"As the pope has made clear over the past three years, fancy lifestyles, formality and regal titles like Prince of the Church are out of style for cardinals. So is an emphasis on the divisive issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, even though the church’s underlying position on those issues has not changed.
Of course, we have to remember this is the same New York Times that "doesn't get religion". One commenter on the article observed how:"Instead, in the pope’s view, the church should emphasize humility and service to the poor. It should be multicultural, welcoming different styles of worship. It should reach out to other faiths and stand up for immigrants, refugees and nuns."And that, church experts and members of his flock say, is a close description of the priorities of Cardinal Tobin, who will be heading east just after Christmas to lead the approximately 1.5 million Catholics in the Archdiocese of Newark."
"The phrase 'different kind of Cardinal' seems to condemn all other cardinals as "the same" in the sense of indistinguishable from each other and lacking all of the positive characteristics this particular Cardinal exhibits. How is that not a backhanded insult to the other Cardinals, to the leadership of the Church in general and divisive purely by implication? The press certainly doesn't get religion and demonstrates that fact by pushing its own leftist views on what it is that makes Cardinals 'different' in any laudable sense."Still other commenters, among them Catholic, praised the article as "excellent" or "splendid". Really? Let's take a closer look at this, but please be sure to read the entirety of the NYT article before going on.How this article can be called "excellent" or "splendid" is beyond me. There's some awesome bits in there about Cardinal Tobin's life and his devotion to the souls he pastors, but it's obvious the article (and its author) has an agenda to push with all its insinuations on the characters of many other prelates in the Church. So what if Cardinal Myers preferred to be called "Your Grace"? That, and they give no evidence of him preferring to be addressed as such, and even if he did I'm sure he wouldn't mind if he wasn't addressed by that title, as the article insinuates.
I also don't like how the article tries to paint everything in the Church as "liberal" or "conservative", as many people in secular culture (because that's what this newspaper is; highly secular and critical of the Catholic Church in all aspects) are wont to do today. It's not about being "liberal" or "conservative"; it's about one's commitment to orthodoxy. But secular news organizations don't care much about fidelity to orthodoxy, do they?
Because if they did, they wouldn't insinuate things like this:
"As the pope has made clear over the past three years, fancy lifestyles, formality and regal titles like Prince of the Church are out of style for cardinals. So is an emphasis on the divisive issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, even though the church’s underlying position on those issues has not changed."Granted, fancy lifestyles absolutely should be "out of style". But read that again. This author actually tries to make the insinuation that Pope Francis "has made clear" emphases on abortion and SSM are "out of style"...? Ridiculous! Pope Francis is a son of the Church! These issues can only be said to be "divisive" in the eyes of those that see the Church's teaching on these issues as out of touch, or even morally wrong (as many secularists in the West do in fact perceive these issues)..
In an interview with Vittorio Messori, Pope St. John Paul Il said, "It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation [the legalization, as well as the act, of abortion], and it is very difficult to speak of obsession in a matter such as this, where we are dealing with a fundamental imperative of every good conscience — the defense of the right to life of an innocent and defenseless human being.”
Also, in a 2003 document released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), St. John Paul II approved of the following mentality:
"In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."
It's also ridiculous that formality is "out of style" as I always am respectful and formal when I meet with the bishops of my diocese and neighboring dioceses, and to say that Pope Francis has made clear that doing such things as this, as well as addressing our bishops as "Your Excellency", are out of vogue is absolutely absurd.
As far as the Times being "quite good at fact checking", as I saw one person comment, they have a penchant for being anything but accurate. For instance, the New York Times actually put in print that the body of Jesus Christ is buried in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
The Times also claimed that the Book of Romans calls for the "execution of homosexuals" where a simple reading of the text clearly shows that St. Paul does not call for the execution of homosexuals. And those are only a few examples.
I absolutely hate how the New York Times and other secular media outlets love to pit members of the Catholic Church (and other churches) against each other, by using hyperbolic language, baseless assumptions, and ridiculous insinuations.
I pray that Cardinal Tobin is successful in his pastoral ministry to his flock and that his work leads to the conversion and salvation of many souls, as I pray for all our bishops and clergy. May God grant him many years.