Supreme Knight Rejects Idea of Contrast Between Francis and Benedict

Very nice article about Carl Anderson’s view (NCReg).

I agree with his assessment that the press ignored a great deal of important things that Pope Benedict said and did in order to protect the false image they had already projected.

His full piece is here: “The media embrace in Francis what they ignored in Benedict”

I neglected to say that he is the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus.

And author of The Civilization of Love

I think Anderson is right that the media provides only a part of the story, usually the part that is the most sensational or can be presented as controversial. However, Anderson also seems to overstate the media’s presentation. First, it is impossible to assign certain points of view or biases to ALL media, since not all media is the same. Second, he makes it appear that the media is saying that Frances is “uninterested in Church teaching on moral issues”, which I have not seen or heard anywhere. Nor have I read that Frances is taking the Church “in a profoundly new direction”. Rather, commentators have wondered whether that will happen to some extent, but Francis has not done so, nor would he do so, nor could he do so. Many of the commentators who make such unsubstantiated statements do not know or understand the Catholic Church or the papacy.

Regarding the differences between Francis and Benedict, they are like night and day. Let’s face it: Francis has a charisma, a personality, that is very much different than Benedict’s. Neither is necessarily wrong, but Benedict comes across as a theologian and scholar, very systematic in his thinking and his actions. Francis is much more pastoral in his approach, more situational, yet may be just as adamant as Benedict when it comes to preserving Church teachings.

Sometimes it is best to check out several different media reports to get a more accurate overview of what is happening or what was said. And, believe it or not, one should actually read or watch what was actually said. For example, read Pope Francis’ interview to find out what he REALLY said, not just read someone else’s interpretation of it. That should be intuitive, but it is amazing how many people rely on sound bites and excerpts for their information and to draw conclusions, often erroneous.

I have read the entire interview and I will say that it is amazing, and it confirms my belief that the cardinals made a wonderful decision in choosing this man to lead the Church. And one could hopefully assume that they knew enough about the man to know what might transpire, and purposely chose to take that route. Either that, or Francis fooled a whole bunch of them, which I seriously doubt.

Unfortunately, this is what I’ve seen of the media’s presentation. Francis is the nice Pope, totally different from those other mean Popes. He’s taking the Church in a completely different direction, doesn’t care about moral issues or doctrine, and is making homsexuality, abortion and contraception ok. Also, everyone goes to Heaven now because Francis changed that.

Here is pretty much every article on Francis: “In a stunning departure from his Predecesor, Pope Francis sent shock waves through the the Church when he said (fill in the blank). Franics is shaking up the Vatican with his liberal views on (insert issue), indicating a possible change in the Church’s policy on (Insert issue)”.

At least this is the media presentation I’ve seen so far :confused:

You are spot on. Sadly.

The Holy Father’s speeches have been essentially reduced to a Whose Line sketch.

The secular news media is all the same when it comes to how they report on the Catholic Church. When was the last time the secular news media (local news doesn’t count) reported on anything a Pope has said without sensationalizing it?

They sensationalize it because if they didn’t it would likely not interest most of their viewers/listeners/readers. They obviously key on the the statements (often taken out of context) that make the best headline or sound bite.

But the fact they do this with the pope doesn’t mean that this is done only to the pope’s words. One can see that the media does this to anyone of “importance” in order to catch people’s attention and get them to watch or read. This is nothing new, and is not limited to any one part of the media, but occurs across the spectrum.

What one finds when looking beyond the surface headlines is that the real story is much different. That is why everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, should read the pope’s interview, and see what he actually said. I doubt that any of the media people, except perhaps most of those in the religious media, read the whole article. The people doing the reporting took what some other person extracted (that they felt was worth reporting) and turned into sensationalized headlines. It happens all the time.

Anderson is right, to a point, but it is not evidence of anti-Catholic reporting, but rather the intent of the media to sell papers and get viewers. And they won’t do that by actually quoting from the wonderful and important statements that Francis does make in the interview, nor by placing them in their overall context.

Ignore the pundits, READ (and prayerfully meditate on) the interview.

One other thought: So far, I have not seen much from Bishops discussing the letter, nor encouraging Catholics to actually read the interview. Several of the topics the pope discusses would make wonderful starting points for homilies, pastoral letters or columns in the diocesan press. Unless that happens, most people, including the majority of Catholics, will have no idea what Pope Francis actually said.

Sad situation.

Yep. But that bothers me less than Catholics who are doing precisely that as well. We’ve seen the evidence of that in the last 2 weeks.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit