Bookmark and Share
My Photo


    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.


« "To be frank, these are not easy words to speak nowadays." | Main | Introduction to "Five Pillars of the Spiritual Life", by Fr. Spitzer »

Monday, April 21, 2008



Excellent post.

The fact a reporter can get away with a verdict like, "Basically, the pope seems like a nice guy," speaks volumes. A nice guy... as opposed to what? A jerk? Sheesh.


It is fair to ask if an entire pontificate will have an impact on long term trends such as Mass attendence, etc. It is silly to ask whether a single Papal trip will have any such impact.


I am still waiting for the Holy Father to wag his finger in the face
of Nancy Pelosi or Dick Durbin. I heard on EWTN that someone had
arrainged for Tim Ruusert (did he perjure himself in the Libby trial?)
and Wolf Blitzer ( Sponsor of Jack Cafferti's idiodicity)
to be given papal medals. I dont know if it is true.
But what does this say about the bishops with leverage?

Where was Unambigiously-prolife-Chaput?

Where was No-vocation-problems-here-Bruskewitz?

Where was Stand-up-and-be-counted-Burke?

Like Fulton Sheen - the real heros are marginalized.


I heard a report on NPR this morning that announced that, during this visit, Benedict basically rehabilitated his image from Vatican enforcer to kindly grandfather.

Amazing that in doesn't occur to more MSM reporters that they just might possibly have gotten it wrong in the first place.

I generally respect Allen's reporting, but I think (hope) that hardliner portrait of Benedict he helped create is rather embarrassing to him now.


The Pope is a "hardliner." He just preaches the gospel in a very gentle way. If any of these reporters want to check out the transcripts of his various messages they will see he didn't back down from the truth at all, nor is he likely to. In fact, his goal on this trip was to persuade Catholics that their hope is in a return to Catholic truth.
The MSM is concerned about optics, not substance, and the Pope gave them optics that didn't fit their template, so now he's a nice guy. And they still don't get it.

Dave Deavel


In defense of John Allen, I want to point out that Allen had already repudiated his own 2000 book by the time of the last conclave and tried to stop its re-release. The publisher refused and so Allen wrote a new book. So he is in part to blame but he did his best to undo his earlier work.

Carl Olson

So he is in part to blame but he did his best to undo his earlier work.

Yep, and he has certainly improved his approach to discussing Ratzinger/Benedict. But, unfortunately, I think his earlier work had a tremendous influence. And it does beg the question: Why did Allen get Ratzinger so wrong for so long?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight


Ignatius Press

Catholic World Report


Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad