05 June 2014

Please Stand By

If you are a fan of Hilary White, reporter for LifesiteNews, or if you are a fan of any of these:

1) intelligent writing;
2) the ability to cover Catholic Church news from a faithful yet honest perspective without fear of reprisal;
3) common sense;
4) the Catholic Faith; or,
5) basic fairness,

then please stay on top of this little nasty rumor tweeted by Rorate Caeli, and let LifesiteNews.com know how you feel:

@RorateCaeli: Dear @lifesite,please clarify,this is causing concern:has Hilary White really been taken off all your papal stories due to outside pressure?

The neo-Catholic brute squad is really ticking me off. Pitchforks ready.




23 comments:

ATW said...

Past time for a counterattack.

Or should that be counterrevolution?

Long-Skirts said...

http://tinyurl.com/przk6c6

Trouble in Neo-Catholic Wonderland Featured
Written by Chris Jackson | Remnant Columnist

COMBAT
BOOTS

I fight the flesh.
The world's no test.
When I fight the devil
I'm at my best.

But combat boots,
Size 8 for me,
I'm puttin' on
For Hilary!

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Perhaps it may be more charitable to not spread rumors in the first place?

Anonymous said...

Why are you blaming "The neo-Catholic brute squad" when the one w/the pitchfork ready to spear Catholics is the POPE? Journalists in Italy (Radio Maria) have already been fired for publishing articles about him. To add insult to injury, the pope actually called one of the reporters and thanked him for being critical--but guess what the journalist did not get his job back!

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/11/pope-personally-calls-traditional.html

It is true however that like back in grade school all 'sister's pets' in the blogosphere like Scalia, Shea etc. rush to be more sistah than sistah -- how we all hated those bullies! And now the pope is leading them.
Signed: 'Death to Tyrants!'

Anonymous said...

Lifesite News didn't publish this story til Friday, May 23 of the Memorial Day Weekend. What a way to publish but 'bury' is what I thought. I first saw the story on Eponmyous Flower blog on May 9 whose source seems to be the gay priest's own facebook page:

The Maradiaga mention is noteworthy:

"De Paolis continued on his Facebook entry with what he told the pope: "We want so much for us an audience of Emmaus. Is that possible? ' "Anything is possible. Talk to Cardinal Maradiaga and he shall prepare everything.' And then (unbelievably) he kissed my hand!"

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/05/pope-francis-kisses-hand-of.html

And priest had photo to prove it!

Many who picked it up from LifeSite, wouldn't publish based on Eponymous Flower/Facebook. Sure would like to know the truth about what's going on under this papacy - but just like the JFK presidency, the truth will out eventually.

Wendy in VA said...

Was it charitable of Mark Shea, Simcha Fisher, Elizabeth Scalia, and Karl Keating to endanger Miss White's livelihood because they didn't like a news story she wrote?

Dymphna said...

Threatening a woman's job because you do not like what she wrote, which was no more than the truth is not charitable. The fact that these people have that kind of power is horrible.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Wendy in VA: I hope you believe it is equally uncharitable that people contacted Elizabeth Scalia demanding that Simcha Fisher and Mark Shea be fired for merely publishing their opinions about Hilary White's piece.

By the way, I read her original piece and was appalled. I'm not a professional journalist but even I know that you don't use someone's Facebook page (in another language, no less) as the primary source of an article. That's just bad reporting.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Dymphna - do you feel the same way about the people who threatened the jobs of Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher, simply because they did not like what they wrote?

thetimman said...

JoAnna,

You're blinded here. Using ad hominem attack on a person whose story is factually accurate is not the same as asking that the attackers be stopped from their attacks.

If you were horrified by the article for any reason other than the actual thing that happened, you need to stop and do some soul searching. If Roger Mahony had done what the pope did Shea and Fisher would be calling for his head, and many of their fans would be cheering them on.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

thetimman,

So when Shea/Fisher criticized Hilary White's reporting, that is "ad hominem," but when others contacted Elizabeth Scalia and demanded that Shea/Fisher be fired because they criticized Hilary White's reporting, that is NOT ad hominem? That doesn't make any sense. Generally ad hominem is when you attack someone's character, not their actions.

I didn't see any attacks against Hilary as a person. I saw criticism of her skills as a journalist, which are entirely appropriate considering she is, well, a journalist. If you write for public consumption, part and parcel of that job is public criticism of what you write.

I was not "horrified" by the contents of her story because I have no idea if (a) it actually happened, or (b) if it did, if the facts presented were indeed accurate. The sources used were flimsy and not reputable. Anyone can put up a Facebook page and add whatever content they wish to it. That is why it's not reputable as a primary source. To my knowledge, the Vatican has not even confirmed that the Mass took place. Pictures can be Photoshopped. Etc. Until there are more facts available from a reputable source, the best course of action is to adhere to para. 2478 of the Catechism.

Wendy in VA said...

JoAnna,

I agree with Timman. Personally attacking someone because you don't like the facts she reported is not the same thing as defending said reporter's right to report the truth. And Simcha Fisher didn't "merely publish" her opinion of Miss White's story. She called Miss White's editor at Lifesite News and asked that she be fired. Not because anything she wrote was false, but because she -- and Mr. Shea and Mrs. Scalia and Mr. Keating -- didn't like what the story said. Nowhere have I read a refutation of the facts Miss White reported.

By the way, I was a professional journalist for 15 years. The only thing that was appalling about Miss White's story were the facts she quite capably reported. She did not use the priest's Facebook page as her primary source. I'm not sure why you think that. I'm also not sure why the fact that the page is in Italian -- a language Miss White also speaks -- would be a problem. Regardless, it is perfectly acceptable to use material from someone's Facebook page when reporting a news story.

thetimman said...

JoAnna,

Wendy says it well, so I won't add much.

I will relate what they said only to set the record straight for you, because it is a bit childish and vulgar, so I don't want to degrade the field further.

Shea called Hilary a Pope-bashing "harpy". That doesn't qualify as serious analysis and critique.

Fisher said that Lifesite (and she was referencing Hilary's story in particular) sets off her "bullshit meter". I wonder if she kisses her children with that mouth.

These are just to highlight two "ad hominem" attacks. But I could go on. I won't, simply read their own combox defenses when rightly called out.

I don't understand the Svengali-like control these two "Catholic opinion leaders" have over people.

Hilary White is their combined professional and intellectual superior by a factor of a thousand.

Brian said...

Wow, I have seen some pathetic neo-Catholic defenses of Pope Francis' blunders and abuses, but "the pictures could have been photoshopped" has to be new low. Unbelievable.

Brian said...

Although, ironically, in resorting to the level of desperation evinced in statements like, "The pictures might have been photoshopped!" the neo-Catholics are tacitly admitting that there's really no way to reconcile the Pope's actions. As such, the only solution left is to convince themselves that they could not have really happened.

In more positive news, here's a Bishop who requires no spin-doctoring whatsoever:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2014/06/06/bishop-athanasius-schneider-we-are-in-the-fourth-great-crisis-of-the-church/

Please God send us a Pope like this; reminds me of St. Pius X.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

You have evidence that they are not, Brian? Great! Please link it here. I look forward to seeing it.

thetimman said...

God bless you, JoAnna, but asking for proof that a photo has not been photoshopped seems to turn the burden of proof on its head.

Prove a photo of the sun rising in the east wasn't photoshopped!

I mean, really. Your request might have some validity and relevance if there had been ANY denial of the facts as White reported them, or of the accuracy of the photo, by the Vatican.

If that's the best you can do, I think we'll call it a day.

Papal Positivist said...

You don't understand thetimman, even though we acknowledge the Pope can make mistakes in theory, he has actually never done so in practice because the Holy Spirit is essentailly quasi-incarnate in each Pope.

Steve Skojec said...

I was going to leave a comment, but there's nothing to add. Everyone here has already covered it.

Except this: I'm very good at Photoshop, and I couldn't possibly Photoshop an entire album of that man meeting with the pope, handing him things, various stages of their physical interaction, etc.

Conspiracy theories in that stratosphere of absurdity wouldn't get picked up by Alex "the Bilderbergs eat babies wrapped in gold leaf" Jones.

Let's not take the anti-intellectualism any further, please. We're grownups, and it's expected of us to act like it.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

You have all (laughably) missed the point. My point was you don't use a Facebook page as the primary source for a news article because of the potential for falsified pics, etc. You'll notice (if you actually read my posts) I never said these specific pics were photoshopped. So, your incredulity is evidence of poor reading comprehension.

I'm sorry you guys believe the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. I prefer to believe Jesus wasn't a liar.

thetimman said...

JoAnna, I will give one last try. You do not give Jesus enough credit for honesty if you think that a pope who causes scandal means the gates of hell have prevailed. I don't expect you to comprehend this, as you clearly have been sold a bill of goods on this issue. Many have. The pope as a man does not equal the Church, against which Our Lord said the gates of hell would not prevail.

You may otherwise find yourself one day facing a papal action that even you, or paid shills like Shea or Fisher can't explain away. No alien-photoshopping-hallucinogenic drug combo will quite satisfy you. Then you are in danger of losing your faith over a complete irrelevancy.

Your mild condescension will not carry you there. Maybe you'll question your heroes like Shea on that day and he will insult and deride you to the amusement of those with whom you once identified.

On that day, remember the Church is still the Church. Christ is still Christ. I pray you keep your faith.

Brian said...

I never cease to be astonished at what people can bring themselves to believe, the facts notwithstanding.

But one more try for the sake of reason:

JoAnna on June 7: "You have all (laughably) missed the point. My point was you don't use a Facebook page as the primary source for a news article".

Wendy on June 6: "I was a professional journalist for 15 years.... She did not use the priest's Facebook page as her primary source. I'm not sure why you think that... Regardless, it is perfectly acceptable to use material from someone's Facebook page when reporting a news story."

JoAnna on June 7: "You'll notice (if you actually read my posts) I never said these specific pics were photoshopped. So, your incredulity is evidence of poor reading comprehension."

Brian on June 6: In my two references to your photoshop suggestion, I attributed to you the following sentiments: "the pictures COULD have been photoshopped" and "the pictures MIGHT have been photoshopped." Help me out here. Where, precisely, did I allege that you said they WERE photoshopped?

Then Steve on June 7 first pointed out why your photoshop theory was practically impossible, and then referred to it as just that: a conspiracy theory. Nota bene, if I say so and so holds to theory X it means that so and so holds X as a possibility not a certainty.

We read you just fine, JoAnna, please try to return the courtesy.

thetimman said...

Thanks for the comments everyone, but I am ending scene now. This baby is played out.