Holy Fool: <em>Reasonable</em> NY Times Still Doesn't Get Catholicism

Big surprise there, right?

Alejandro Bermudez's Catholic Outsider chronicles Ian Fischer of the Gray Lady as he stumbles in the dark.

The highlight:

Here’s is Fisher again:
“The encyclical is the highest form of papal teaching, and there had been much anticipation in the church for Benedict’s first, given his long service as Pope John Paul II’s outspoken, conservative defender of the faith.
But in contrast to his public reputation, Benedict, 78, who was elected in April, began his encyclical with a perhaps surprising first premise: conceding that the church has at times viewed sexuality as something “negative,” he placed erotic love between married men and women at the center of God’s plan.
Sex, he wrote, should mature into unselfish concern for the other, creating a love that leads to working for charity and justice for others.
Before becoming pope, when he was known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict was often seen as a divisive figure, lauded by conservative Catholics for his devotion to orthodoxy and criticized by liberal ones for not sharing their vision for a changing, more modern church.
But Benedict’s elaboration on love and charity was largely praised across the church on Wednesday as a document that sought to express what is common to all Catholics.”

Thast’s the problem Ian. YOU are probably surprised because YOU were expecting an Encyclical about abortion, homosexuality, contraception or divorce. FYI, such “encyclical” has never been written and I don’t think it will. And that’s because the only line connecting the dots here is the three-letter word starting with an “s” and ending with an “x”. I won’t give you any further clues. But believe me, that word is not a Papal obsession.

Don’t get me wrong. Coming from the NYT, Fisher’s story is pretty fair. The only problem with him is that he came late to the party. It has ALWAYS been about what is common to all Catholics.