Okay, I'm disappointed too, but let's get to the point here.

[jlh]

I don't usually do those tirades where you say that you are sick of reading entries that all say the same thing, but I'm making an exception today.

I'm tired of reading entries from people who are tired of the way that the media covers international events. I have spent so much time on this journal trying to explain the way that economic imperatives and various other things conspire to create the media industry that we have today, but does anyone decide that what they want to do is start writing letters to the FCC? No, they decide they want to bitch some more on their journal. Christ Jesus, shut the fuck up or start listening to Radio Pacifica or whatever the fuck you want because I no longer care.

Now, about the Papacy in general. I can understand if you think it's irrelevant because you are not Catholic. However, I would say that it's worthy of news coverage. The Church does have influence in many countries. I understand that there are several people on my flist who are far from Catholic but everyone bitching about this endlessly--I mean, if I said, alas for I am sick of hearing about Passover the entire LJ community would be in my journal calling me an anti-semite. It's hard rowing enough being a lapsed Catholic and having any faith at all and thinking that any of you lot think I have a brain in my head without all the not-so-subtle sarcasm and condescension. Let's remember that Christian /= moron.

So how do I feel? Of course I was hoping for a John XXIV, and of course I didn't think we would get one, but seriously, I wish we had done better than this. All I can say is, at least he's old. He doesn't even have JPII's benefits, and all of the downfalls. This is pretty damn sucky.

Then again, maybe he'll just excommunicate the entire American church and we can just go our own way. I'd be down with that, man.

ETA: And as for the Nazi stuff, I send you to anw's entry on that fallacy.

Comments

[didi75.livejournal.com]

I have spent so much time on this journal trying to explain the way that economic imperatives and various other things conspire to create the media industry that we have today

Word.

This is such an interesting topic, well for me at least. I study public opinion and the media and I always look for the reasons why the news networks choose to focus on one story over another, and how they frame these stories to the public. This story is an opportunity for people to at least learn something about the Pope, his role in the church, and the history of papal influence in the world- not because it impacts our lives, but because it's politically relevant.

At the same time, I often get sick of hearing the same story over and over again. I hate getting bashed over the head with sensationalized media reports. The major determinants of media coverage according to polisci research are ratings, ratings, and more ratings. That's definitely why people who listen to public radio are better informed on politics and international affairs than people who primarily watch the cable networks.

*friends you and runs away*

[irinaauthor.livejournal.com]

I understand that there are several people on my flist who are far from Catholic but everyone bitching about this endlessly--I mean, if I said, alas for I am sick of hearing about Passover the entire LJ community would be in my journal calling me an anti-semite. It's hard rowing enough being a lapsed Catholic and having any faith at all and thinking that any of you lot think I have a brain in my head without all the not-so-subtle sarcasm and condescension. Let's remember that Christian /= moron.

Yes, exactly. Thank you so much for posting this; it's what I've been thinking all day too.

[aiquale.livejournal.com]

I'll second that.

[mahoni.livejournal.com]

Yes all over the place.

But you know, I don't *really* know what people were expecting. Sure, there's a liberal minority of American Catholics, but there's also a conservative American majority, and internationally Catholicism is very conservative as well. Catholicism isn't going to get anywhere close to recognizing homosexuality as natural and non-moral (meaning, not a question of morality and therefore not something to object to on moral/religious grounds) any time soon, and women in the priesthood...not as passionate a subject in general, but I don't think that was in the near future either, regardless of who became pope.

The fact is, they've chosen a pope who actually embodies Catholic beliefs. Was it offensive to Jews for Ratzinger to say that their history and scripture only reach fulfillment in Christ? Yeah, but that's what Catholics *believe.* And the thing about being Catholic is that you are only truly Catholic if you believe what you're supposed to believe as a Catholic. So what happened is that the cardinals totally chose a CATHOLIC POPE.

Yes, I'm also disappointed. I joined the Catholic Church a few years ago in what seems now to have been a fit of insanity, and it seems like every time I turn around the Church says/does something that reiterates the fact that I will never be able to cut it as a Catholic. This guy is another one of those. But, whatever. The Church isn't going to change for me, and on a weird level I admire the fact that this choice of Pope is a reaffirmation of the Church's 'self.' It seems to me that it took arrogance, balls, and a fervent faith in the basic tenets of the Church. It's kinda like they had a Stuart Smalley moment.

I guess I'm just not that surprised that the Pope is Catholic. I wish he was a less scary backward kind of Catholic, but overall, not that surprised over here.

[morgaina.livejournal.com]

That last line there is almost verbatim what I've been saying all day. And the rest of it (minus being Catholic, as I'm not) is exactly how I feel.