Get-Pell: when journalist are no longer interested in the truth

In a few generations, people will think back to this one and marvel at the utter disregard for the truth - all for the sake of sensational news, fame, wealth, power. Whatever the motivation, it is no longer about serving the truth, nor serving anyone, for that matter. It is the greatest irony that these so-called journalists would employ deceptive reporting to cover this royal commission, a massive undertaking to discover the truth and, based on truth, apply justice for all concerned. Deceptive, lazy journalism is deeply unjust since the journalists claim to serve the lofty ideal of truth while employing half- and omitted truths in order to serve up nothing less than untruths.

Infertile people can't marry says Catholic Church -- false article

On the basis of the cited video from GMA news, this article is way off the mark (to put it mildly). There is nothing in the video about infertile couples, nor about mortal sin, nor about telling other religions what they can or cannot do. That report was about the recent statements of Archbishop Cruz concerning same sex marriage, and the address by Pope Benedict XVI to the diplomatic corps on Monday.
Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JXs7Fk8RgME

Vatican does NOT change tune on condom use for HIV

So AFP reports that the Pope now allows condom use to reduce risk of HIV (reported here at TheAustralian.com.au), but in fact, he did not say that:

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.

When asked, "Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?" he replied: 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.

[Italics are quoted from what Pope Benedict XVI said in the interview, emphasis is mine, however]
Apart from the link to Dr. Janet Smith's clarification of this above, Jimmy Akin provides more insights in the National Catholic Register.
The Pope says that condoms are not regarded as a real or moral solution, and if it is not moral, then it is immoral, and is therefore wrong. However, he speculates what is actually a valuable insight: it does demonstrate a growing awareness of responsibility or some moral consideration involved for one who would use condoms with the HIV risk in mind. This simply supports the point that the Holy Father is making: that not everything is simply permitted, and there ought to be a more human view of sexuality.

Not for the first time

This "news" (from Richard Owens, The Times) leads with "The Pope has admitted for the first time that the Catholic Church must accept responsibility for the child sex abuse scandal". Truly remarkable, because this is not the first time he has done that, as anyone with a web browser and access to Google can easily verify. Nor is this is the first time that a so-called journalist has covered this topic without competence.

Until now, the Vatican and individual cardinals and bishops have sought to lay the blame for allegations of priestly abuse on the media, the Devil, the permissiveness of the 1960s, and on petty gossip and homosexuality.

Words fail me.

Did the Pope give the Milwaukee sex abuser a free pass?

There is much in the news these days about the alleged culpability of the Church leadership, all the way to the pope, concerning an American priest-abuser of about 200 victims. We would not be human if we remained indifferent to such charges, given the gravely evil nature of the abuses perpetrated. But we would not be rational if we fail to investigate the evidence prior to making up our minds. In Scoundrel Times, journalist George Weigel helps us get started. Jimmy Akin provides a more detailed investigation based on letters and accounts concerning the matter. Two other posts by Jimmy add further details: accounts from the tribunal judge involved in the case and analyzing the 1998 memo concerning this case. The evidence is there for all to consider. The only logical conclusion is that, while there is culpability in cooperating with grave evil to dole out, they cannot be assigned to Pope Benedict XVI.

Journalism has seen better days

If this is a measure of rigorous research among journalists, then how far they have indeed fallen:

• "Ancient text sheds light on Jewish-Christian links" from Reuters.
  
  Good grief, you mean there's a link? And what, there's a Jewish origin for the whole notion of a suffering messiah who rises from the dead? Stop the press! Oh wait, don't the Jewish books of Wisdom (deuterocanonical), Isaiah and Jonah already include allegories or explicit prophecies about all that?
• "Higher CO2 levels may be good for plants: German Scientists" from AFP.
  
  Gotta love the comments about photosynthesis.

And I thought objectivity was all that got thrown out of the window for today's brave new breed of journalists.

Shea's Iron Law of Media-Reported Benedictine Growth

Made my day. :-)

Teachers, priests and mainstream media bias

Now here's a story: some mainstream media organizations would print 21,000 reports covering the 4,400 Catholic priests who were accused of sexual abuse over a 52-year period, but may not even print reports about 2,500 cases over 5 years perpetrated by American school teachers. Is that a story or what?

Oh wait. No, no, there's no story there after all.

[Link found via Catholic Report.]

Whatever happened to responsible journalism?

Is the NY Times still respectable if they are verified to have published lies? And what are they planning to do about it? "The New York Times is seriously contemplating removing its public editor (ombudsman) position which was instituted in 2003 to be an independent voice for the public within the paper in order to maintain credibility." They created that position to safeguard the truth, but they'd rather discard the truth, it seems.

[Via LifeSite.net]