Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 25, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama Targets Fox News
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Matthew Balan's blog
  • Bozell Column: The 'Assassinate Wall Street' Movie
  • WashPost's Milbank Mocks Nikki Haley, 'Reached Out to' 'White Supremacists'
  • Networks Give Three Times More Quotes to Supporters of Gay Scout Admittance Than Opponents
  • State Dept. Official Who Altered Benghazi Talking Points Promoted; Only Fox Covered
  • MSNBC’s Krystal Ball Gushes Over Obama Speech, Claims the President is ‘Reining In His Own Power’
  • NBC Fails to Report Its Own Scoop That AG Holder Approved Investigation of Fox's Rosen
  • Video: Bozell's Prediction Pans Out, Media In Full-on 'Move On' Mode in Obama Scandal Coverage
  • The Long Hike: Media’s 13 Years of Bullying Boy Scouts Over Gays

CNN Misinterprets Pope's Condom Remarks; NBC Offers Accurate Coverage

By Matthew Balan | November 22, 2010 | 21:04

A  A
Matthew Balan's picture

On Monday's Newsroom, CNN's Kyra Phillips gave a false impression of Pope Benedict XVI's recent comments about condoms. While the Pope stated that condom use "can be a first step...on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed," Phillips stated that the pontiff "says condoms are okay sometimes." Refreshingly, Monday's Today show on NBC accurately covered Benedict's remarks.

The anchor previewed CNN correspondent Atika Schubert's report on the pontiff's comments 10 minutes into the 9 am Eastern hour with her inaccurate description: "Well, the Catholic Church and condoms: two things that have never really gone together until now. The Pope, quoted in a new book, says condoms are okay sometimes. Now, that's a talker!" After a commercial break, Phillips continued with another misleading statement:

PHILLIPS: Pope Benedict is bending a bit when it comes to condoms. A new book actually quotes him as saying that they are okay to use in certain circumstances, like to prevent disease, not birth control. It's the first time the Church has ever talked about exceptions to the condom rule....Here's a part of what the Pope says in the book. See if your eyebrows raise a little bit. It says- quote, 'There could be single cases that can be justified. For instance, when a prostitute uses a condom.' Say what? (laughs) Doesn't it kind of sound like the Pope is justifying prostitution, too? Surely not, but what a bizarre analogy.

Kyra Phillips, CNN Anchor; & file photo of Pope Benedict XVI | NewsBusters.orgThe CNN anchor actually paraphrased the Pope's remarks, which were actually part of a wider conversation with German journalist Peter Seewald, who asked about Benedict's March 2009 trip to Africa. The bishop of Rome actually defended the Catholic Church's record of caring for those suffering from HIV/AIDS and criticized the "secular realm" for cheapening sexuality:

...[T]he secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

[Seewald] Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

Later in the segment, Phillips bizarrely asked Schubert, "So the comments don't exactly rise to the level of official Vatican policy. So, what's your take? Is the Pope kind of going rogue here, or is he just being realistic?" It's not surprising that the anchor would get it wrong when it comes to the Pope and/or Catholic Church, as she falsely claimed during a June 11, 2010 report that Benedict XVI hasn't said he's sorry for the priestly sexual abuse scandal. Phillips also endorsed the radical agenda of three heterodox Christians she brought on as guests during a March 26, 2010 segment: "I think all three of you need to head to the Vatican and institute some change."

NBC correspondent Kerry Sanders covered the pontiff's comments for the Today show just after the top of the 8 am Eastern hour, and actually turned to Benedict's publisher in the U.S., Father Joseph Fessio, for his take. Sanders also read actual excerpts from the book, something Phillips and Schubert didn't do:

Kerry Sanders, NBC Correspondent | NewsBusters.orgNATALIE MORALES: The Pope is addressing difficult issues facing the Catholic Church, including condom use, in a book that comes out tomorrow.

NBC's Kerry Sanders already has a copy, and he joins us now from Miami. Kerry, good morning.

SANDERS: Well, good morning Natalie. Here is the book, 'Light of the World,' by the pope, Benedict XVI, and it's about 200 pages long. But it's near the end, where he talks about condom use, that will draw the most attention among America's 68 million Catholics.

SANDERS (voice-over): The book is simply questions and answers. Pope Benedict XVI sat with journalist Peter Seewald, in what the Vatican says was an open forum to ask any questions, and it's there on page 118: a question about AIDS in Africa: should condoms be used to prevent the spread of that disease? In one of the longest answers in the book, the Pope says, in part, 'There may be a basis in the case of some individuals as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom. The Church, of course, does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but in this or that case, there can be, nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.'

SANDERS (on-camera): Was that the Pope endorsing the use of condoms?

FATHER JOSEPH FESSIO, S.J.: No, it's not. But it sounds dangerously close, doesn't it?

SANDERS (voice-over): Father Joseph Fessio is the publisher of the Pope's new book. He's also a longtime friend.

SANDERS (on-camera): When you hear that, already, the word is out that the Pope is endorsing the use of condoms in limited situations-
 

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

FESSIO: Right- he's saying it's immoral, but he's saying someone could do it, in a particular case, having an intention of causing less harm, and that could be a first little step towards a more moral life. But that does not say- okay, go ahead, use condoms- it's all right.

SANDERS (on-camera): In the book, the Pope answers every question he was asked, including some very direct difficult questions about the sex abuse scandal in the Church.

About the Author

Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Matthew Balan on Twitter.
  • AIDS
  • Birth Control
  • Christianity
  • Conservatives & Republicans
  • Labeling
  • Liberals & Democrats
  • Culture/Society
  • Religion
  • Sexuality
  • Atika Schubert
  • Father Joseph Fessio
  • Kerry Sanders
  • Peter Seewald
  • Pope Benedict XVI
  • CNN
  • CNN Newsroom
  • NBC
  • Today
  • Matthew Balan's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

Eggs Benedict?

Submitted by Henry Clay on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 10:15pm.

I am quite happy to see Newsbusters pardoning Il Papa!  Obviously the Vatican believes that it is alright for homosexuals to use condoms but not a married couple.  I suppose though that if homosexuals were permitted to get married… they too would be prohibited from practicing safe sex.  Oh well, who am I to argue with someone who is infallible.   

  • Login to post comments

Before you argue with anyone,

Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 10:22pm.

Before you argue with anyone, you really need to develop some reading skills.  As the article clearly states, using a condom would be the lesser of two evils by preventing the spread of AIDs. 

There really isn't "safe sex" for gay men, if they practice anal sex.  Very unhealthy.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

The Bible 101

Submitted by Henry Clay on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 10:31pm.

Well I have studied extensively on the Bible, and from what I read; Jesus never had any gray areas in his doctrine, unlike the Pope.  That being said, why can’t any of you admit that these “religious” leaders are not such but in all actuality mere politicians.   

  • Login to post comments

Probably, Hank Mud---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 10:50pm.

because not everyone views life through through a warped, liberal, strangely off-colored prism, as you seem to do.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Matthewdean

Submitted by Henry Clay on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 11:04pm.

Friend, read what Il Papa said!  He was condoning the use of condoms for those who are engaged in a free wheeling swinging lifestyle.  I totally agree, and could not be happier! (that is besides the point though)  Then the Pope goes on to say that a man and his wife should not do what he just endorsed!  Now he comes out with a denial that he actually said the original statement and uses the same excuses that politicians use all the time… He declares that his statement was taken out of context!  Then our esteemed Cardinal, tells the reader to read further on the subject.  Tis a pity, for I thought Catholics were not allowed to read.  

  • Login to post comments

"...for I thought Catholics

Submitted by DumbCanuck on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 11:29pm.

"...for I thought Catholics were not allowed to read."

 

Well, you thought wrong... Natch!

 

[...now run along, little troll]

"There... Are... Four... Lights!"

  • Login to post comments

Hank Mud---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 11:33pm.

Liberal, I read your post, instead of what the Pope said, because I am a member of NewsBusters and not a member of the Catholic Church.

Your post was interesting, in a convoluted way, until I finished up your last sentence.

At that point I realized you apparently have a beef with either Catholicism in general, or the papacy specifically.

Neither is an area I know much about, and while I usually have no qualms about voicing an opinion, I'll let you argue this one out with a prelate or someone of higher ecclesiastical rank.

Matter of fact, since you used the phrase "our esteemed cardinal", maybe, if you are Catholic, you could get an audience with the Pope.

Or are you small "c" catholic; broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests?

Or are you just a liberal who is broad in sympathy with all the wrong policy positions presented  by perennially perplexed politicians?

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

At that point I realized

Submitted by Henry Clay on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 11:43pm.

At that point I realized you apparently have a beef with either Catholicism in general, or the papacy specifically.

Neither is an area I know much about, and while I usually have no qualms about voicing an opinion, I'll let you argue this one out with a prelate or someone of higher ecclesiastical rank.



Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/comment/reply/43355/1382899#ixzz2JndtcGvd

I suppose though that if I were to argue against the hypocrisy of Islam you would have an opinion?  Catholic tradition teaches their followers not to read the Bible- Just a fact.

 

 

 

  • Login to post comments

Hank Mud---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 11:55pm.

While I am pretty sure Catholics aren't the least bit interested in chopping, slicing, or sawing off my head if I disagree with or disrespect their doctrine, or them: I don't believe the same holds true with the followers of Islam, or, if you prefer, radical jihadists.

I fail to see any cognitive connective tissue in your Catholic - Islam reference.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

H

Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:00am.

Yes, the Catholic Church just condones the use of terrorism when it comes to blowing innocents up with bombs.  Make that statement to a victim of the IRA and see what response you will receive.   

  • Login to post comments

Absolutely not.  The church

Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:03am.

Absolutely not.  The church regards all life is sacred and they do not support terrorism on the part of the IRA.  That is a horrible and untrue accusation.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

Radical 1979

Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:09am.

Friend, point me to a direction where I can read the Church rebuke the IRA during The Troubles.   

  • Login to post comments

No sir, you made the

Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:14am.

No sir, you made the accusation, you prove that the Church was in favor of violence.  I'll be heading to bed soon, but I'll be here first thing in the morning waiting for your proof. 

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

Hank Mud*

Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:45am.

Since Radical had to leave, she asked me to deliver this to you. Hopefully, you are able to read and will be better prepared to defend your ignorant rants in the morning. Unless, of course, daylight is a danger to you.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,761165,00.html

  • Login to post comments

Church Covered up Terror

Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:55am.

Here is just a quick Google Source:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0824/Did-a-Catholic-priest-assist-an-IRA-murder-in-Northern-Ireland

  • Login to post comments

That was 1972

Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:02am.

How many terrorist attacks have Catholics committed as opposed to Islamic suicide bombers the last 5 years.

  • Login to post comments

But they are just good Catholic boys!

Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:12am.

Maybe this would help:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/still-killing-ira-linked-to-farc-al-qaeda-hezbollah-and-taliban/ 

  • Login to post comments

Dude

Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:22am.

There is no proof in your link and it is also a very biased left wing site you linked. Again can you show me actual documented cases of real terror the past five years from Catholics?

  • Login to post comments

Henry Clay master of religous debates

Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:30am.

Actually Pajamas Media is a very conservative site.  I made a point of using a conservative site just to prove my point.  I suppose today I am just the better man.  Now I have to go and read my bible…by myself! 

  • Login to post comments

This is getting boring

Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 2:15am.

Your burden of proof is that the Catholic Church condones the atrocities of the IRA, not some priest in 1972.

Shawn may have allowed you to move the goalposts some. I am now putting them back where they were when YOU made the initial allegation.

"I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent
  • Login to post comments

I looked too quickLy

Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 10:35am.

It is kind of a conservative site. Restless is right, I let u move the goalposts. Oky doky I will just let other the other posters humiliate u know.
  • Login to post comments

Henry Clay is 100%

Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 6:32am.

Henry Clay is 100% wrong!

Irish Bishops and the Popes have consistantly condemned the actions of the IRA. Unfortunately, there have been priests who have condoned the IRA, but these are few and far between and it does not conform with the teachings of the Church. It is just like unfortunately, there have been priests who have supported Communism, however, Church teachings, Popes have always opposed and stood up to Communism.

Here is John Paul II condemning violence in Ireland, carried out by the IRA, during his visit to Ireland in 1979.

Here in an interview with an official Vatican City, you can clearly see how the Church officially condemns IRA violence, in fact, any form of violence.

Here is Pope Benedict XVI condemning recent IRA violence.

There is more where all this came from. People should really do their research before they start spouting off lies about the Roman Catholic Church.

  • Login to post comments

Why are you making other people do the research

Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:46am.

when you are the one that should be responsible for backing up your points. Either your too lazy or you can't back up your point and just deflecting.

  • Login to post comments

What, Hank Mud---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:12am.

are you now implying a comparison should be made between Obama and drones and the innocents in an Afghan village with the IRA and explosives in Belfast?

You cover too much geography - politics - religion in one muddled bubble.

Go back to your flowery prose; it was inane, but tolerable.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Matthewdean

Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:38am.

I am actually implying that when the IRA uses car bombs to blow up school children in Belfast and London, and when they assassinate British soldiers with snipers and use their religion to sugar-coat these atrocities they seem to resemble more of the Taliban.  Yes, sir I can talk politics and religion at the same time, I believe it is called multi-tasking? 

  • Login to post comments

Hank Mud---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 2:24am.

I mentioned  three items; geography, politics, and religion.

That said, a more clear definition of what you do, as opposed to what you think you are doing, based on your posts, is:

Hank Mud:  "Yes, sir I can talk politics and religion at the same time, I believe it is called multi-tasking?"

matthewdean:   What you do, Hank Mud, is called mumble-tasking.

MD

  

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Clay, your very uninformed,

Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:13am.

Clay, your very uninformed, ignorant...or just plain stupid. I know that the Catholics promote the reading of the Bible by their members. If you know a Catholic, I am sure you will find a Bible in their home. You need to wise up kid. Maybe study up a little bit on subjects before you go spouting off at the mouth.

Perhaps you were good at tracking down fires. Maybe you should go back to that. As an comentator on a blog, you just make yourself look silly.

 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!

  • Login to post comments

Henry Clay, once again 100%

Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 6:41am.

Henry Clay, once again 100% wrong.

The Roman Catholic Church not only promotes the reading of the Bible, it also asks you to study it.

I not only have a nice big Bible in my house. I have as separate books, each of the Books of the Bible which were specially printed for Roman Catholics for reading and studying, they are called the Navarre Bible.

All practicing Roman Catholics that I know have a Bible at home.

The official teaching and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, as it can be found in the Roman Catholic Cathechism is that all Catholics have an obligation to know and study the Bible. Not only are we suppose to know it and study it, we must bring the Gospels and all of the Books of the Bible into our daily prayer. 

I would encourage people to go to the vatican website, the United States Conference of Bishop website and look  up the teachings of the Church in Her Cathechism. I am unsure why non-Catholics love to make up things about the Church and then proclaim it as true.

Henry Clay, where do you get these ideas about us Roman Catholics?  Why do non-Catholics, whether it be Protestants, atheist, etc love to tell Catholics what our Church supposedly teaches or does not teach? 

  • Login to post comments

That's true

Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:28am.

Catholicism had a long tradition of expecting its followers to not read the bible ... by themselves, at home. On the contrary, however, they were expected to go to church, regularly, and hear the scripture passages there. 

The reason was simple. Catholicism believed that the chief teachers of Christianity were to be flesh and blood people (i.e., the bishops, acting as successors to the apostles) instead of putting the words down in a book alone. Jesus said "go and teach" to the apostles, who were real live people; notice, he didn't sit down with a scribe and dictate treatises. That's because the faith is not a dead collection of thoughts. Jesus wanted it to be personal, spread by living people. The faith is a living faith. 

  • It wasn't that Guttenberg hadn't invented a printing press yet. Even in Jesus' time, people wrote books and passed on teachings. So it wasn't as if that method of passing on the faith was unavailable.
  • The early church didn't spread the faith through books, deliberately. The whole purpose of apostles was that they would be the human, flesh and blood authorities on Jesus' teaching. 
  • It also didn't hurt that possessing scripture back then was criminal evidence ... remember, for the first 300 years of the church's existence, Christianity was illegal. Possessing Christian scripture could  be used against you in a court of law. Therefore, no one expected ordinary believers to own a bible.

And remember, these are teachings. They require teachers. The church didn't just speak the word for no reason. They were teaching Christianity through the mass readings, and they considered the homily to be an explanation of the readings. (That's what the homily is supposed to be. It isn't the priest's chance to deliver an editorial on current events. Their job is to explain the readings, and I wish they'd do their job.) So, the church wanted you to hear the teachings from the mouth of real live teachers, who could guide believers to the authentic meaning of the passages. 

Now, non-Catholics may quite reasonably say that times have changed, and that reading the bible really can't hurt. The Catholic church, as you probably know,  now agrees with that. The church now encourages people to read the bible. 

Just thought I'd add a little history to the discussion. 

  • Login to post comments

I would also add KC

Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:46am.

That in those times, the vast majority were illiterate. Tending flocks and sowing the earth were of more importance than learning to read.

"I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent
  • Login to post comments

"Tis a pity, for I thought

Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 11:44pm.

"Tis a pity, for I thought Catholics were not allowed to read."

Then you're a fool or a liar, and quite possibly both.



  • Login to post comments

No, he wasn't

Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 11:56pm.

"He was condoning the use of condoms for those who are engaged in a free wheeling swinging lifestyle."

When you say that something is the lesser of two evils, that doesn't condone it. The pope was arguing that if an HIV-positive prostitute decided to use a condom, that shows that perhaps he's beginning to realize that not everything goes. The pope went no further than that. He didn't endorse anything, therefore there was nothing to deny or excuse. Your accusations of hypocrisy in others instead reveals your own ignorance.

If all you have is a shallow and gratuitous reply, please don't bother. If your only purpose was to hide behind the anonymity of a web blog to offer bigoted cheap shots, well, as Jesus said, you already have your reward.

  • Login to post comments

KC Mulville

Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:06am.

Under the same logic one can assume than that a rapist who uses a condom is far more moral than a rapist who does not?  Please, stop the spin.   

  • Login to post comments

My guess, HC, is that

Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:29am.

A rapist, who lacks any morality, and being narcisstic, is using the condom to avoid punishment, (do away with the evidence if you will).

Nice to see you equating gays with rapists, though. You really ought to think before you post. Your ingnorance is showing.

"I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent
  • Login to post comments

Can you throw anything else on the wall and hope that it sticks

Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:42am.

Poor explanation; I guess I’ll just have to go to the Church and hand the priest a $20 bill to get back into heaven.   

  • Login to post comments

Let us know how that works for you.

Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:48am.

You engage in moral equivalence, and then pout when it is thrown back at you. Run of the mill troll, you are.

"I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent
  • Login to post comments

R1....it's been a while

Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:03am.

We need a better class of troll, here.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

That it's been B

Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:29am.

And that we do. :)

Hope all is well. Football season had been brutal for me. Longhorns, Cowboys, ugghh!!!

But, the Spurs are kickin' some serious a$#, so not all's lost.

"I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent
  • Login to post comments

You think I'm the one spinning this?

Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:36am.

Once again, you don't seem to grasp the essential point that the pope wasn't condoning anything. There's no issue of being "far more moral." He also didn't say that using a condom was justified in any way. He said it was evidence that the person may be realizing the beginning of moral principle.

If you can't grasp that basic point, there's no point discussing anything with you. It will take more effort to slice through your bigotry than the effort's worth.

  • Login to post comments

KC Mulville

Submitted by Henry Clay on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:46am.

I am a bigot now?  Why?  Because I took the Pope’s own words and repeated them?  Read what he said!  It is right there in black and white; if you choose to ignore it, than who really is being the closed minded one.   

  • Login to post comments

So you can read.

Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:50am.

Nobody disputed that. It is your ability to comprehend that we question.

"I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent
  • Login to post comments

I leave it to your own judgment

Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 2:32am.

You want the exact words? Fine with me. If you believe that your spin ... 

"Obviously the Vatican believes that it is alright for homosexuals to use condoms" 

accurately repeats what Benedict meant by ...

"The Church, of course, does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but in this or that case, there can be, nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."

... then perhaps you're right. The word "bigot" fails to capture your ignorance.

  • Login to post comments

Why do you care what Catholics believe?

Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 12:10am.

If the Pope is not big on condoms, then he has the right to tell his followers that. You do not have to agree with it. Many people take comfort in whatever religion they follow, why is it so important for some to mock relgion?

  • Login to post comments

So, you want the Pope to have

Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 11:50pm.

So, you want the Pope to have "grey areas" in his doctrine?  Most liberals are critical of the church because they feel the church should be looser in it's interpretation of doctrine.  Regardless, it shouldn't matter to you or anyone who is not a member of the church what the Pope decrees.  You might want to visit some muslims websites though, and try to convince them  not to impose their religious beliefs upon non-believers, as that is having a negative affect on your way of life right now.

And you could always write to the Pope about your extensive study of the Bible, although I'd say he's studied it a bit more than you have.

 

 

 

 

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

Henry Clay, Your attack on

Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 6:55am.

Henry Clay,

Your attack on the Pope is as offensive as it is very ignorant and disrespectful. The Pope said NOTHING of what you are claiming he said.

The Pope and the Roman Catholic Church condemn the use of condoms in all occassion.

By the way, here is a Liberal who clearly agrees with the Pope when it comes to condoms. Codoms do not stop the spread of STDs, in fact, they help spread it because of the false sense of security. Imperical/scientific data shows as much! Why do Liberals hate science?

By the way, if you had read what the Pope said and understood it, you would have clearly come out with the conclusion that the Pope is not condoning at any time the use of condoms.

  • Login to post comments

So, am I to read this right,

Submitted by jdhawk on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 10:30pm.

So, am I to read this right, that I am NOT to take the lamestream media's word on Papal prouncements?  I am shocked, I tell you, shocked! 

Seriously, the lamestream media has attempted to denigrate all religion with the current exception of the Muslim faith, at nearly every turn.  However, the CNN piece was particularly devious because the causal observer would conclude that CNN's interpretation of the Papl prouncement was correct. 

Meanwhile, there are hundreds of thousands of priest and nuns and millions of lay people doing all manner of charitable acts across the globe every moment of every day.  Odd how the lamestream media never gets around to mentioning that . . . 

As we move into the most holy of Christian holiday periods and plan being with family and friends during the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday, I want to wish everyone that makes this web site possible and those that visit here a most joyous Holiday Season!

  • Login to post comments

Phillips bizarrely asked

Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 11:40pm.

Phillips bizarrely asked Schubert, "So the comments don't exactly rise to the level of official Vatican policy. So, what's your take? Is the Pope kind of going rogue here, or is he just being realistic?" ...[   ]... Phillips also endorsed the radical agenda of three heterodox Christians she brought on as guests during a March 26, 2010 segment: "I think all three of you need to head to the Vatican and institute some change."
Kyra Phillips is an idiot.

Her opinion on anything should have as much weight as one would give to an 2nd grader trying to take part in an adult conversation.

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • Obama/Holder DOJ's radical departure on press freedom is chilling (Boutrous @ WSJ)
  • Oops: Obama fails to salute Marine, went back to shake hand (Weekly Standard)
  • Deputy kills PBS NewsHour staffer (Washington Examiner)
  • Oklahoma disaster was tragic, but larger ones have occurred (USA Today)
  • Mainstream Media Scream: Today’s Savannah Guthrie questions GOP ‘overreach’ (Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner)
  • Desperate Carney complains asking about scandals like asking about birth certificate (RCP)
  • Look at NYT's partisan-hack rewrite of the IRS hearing (Draw and STRIKE!)
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter Column: When Did We Vote to Become Mexico?
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: Why Tim Tebow Is an Ultimate Clutch Player
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Gosnell's Just the Tip of the Iceberg
more cartoons
  • Leno: Obama Can Close Gitmo By Making it a Government-Funded Solar Company
  • Charlie Sheen Changes Name to Carlos Estevez for Upcoming 'Machete Kills' Film
  • HUH? Slate Editor: Kaitlyn Hunt Case 'Is About Gay Rights. But It’s Not About That'
  • Weekend Open Thread
  • Leno: ‘Not Looking Good for Obama - Today His Teleprompter Took the Fifth’
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use