked to greet each other with a “sign of peace.” Worshippers then exchange handshakes, or sometimes a hug or kiss. In 2007, writing about the exchanging of the peace, Benedict called for “greater restraint in this gesture which can become exaggerated and cause a certain distraction in the assembly before the reception of Communion.” It may now be moved earlier in the service....

Though there is no indication if or when the proposed movement of the peace would happen, this change would respond to a desire by the Pope to rein in some of the excesses that he sees in the ways the faith is currently celebrated. And to those who wonder why not just let everyone to say ‘peace’ when and where they please for Christmases to come, one can imagine Benedict flashing that gentle smile, tilting his head ever so slightly and declaring: Bah Humbug!

One would think that Mr. Israely has witnessed Catholic Masses before -- he is Time’s correspondent in Rome, after all. The “sign of peace” isn’t about letting people offer peace “when and where they please.” As Pope Benedict pointed out, it can often become more than just a handshake, hug, or kiss, but too often turns into a two-minute-long love fest where people are wandering around the inside of the church to give friends bear hugs, forgetting that they’re carousing in a sacred place. He has a duty, as the chief earthly teacher of the Catholic Church, to educate the faithful on issues like divine worship and morality. The Holy Father must really be a “Scrooge” for trying to call to mind that Catholics attend Mass to worship God first!

This isn’t the first time Israely has been critical of the pontiff. In a September 2007 piece titled “Will the Pope Behave in Austria?,” he bemoaned how Benedict failed to mention “the history of forced conversions and other violence by Catholics against the indigenous population” when the Holy Father spoke about the Church’s participation in the European settlement of Latin America.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

How much lunacy from the

December 5, 2008 - 15:55 ET by Edhenry

How much lunacy from the fossil press, must we endure. i want my Pope to outline every thing from the Catholic Doctrine. i want him to inform me of every transgression and every repsonsibility i carry. He is to be tough, but forgiving; strict, but compassionate. Do not waver from the highest standards. As soon as you waver, you lose credibility and you lower the Church to the standards of the godless babykillers, which is want they want. We have enough self esteem idiots offering ersatz praise and ruining the lives of the unsuspecting. Only the goals of high standards will spawn excellent behavior and personal success.

How dare the Pope...

December 5, 2008 - 15:56 ET by mizflame98

do his job. What's the matter with that man?!

Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration

http://www.despair.com/government.html

more anti-Catholicism from the media propaganda machine

December 5, 2008 - 15:59 ET by lotr

If numbers are any indication, this guy must find it enigmatic how this so-called "Scrooge" is so beloved by his fellow man.

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe

Interesting

December 5, 2008 - 16:23 ET by Duymon

“the history of forced conversions and other violence by Catholics against the indigenous population”

How ironic that is is the left that is forcing regular folks to accept their ways now.

I'm a big time Protestant but..

December 5, 2008 - 16:50 ET by Spinningplates2

I still think that Doctrine of the Church should be left to those professing Christ. After all, there is nothing stopping Jeff Israely from starting his of "Who's a Scrooge Church."

Isn't the Pope...

December 5, 2008 - 17:03 ET by JeffWeimer

the embodiment of doctrine? Isn't his interpretation the doctrine? That's what I learned in catechism.

It depends. If he speaking

December 5, 2008 - 17:09 ET by Matthew Balan

It depends. If he speaking ex cathedra, it is certainly doctrine. Overall, the Pope is more like God's (the Supreme King's) Prime Minister.

I don't know about you guys...

December 6, 2008 - 15:16 ET by Georgia7

But I have no strange gods before me, including the pope, who is but a mortal man. If we really believe in God we have to believe that all are His people, including gays. Life is a test, and if you choose to belittle and chastise those different than you, as was Jesus treated, then you can explain yourself when it's your time at the gates. I hate nobody and I beleive the church's designation of some people as second class citizens is the betrayal of Jesus, just as He predicted.

Peace.

splain

December 6, 2008 - 21:34 ET by lotr

What does "gays are people too" (sounds like a great bumper sticker) have to do with this thread?

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe

Explain

December 7, 2008 - 20:49 ET by moderncommentaries83

How did the Pope "belittle or chastise" gays? They pointed out - and reasonably so - that such bills and reinterpreted human rights could pose a threat to religious freedom.

You need look no further than the Prop 8 protests (wherein gay activists have threatened religious persons with physical harm, actually assaulted them, and vandalized religious buildings) to see that the Vatican is absolutely 100% correct in saying such measures all but deny religious persons (of any faith that holds marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman - Islam, Christianity, Judaism) their right to free expression.

Look to Canada, where a pastor is forbidden from ever publicly preaching his faith again because it's "offensive" to homosexuals. Or NJ, where a Methodist church lost tax exempt status on property/NM where a photographer was fined for not condoning a same-sex commitment ceremony.

That is what the Church is talking about. If liberals want to talk about "diversity", fine - but why doesn't that include religious diversity or "tolerance" of those who live religious lifestyles?

Every liberal I've ever known has cherry-picked what teachings of Christ they choose to follow. The Catholic Church asserts that same sex attraction (SSA) is a disordered, but not sinful inclination. Those with SSA - like straight persons who are not married - are called to live chastely if they cannot live within the bonds of sacramental marriage. Therefore - as we've always taught - the sexual acts of fornication (whether gay or straight, sex outside that sacramental marriage) are the sin. NOT the orientation. And Christ was clear: He forgave sins, but He also commanded that those who sin "go and sin no more." Christ never, in His earthly ministry, condoned sin and said it was "okay" so long as the sinner felt good or fulfilled.

As for "no other Gods", you clearly do not understand Catholicism. The Pope is not a god by any stretch of the imagination. He - in accordance with Scripture - is the successor to St. Peter, the man to whom Jesus gave the "keys to Heaven". The hierarchy of the Catholic Church, with the Pope as her leader, has kept Catholic doctrine consistent and clarified over two millenia.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Thank God for Pope Benedict

December 5, 2008 - 17:30 ET by Kathleen McKinley

Benedict does not seem to hesitate doing or saying what he deems necessary to keep Catholicism from straying too far from its doctrinal tradition

Well, duh. That's kind of HIS JOB.

I hate the media spouting ignorant opinions when they know nothing of what they are talking about.

I just thank God we have a true leader in the Church. Like Pope John Paul, Pope Benedict will never be swayed by public opinion or popularity. He will do God's will and lead us as he should. We may not always listen or abide, but he will have done his holy task.

OT, but I would appreciate anyone who wishes to follow me on twitter, go here!

http://twitter.com/rightwingsparkl

This doesn't surprise me

December 5, 2008 - 17:44 ET by moderncommentaries83

This annoys me, but doesn't surprise me. It is Christmas season, after all, and the media would be neglect in their duties if they didn't dredge up something to make people fear the Catholic bogeymen and albino monks hiding under your beds. Wait until Easter, when they're sure to bring up some crackpot story about how Christ didn't really rise from the dead, or the Gospel of Judas, or bull about "Pope Joan"...

As a Catholic convert, I realize now that the more the media (and liberals in general) lament and bemoan against, and attack (falsely) the Church, the more I'm certain I made the right decision.

Remember, folks, this is the same media who said the Pope once wore green vestments to show solidarity with environmentalism and, who recently highlighted (out of context) a call to dialgoue with Islam.

In other words, Catholicism is "good" when it meets with their worldview on things like environmentalism or peace, but evil when it comes to teachings on theology, sexuality, marriage, and abortion.

When you look at liberal parishes, and liberal fringe groups like Call to Action, one thing becomes apparent: they are mde of aging baby boomers and few, if any, youth participate or stick around for long.

At the same time, religious orders and parishes that are orthodox are growing and have none of the problems non-orthodox parishes do (especially in regards to the horrible sex abuse scandal). Some religious orders are getting new vocations so fast they literally cannot build housing fast enough to accomodate the new sisters.

Here in Milwaukee, another diocese with a former archbishop that covered for abusive priests, our CURRENT archbishop is a straight arrow and vocations to the priesthood have increased. Good, faithful youth will turn the Church around.

And - quite frankly - 2,000 of crap from atheists, communists, Nazis, socialists, secular humanists, and liberals hasn't destroyed the Church. They really thing they're going to be successful now? They forget that - throughout the world - the Faith has thrived where it was most heavily persecuted. In Japan, Catholics went for two centuries without being able to worship openly; they married and baptized (those being sacraments that can be conferred by non-ordained individuals) and worshiped as best they could underground, often forgoing the sacraments (the Eucharist, confession) for years.

At the end of all things, non-Catholics and unorthodox (liberal) Catholics know not of what they speak. They wouldn't know or understand Catholicism if it bit them in the armpit, and their contempt for other Christian denominations is only slightly less apparent because we have a singular leader toward whom they can direct their venom.

I remember, after Benedict was elected Pope, how liberals lamented that the Church would be hardline, and that groups - especially women - would be oppressed. Well, there was a great photo (http://markshea.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_archive.html#111402264708698912) of women celebrating his election. And - nearly 4 years after my reception into the Church - I am freer now than I ever was as a liberal.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

mc83, I couldn't agree

December 6, 2008 - 07:31 ET by ncstevem

mc83, I couldn't agree with you more. However I'll take your point one step further. It is the return of the traditional Latin Mass and the traditional religious commuities that are the future of the church.

I know numerous young priests and seminarians and the sentiment I hear over and over is that these future church leaders want to celebrate the Mass of the saints.

I think we'll continue to see exponential growth in the number of tradtional Masses celebrated (we already are since the Popes Summorum Pontificum of July 2007 free up the celebration of the traditional Mass) and the new Mass will eventually be the exception rather than the rule.

You are right

December 7, 2008 - 20:53 ET by moderncommentaries83

As I've pointed out here and elsewhere, the orthodox, traditional, wholly Catholic parishes and orders are thriving.

My husband, who at one time considered a call to the priesthood and is contemplating a call to the deaconate, knows many religious and clergy - including one relative who is a Blessed - knows the Dominican Sisters in Nashville, TN, Sisters of Mary Mother of the Eucharist, the Missionaries of Charity - all of whom have more vocations than they can house and more.

The new sisters are young, fresh-faced, and faithful.

While I can only strive to be as wonderfully devoted to Christ as they are, it is us (I'm 25) who are the future. The age of "the spirit of Vatican II" is coming to an end and not a moment too soon.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Forced to choose

December 5, 2008 - 18:07 ET by nkviking75

It's pretty clear that gay activists and their supporters are forcing people to choose between their religious beliefs and political correctness. The extremists in the gay rights movement are among the biggest threats to liberty in the world right now.

Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!

What if Pope Benedict

December 5, 2008 - 18:30 ET by celator

What if Pope Benedict suddenly said: "You know what? I'm not going to defend Catholic doctrine anymore. It means whatever you want it to mean."

Think of the joy that would bring to all the pagans, secularists, atheists, moral relativists, and abortion profiteers. Mr Isrealy would no doubt join all these rodents and go yelling in the streets: "We've won! We've won! The Pope just gave up his job!!!"

The funniest part of Israely's position is that he thinks he should be taken seriously. After all, he's a

j o u r n a l i s t

Wowee!

lol QFT :)

December 5, 2008 - 18:38 ET by hierogrammate

*lol* QFT :)

;+} Thanks.

December 5, 2008 - 18:43 ET by celator

;+}

Thanks.

Pardon me but just who is

December 5, 2008 - 18:46 ET by freedomfirst

Pardon me but just who is this clown Israely and just what is his problem. The Holy Father is the leader of the church which is the Body of Christ on earth. Whatever the transgressions of the church are in the past, let us be very clear about one thing. This church and its congregants are not - anywhere, in any quarter, anywhere on the planet - advocating the death of those who do not follow its beliefs. Whatever perceived hardships this church places on women believers specifically and its believers generally is for those who wish to be Roman Catholic to decide whether they will believe and follow its tenents or not.

This so-called journalist would far better serve the "cause of women" and humanity were he to point his tiny pointed head and brain toward the true transgressions against both practiced by Islamo-fascists whose starting point in any dialogue with those not following their 15th century perspective is "you must die."

On this basis, Israely seems a small and foolish person.

The differences between Pope Benedict. . .

December 5, 2008 - 18:50 ET by WingletDriver

and Time Mag:

Benedict is well brilliant, well educated, humble, thoughtful and bold.

Nobody doubts the first two points. Israely shows a distinct lack of insight and education when he attempts to lump the sign of peace in with Catholic doctrine. Sorry Jeff, shaking somebody's hand isn't doctrinal.

Benedict is also very, very humble as indicated by his willingness to engage the likes of Hans Kung, the Society of St. Pius X, Orthodox Patriarchs, etc. Time Mag can't even stand people who voted against their chosen messiah. You know, we're low brow racists. Jeff also is apparently upset at the moving of the sign of peace because. . .well, I suppose, Jeff just wants it to stay where it is because we all need to follow Jeff's rubrics.

Thoughtful; Benedict is wonderful about explaining his position. Even Israely has the opportunity to explain why Benedict does the things he does. Jeff doesn't explain why he opposes Benedict on any of these points. Either Israely is a crummy writer or he's just not very thoughtful.

Bold; I think this was an underlying current of this article. Time Mag though wants the Pope and the Church to go along with the latest fads. Being a lemming, though, lacks any boldness.

Very appropos article

December 5, 2008 - 19:00 ET by littlemissmuffin

Liberals clinically mad, concludes top shrink

Eminent psychiatrist makes case that leftist thinking is a mental disorder

http://worldnetdaily...

"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"

Yes, they are making us choose

December 5, 2008 - 19:45 ET by moderncommentaries83

Yes, they are making us choose, and I choose Christ and His Church.

The Holy Spirit always guides the conclave to elect a Pope who will lead us through the needs of the era. Pope John Paul II, who lived in Nazi-occupied Poland and dealt with the communists, had a significant role in defeating communism and tyranny in his age.

Benedict will lead the Church to a new revitalization of the orthodox practices and theology that the liberal types tried to destroy in the "spirit of Vatican II."

I support this wholeheartedly and my faithfulness will not waver. Even to the point of death will I remain faithful to God, Christ and His Church.

Viva Cristo Rey...

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

more musings on "the Sign of Peace"

December 5, 2008 - 22:33 ET by lotr

There has been talk of "moving the Sign of Peace" to a point earlier in the Novus Ordo Mass for years, specifically just prior to the "Presentation of the Gifts." The idea is that, according to Christ, we should make peace with our brother before we bring our gifts to the Altar. I don't think Benedict is advancing any new ideas here -- however, he is presenting a new reason for the proposed change (or at least a reason that I haven't heard of), namely to avoid the unintended interuption between the Eucharistic Prayer (originally the Canon of Mass) and Holy Communion, and that is precisely what Israely appears to object to.

Personally, I was against the idea, for it would be another deviation of the Novus Ordo Mass from the traditional Latin Mass on which it is based, but this Pope does make a good point, as always...

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe

Do you do the sign. . .

December 5, 2008 - 23:24 ET by WingletDriver

of peace in the Tridentine Mass? I could be wrong but I didn't think that you did.

WD, the 'kiss of peace' in

December 6, 2008 - 07:44 ET by ncstevem

WD, the 'kiss of peace' in the traditional Mass is not actually a kiss, but according to my Missal, "In Solumn Masses the kiss of peace is now given: the Celebrant kisses the Altar, then saluting the Deacon says:

Peace be with thee

R: And with thy spirit "

There is no 'sign of peace' by the laity.

Right.

December 6, 2008 - 09:25 ET by lotr

Right. This, coupled with the "Pax Domini vobiscum", occurred after the Canon but before Holy Communion. The present Novus Ordo Mass for the most part retains this location. However, because the gesture was extended to the laity in the pews, it has, in most circumstances, become a political backslapping event, rather than just a simple humble gesture of charity. This seems to be a big reason why Benedict is advocating it be moved earlier, which also seems to be the reason he earned the "badge of honor" of "Grinch" from another media talking head.

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe

Come to the Angelicum...

December 6, 2008 - 01:29 ET by neripowell

I'd like to invite Mr. Israely to visit the Dominican friars here at the Angelicum in Rome. We'd love to discuss his criticism of the Holy Father with him personally. He's welcomed, of course, to bring his own kindling, or we could use some of our own Advent-themed sticks and stones. Regardless, we can promise an extremely warm welcome. ;-)

Fr. Philip, OP

http://www.hancaquam...

neri

December 6, 2008 - 01:35 ET by botg

But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. 54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”[a]
55 But He turned and rebuked them,[b] and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”[c] And they went to another village.

----- Radical Liberal

Communists & Socialists Fear Catholicism

December 6, 2008 - 03:47 ET by jcharles

It is amazing how one honest, loving person can strike panic in the hearts of the multitude of hypocritics. As in Poland, the Communists feared the Catholic Church, and for good reason. Now in America the Socialists also fear the Catholic Church, and for good reason. Why? The Catholic Church and the Pope force the far Left to examine their morality, values, idealology, and life style. They hate what they see reflected upon their conscience, and this self loathing and hate gets projected onto the mirror (Catholic Church). So in the final analysis derogatory and pernicious remarks by the Leftist/Marxists says more about them than their subjects.