Mike Newall\’s column today on this subject is a rehash of his July 15 piece lamenting Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput\’s insistence that Catholic teachings must be upheld. Chaput\’s response was very much of the dog-bites-man type of story that normal people react to with ennui, but for some reason it excites the folks at the Philadelphia Inquirer. This is the 11th story to appear on this contrived issue, totaling 8,271 words; seven of the stories appeared on p. B1 and two made it to p. A1.

 

Newall, following Winters, tries to play his \”pope card.\” It\’s a familiar gimmick: press a Catholic leader to get in line with the pope by attributing to the Holy Father views he never expressed. In this case, readers are told that Archbishop Chaput is not building \”conversations of inclusion\” with Church dissidents.

 

What a sap. To begin with, why is it that people such as Newall and Winters never want to build \”conversations of inclusion\” with Catholics who want the death penalty? Shouldn\’t those who want to fry serial murderers be given a place at the table? Or is it just those who like gay marriage?

 

More important, the Inquirer consistently misrepresents the pope\’s words on gay issues. For example, his famous quip, \”Who am I to judge?\”, was never about homosexuality—as the newspaper has written—it was about the pope\’s reaction to a gay celibate priest. Moreover, he offered two conditions for his non-judgmental stance: the person had to be \”searching for the Lord\” and be of \”good will.\”

 

As for gay marriage, Pope Francis has said that it is the work of \”the Father of Lies,\” meaning the Devil. Dialogue with the Devil, anyone?

 

We are sending this to all the parishes in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.