Fox's coverage of the Pope death watch: Of "dignity" and "W"

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/3/05 at 11:10am

At the gym, Friday night, I couldn't help but see the Fox coverage of the Pope's death watch, both before and after the O'Reilly show. Fascinating to watch, up against 3 other TV screens, which needless to say offered rather differnet sort of c coverage.

To those who doubt the Fox agenda ... as an instrument of this Administration -- first of all we had film of the Pope and George W. Bush playing at regular intervals. You would swear these two men were best buddies, who met often and were in constant agreement, constant contact. There was no end to commentary about how much the two men "respected one another" despite "differences of opinion." Every effort was made to tie the current American President to the Holy Father's spiritual agenda. As if that angle was the critical thing to remember in the waning hours of the Pontiff's reign. After years of deeds all over the planet, the most memorable ones involved the current U.S.President. Pat Robertson was even trundled out to stress how close Evangelicals feel to the Pope. As they do to George W. Bush. The message was clear: the world's two greatest spiritual influences are The Pope and G.W. Bush.

Then, at three different moments - including the one just before sign-off -- O'Reilly pointed out that "it's no accident that Terri Schiavo died last night, and the Pope is dying WITH DIGNITY tonight.." They would cut to the talking head in St. Peter's square who kept stressing -- as if this is hard news -- that the Pope's commitment to the "sanctity of life" was being demonstrated at even this late turn in his heroic own. He had to fall all over himself to say that "even though he opted NOT to return to Gemelli hospital ... make no mistake, the Pope has life-sustaining treatment right there in his quarters!" Excuse me, but how did this one impassioned Fox mouthpiece know any of that? Especially when the Vatican media releases kept stressing how the Pope did NOT want to be in a hospital, given extra measures. It was mentioned that he has a lliving will, but quickly put aside. This was spin at its baldest: The Pope clearly opted to die with dignity by refusing herculean measures to keep his organs going -- i.e. not to return to the hospital. O'Reilly's efforts to connect that to Schiavo as "ironic" was mystifying. In effect, the irony was very much the opposite. Not what the "culture of life" fanatics opine, since the Pope opted to do what many -- including, dare I say Michael Schiavo -- do: to abandon treatment that would hold the body here past the point of ... well, dignity.

Updated On: 4/3/05 at 11:10 AM

[paradox_error]

Posted: 4/3/05 at 12:31pm

Thankyou...

They both died in very similar ways, and both died with dignity.

[Feodor Sverdlov]

Posted: 4/3/05 at 3:16pm

Conversely, I was watching MSNBC, and they kept showing the Pope with Presidents Carter and Clinton. One time they show him with Dubya. They never showed him with George HW Bush or Reagan. So, what does that mean, I wonder?

Boze Blogoslawi Papieza Jana Pawla Drugiego - God Bless Pope John Paul II

Posted: 4/3/05 at 5:33pm

I noticed that too Auggie. The pope's death was yet another occasion for the Press to distort the truth to endorse George W. Anyone who follows world news (Not the US coverage) knows that the Pope deplored the actions of George W. Bush.

I haev even pondered if they College of Cardinals might not offer up an even more activist Pope as an antidote to American Misbehaviour around the world, much as they appointed JP2 because of his anti-communist activities.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 4/3/05 at 7:59pm

Thanks, Auggie! I opted to avoid watching the coverage of the pope's death. I think I burned out on the Schiavo affair.

I did read a couple of articles about his early life and rise to power. I have to admire the tenacity with which he clung to his religious ideals in the face of Communist opposition. However, the fact that he paid lip service to Vatican II, while consistently ignoring reforms that it advocated, is troubling. His continued denoucement of homosexuality and birth control, even as HIV loomed as a world-wide health menace, will prevent him from being seen as a man of greatness...at least to me.

It is going to be fascinating to watch the power struggle that ensues as the Roman Catholics choose a new leader. The ramifications of that choice will be huge as the church struggles for survival in the 21st century.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/3/05 at 9:57pm

Amen,Iflitfloat. There's a call for his sainthood. As you posit, it's premature to determine his legacy; in a world where pandemic HIV infection and the resulting volume death is far more dangerous than a couple decideing to have 2 rather than 3 children. How odd the culture of life's sense of priorities. Birth control -- in 2005, an evil force in society?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/3/05 at 11:31pm

Auggie--you can't waste your seed!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/4/05 at 1:14am

A legacy of homophobia

John Gallagher

For anyone under 30, it's hard to imagine the Catholic Church as anything other than an ideological monolith -- intentionally insulated, closed to outsiders and incredibly hostile to gays and lesbians. After all, these are the folks who labeled us "morally disordered" and even "evil." And for that, we have John Paul II to thank.

More than any other pope in the modern age, he was a man of his time and place: the years of the Cold War and Eastern Europe. In such an environment, it's easy to develop hard and fast beliefs, especially when you have the institutional force of two millennia backing you up. It's not a coincidence that John Paul II, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher all took their place on the world stage at the same time. The world was easy to portray in black-and-white terms (as it is again today) -- them against us, evil vs. good. (Guess which side you're supposed to be on.) And urging them on was the firm conviction that the liberal excesses of the '60s and '70s -- including gay liberation -- needed to be corrected or, more accurately, wrung out of the system as vigorously as possible.

But unlike Reagan and Thatcher, John Paul II had absolute authority. Even Ron and Maggie couldn't claim to speak for God (although in Thatcher's case you have to believe she was tempted to lobby for the Supreme Being role for herself). And the result of that absolute authority is a church that slammed shut the window of change that was opened during the Second Vatican Council. For a brief moment, it was possible to look at the church as a progressive force for good in the world. Thanks to John Paul II, that moment is gone.

And thanks to John Paul II, homosexuality has risen to the top of the list of modern evils. This elevation was due to his own experiences. As a young man, he lived through the Nazi occupation of Poland. As a bishop and then cardinal, he endured the repression of a communist regime. Once communism fell, something else had to take its place as the ideology of evil. With the rise of gay rights, we were the easy pick to fill the void.

It's not that John Paul II didn't take aim at other targets. There's always that hardy perennial -- abortion. But you have to admit that nothing seems to have spurred the Church and John Paul II on as much as homosexuality. Bishops who were considered weak on the topic, such as Bishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, were essentially laid off. Dignity, the gay Catholic group, was banned from holding services in local churches.

The pinnacle (or nadir) of the John Paul II papacy has to be the notorious Halloween letter, issued in 1986, which declared gays and lesbians "disordered," "self-indulgent" individuals who "threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people." So much for pastoral outreach. Even the pope's last major statement, his recent book, tore into homosexuality as an ideology of evil.

Don't expect the new pope to make any changes. Imagine a court packed with conservatives getting ready to select the next president. (OK, so you don't have to imagine it.) That is the operating definition of the College of Cardinals, which will choose the new pope. Since practically all were appointed by John Paul II, who enforced a pretty stringent litmus test for conservative ideology, it's hard to imagine them picking somebody from left field, so to speak.

One name being thrown around is Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the author of the Halloween letter. As pope, he would serve for what would be a limited time (he is 77, after all, so the odds are against a very long papacy) while the church sorts out its next move. If you don't think things could be worse, think of a Ratzinger papacy. He's the James Dobson of the Vatican, watching to make sure that no one strays an inch from the philosophical hard line. With him as pope, every day would be Halloween.

John Gallagher is co-author of "Perfect Enemies: The Battle Between the Religious Right and the Gay Rights Movement."
A legacy of homophobia

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/4/05 at 9:48am

Thank you, PJ. What an important reminder to us all.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 4/4/05 at 9:58am

As always, people are being presented with a chance to move forward progressively or to stick hard and fast to what held true in 1325 AD. It seems most people, when presented with the choice, opt for 1325 AD. After all, it's the best way to keep people under your thumb and preserve power for yourself.
And that's what it's all about, folks.