"Vatileaks" Article Its #1 on OpEdNews FOR THE MONTH OF MAY!!

Even though you've read it here, help spread the word by clicking HERE and send the page view numbers through the roof! This article is the ONLY one on the "Vatileaks" scandal featuring past cover-ups and bringing to light the fact that Benedict KNOWS ALL. 

Rupert's Religious Ark: Will The Pope, Rick Warren And Pat Robertson Jump Ship?

Hell, Can They Even Swim?


















As the Murdoch Empire takes a pounding in the UK's Parliament, the media and the court of public opinion, another interesting tidbit makes for drooling speculation: Murdoch's long arm of publishing includes a bizarre dichotomy  - pornography and Christian books.


But wait, it may not be so dichotomous! It might, in fact, be just a matter of quid pro quo: Murdoch's religious affiliations have been just as quiet about the latest hacking scandal as they've been about his porn industry. Perhaps they don't want to draw too much attention to the financial dealings and donations with the media mogul.


Catholic? Southern Baptist? Born Again?


Murdoch's personal religious leaning are murky to say the least: he has never formally pronounced his allegiance for any one Christian denomination or sect. While wed to his second wife, a Roman Catholic, he received an award:

 Catholic Herald 

In 1998 Rupert Murdoch was made a Knight Commander of St Gregory. He had apparently been recommended for the honour by Cardinal Roger Mahony, after giving money to a Church education fund. A year later he donated $10 million to help build Los Angeles Catholic cathedral.

Rupert's son, James, also created a firestorm when it was discovered that before meeting the pontiff in London during his visit, Murdoch had donated 100,000 pounds ($156,000) to the promotion of the visit. It became known as the "pope-for-hire" situation.  


Murdoch's hailing of Benedict's election was a bit brazen (and off he mark), but helped to dispel the rumors that Cardinal Ratzinger was still harboring Hitler-like tendencies. (see The Sun's Headline). 


The 700 Club Connection


Billionaire televangelist Pat Robertson has certainly profited from Murdoch's business ventures:

From donations provided by viewers, Robertson bought the Family Channel, sold part of its stock at a personal profit of $90 million, and then sold the rest to right-wing media mogul and FOX owner Rupert Murdoch for $1.82 billion.

Even die-hard Robertson fans considered the purchase to be an outrageous sellout: Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily wrote: "...Robertson was ready, willing and able to climb into bed with Rupert Murdoch ..."

Murdoch also owns two of the largest online religious sites, Beliefnet and Inspirio, but perhaps the biggest strangle hold he has is on religious publishing.


The Rick Warren Connection

"Do the religious authors making their fortunes off Murdoch wear gloves when they cash their royalty checks? Do they ever dare look in the mirror?"

                    - Frank Schaeffer, son of influential theologian Francis Schaeffer 

Murdoch's pornography empire is not too far down the publishing road from the likes of Zondervan and Harper Collins - two of the largest religious book publishers in America, if not the world. Under Zondervan, in fact, another empire flourished: The Purpose Driven Life, for after the sale of 20 million copies worldwide, it remains one of history's biggest bestsellers (appropriately, after The Bible). And with Zondervan's sales, the fortunes of Pastor Rick Warren have soared as well.* In addition, Murdoch has openly donated $2 million to Warren's P.E.A.C.E. plan, enabling a greater evangelical voice in foreign nations (primarily in Africa). 


Pastor Rick has repeatedly stated that he is Murdoch's pastor although Murdoch does not live in Orange County where the 120-acre Saddleback Church compound is located. He has also deflected charges of hypocrisy in dealing with Murdoch, reportedly the "king" of pornography:

‘I don’t have to agree with 100 percent of what another person does in order to work with them on the 20 percent that we do agree on.’

THE HEAT IS ON


Pornography aside, the hacking scandal has Catholics, evangelicals and other religious leaders calling on the religious community to sever all ties with Murdoch and to reassess their relations with his publishing venues and, yes, even FOX News Channel.**


But will the likes of Rick Warren and Pope Benedict follow suit? Will Zondervan and Harper Collins authors defect to other publishers? 


The problem here is that today's religious leaders, like Murdoch, go where the money goes and follow Rick Warren's chief motto: 


"Whatever It Takes."

*Enabling Warren to give back 25 years of his past salary to his beloved Saddleback Church. Warren says that he now "reverse tithes" giving 90% of his income to the church. This has been disputed, however, since concrete tax returns and financial statements have not been made open to the public. 

** Over one year ago, the Jewish community called upon Murdoch to sanction Glenn Beck for his references to the Holocaust, signing an open letter to Murdoch in Murdoch's own Wall Street Journal. It was posted on Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Bully For The Press, But Boo For Benedict: Why Peggy Noonan and Benedict's Defenders Are Wrong

Timothy Shriver's Washington Post article, Can the pope restore the purity of Catholicism? is a wonderful and insightful piece - except for the title. It assumes that Catholicism has had "purity" for a long time. It hasn't. Catholicism has always been too complex for "purity" of any sort. Ever since the official acceptance of Christianity by Rome (313 CE), The Church has been a curious mixture of conflicting doctrines, artistic beauty, money, immense power, sincere faith and corruption. And perhaps in no other person are those qualities more evident than in pope Benedict XVI. To this man, change in the Church is anathema: Pious XII was his inspiration and John XXIII his enemy. 

That is why his supporters in the latest news about the on-going scandal of sexual abuse have a tough time convincing people that he is not culpable. Take Peggy Noonan of the  Wall Street Journal:

Let me repeat that: The press has been the best friend of the Catholic Church on the scandals because it exposed the story and made the church face it. The press forced the church to admit, confront and attempt to redress what had happened. The press forced them to confess. The press forced the church to change the old regime and begin to come to terms with the abusers...Without this pressure...the church would most likely have continued to do what it has done for half a century, which is look away, hush up, pay off and transfer.

I agree wholeheartedly. Then why would Noonan come up with this statement:

The most reliable commentary on Pope Benedict's role in the scandals came from John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, who argues that once Benedict came to fully understand the scope of the crisis, in 2003, he made the church's first real progress toward coming to grips with it.

"Fully understand the scope of the crisis." The PRESS made Ratzinger understand. No one else did. Sheer conjecture but still valid: IF the press had not capitalized on the scandal, would Ratzinger have continued the old game of "pass the pedaphile priest"??

Come on, Peggy, Ratzinger knew about the abuse long before 2003; he had resources at his command to find out minute details about every priest in the Catholic Church. A hint of heresy never got past him and neither did a hint of sexual abuse. It's sheer idiocy to think that he knew nothing. And with that knowledge he doth sinned in doing nothing.

And there are Catholic leaders - like Bill Donohue of The Catholic League - think that the press is evil, comparing the "persecution" of Catholicism to anti-Semitism!  His own lame response to the scandal:

wikipedia:

On March 30, 2010, Donohue appeared on CNN's Larry King Live as part of a panel discussing sexual abuse of children by priests. Donohue blamed the decades-old problem on gay priests, claiming they could not be considered pedophiles because most of the offenses involved "post-pubescent" boys (defined in the interview as boys 12-years-old or older) and were thus "homosexual" acts.

Holy twisted reasoning!!

The Catholic Church (indeed, American Christianity as a whole) is infamous for not admitting culpability in past misdeeds. If Pious XII had admitted that he could have spoken out during the Holocaust would he still be (fast-tracked) on the road to canonization? If the Vatican would have voiced regret for its role in the Crusades and the expulsion of Moors from Spain and Portugal, would the radical Muslim world have as much animosity for Christianity as it does today?

As recently as the 1980s and 1990s, the media has forced the Catholic Church to admit to heinous acts against children: the Duplessis Orphan scandal in Canada and the Magdalene Laundry scandal in Ireland. In both cases, nuns were the perpetrators of torture, slavery, sexual abuse and even homicide over a period of decades. And the Church did more than simply cover up the bodies and place them in unmarked graves.

So the widespread cover-up of sexual abuse in the priesthood is not really surprising. And the abuse was around far longer than Joseph Ratzinger's time on earth. To think that he had nothing to do with it because he (re)acted after the media blew the whistle is polite wishful thinking. As head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger was, in effect, the Church's spin doctor: he was charged to protect the image of the Church as well as its doctrine from heresy. 

And there were times when he acted rather viciously.

Hans Kung was a trusted friend of Joseph Ratzinger in the late 60s. He even helped Ratzinger obtain a professorship at a university in Tubingen, Germany, where Kung was professor of theology. Later, Kung was stripped of his authority to teach theology by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger who was head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The official reason: Kung denied the infalability of the pope. Another reason (according to conspiracy theorists): Kung was too close to John Paul I during his controversial tenure (30 days) and even more controversial death. Kung has since reiterated his criticism of the papacy and in particular of Benedict:

"Joseph Ratzinger has stood still because as a Bavarian Catholic in the Hellenistic tradition, interpreted in Roman terms, he wanted to stand still."

Timothy Shriver of The Washington Post put the scandal and its nuances quite well:

What's needed is a conversion of the bishops and the pope himself. That's right: It's time for the pope and the bishops to convert their culture to one that is centered on loving God from the depths of their souls and to leading a church that is as much mother as father, as much pastoral as theological, as much spiritual as doctrinal. It is time for them to listen to the deep and authentic witness of the people of faith, to trust the spirit that blows where it will, to abandon their defensiveness of their positions and trust only the gospel, and not their edifice of control. Conversion is a total experience -- letting go of the old and putting on the new.

That is something Benedict will never do. And there is no defense of a man who will not progress for the spiritual good of his flock. Benedict is not a shepherd. He is merely an old sentinel who stands guarding an old abusive system.