Cnn Lies About Catholic Teaching

[ironmonk]

Today while at the gym I was watching CNN - gotta know what our enemies are up to.

They had a piece on sin. kerry and the Catholic Church.

Saying that kerry took communion at Easter.
Saying that the Catholic Church has no official teaching on if politicians can take communion and still support abortion.


Please email them, and sin. kerry.

Here is the form: [url="http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form2.html?3"]http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form2.html?3[/url]

Here is what I sent:

[b]Topic:[/b] CNN is wrong on Catholic Teaching.
[b]Day:[/b] 4/24/04
[b]Time of Day:[/b] AM
[b]Question: [/b]No question, only a correction.
[b]Do you have any other information about the story or segment?[/b]

[quote]The Catholic Church does indeed have an official teaching on if politicians can be pro-abortion AND Catholic.

Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. Voting for abortion to be legal is formal cooperation and automatic excommunication occurs. Because kerry has voted for abortion, he is excommunicated, and by taking communion while he is in excommunication he has eaten judgment on himself.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (The Official Teaching):
[url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm[/url]

Abortion


2270
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72


Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271
Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:


You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272
Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.


2273
The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81


2274
Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safeguarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82


2275
"One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.


Our Holy Father John Paul II has stated that “abortion and euthanasia are crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.’" (The Gospel of Life, no. 73)

Men that have no faith can separate it from their daily lives... men that do, cannot. How can anyone trust kerry if he cannot be true to what he claims to be his very faith? He is not Catholic, he only plays a Catholic on TV.

Please start getting things correct in your reporting. There are many resources online to verify Catholic teaching. Here are but a few:

[url="http://www.USCCB.org"]http://www.USCCB.org[/url] - Use the Search
[url="http://www.Catholic-Pages.com"]http://www.Catholic-Pages.com[/url]
[url="http://www.Catholic.com"]http://www.Catholic.com[/url]
[url="http://www.ScirptureCatholic.com"]http://www.ScirptureCatholic.com[/url]
[url="http://www.Phatmass.com"]http://www.Phatmass.com[/url]
[url="http://www.MoralTruth.com"]http://www.MoralTruth.com[/url]

Sincerely,
Max Brackett, President
www.MoralTruth.com[/quote]





God Bless,
ironmonk

[Dave]

No official teaching on pro-death politicians and others receiving Communion, my butt! But then again, it [b]is[/b] CNN.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

What has the Clinton News Network left to lie about, now?

[Lounge Daddy]

[font="Courier"]thanx for the post
i contacted them, too
i hope others do the same
-- LD[/font]

[God Conquers]

You should append the relevant parts of the new Instruction Redemptoris Sacramentum and Cardinal Arinze's comments on the matter. It makes it very clear.

[luciana]

I emailed them too. Thanks, Max. Did they report on this because of the release of Instruction Redemptoris Sacramentum ? Did they mention it in their reporting?If they did, they probably spinned it. If not, we can mention it an the e-mails.

[Hazilloe]

[color=red][Edited by Good Friday: personal attacks.][/color]

Edited April 25, 2004 by Good Friday

[Sojourner]

All right, perhaps I shouldn't even bring this up ... but I am a member of the media, have been for five years, and I wanted to address the title/premise of this thread.

I know that many Christians take issue -- with good reason -- at the portrayal of Christians, particularly Catholics, in the media. And while I am sure that there are some members of the media who genuinely have some sort of anti-Christian vendetta, I think the vast majority of people in the media can be more rightly categorized as simply not knowing the intricacies of the subject they're addressing.

This is, of course, no excuse for a reporter not doing the necessary background work on this story ... indeed there has recently been teaching from church officials specifically on this question. However, it is quite possible the reporter simply was not aware of this teaching, and didn't know of anything that directly addressed this specific question. (and truthfully, Ironmonk, none of the sources you cited directly address this question. The answer is, of course, implied ... but most reporters I know are working on tight deadlines and simply do not have time to do in-depth research into the intricate teachings of the Catholic Church, or any church for that matter. They want a quick, definitive source to say, "This is what the church teaches on this subject.")

Most people I know genuinely appreciate getting feedback about their work, good or bad. Those of us who still have ethics want to do a good job, and want to present the subjects we're addressing accurately, so by all means write to people whose reporting lacks depth, or is incorrect -- or people who do a good job.

However, when you say things like:
[quote]Please start getting things correct in your reporting.[/quote]
this is inflammatory, and disrespectful, and a deeply personal attack. I, for one, would discount everything else you said because of this, and would write you off as a looney. I'm simply being honest, not trying to make this a personal attack on any of you who have sent it ... but that's what I'd think if I got a letter like this.

I guess just in the future think about how you say what you say. Please write and let people in the media know what you think about their presentations -- but do so respectfully and with grace, and I guarantee your words will have a greater effect.

Peace,
Abby

[ironmonk]

Countless times CNN has put a spin on many of their reports.

Asking them to get it right is NOT a personal attack. Telling the truth does not constitute a personal attack. If CNN was unbiased in their reporting, we would not have to say to them to get it right.

Did you see the report? It was inexcusable given their status in the news world. They painted kerry as a normal Catholic and implying that he has a right to communion. Then they had a pro-abortion "Catholic" group on saying that kerry was right... Did they have a priest on? No. Did they have any real Catholic on? No.

CNN spun the story... with bias... their intent to deceive was obvious. If the person who did the story was truly ignorant, then he should be fired for incompetence. Why didn't they ask a priest? Or maybe the appropriate question would be "Why didn't they show them asking a priest?". Every other time that I have seen them bring up the Church they normally show a priest or bishop, this time they didn't. No, they spun it to try to save kerry Catholic votes. No Catholic can vote for kerry and be a practical Catholic. Kerry stands for everything against the Church.

When a reporter gives a story they are responsible for those who believe their misstatements.

When reporting something to millions of people about something that is easily found out, just by asking or doing a search online, and they fail to present the truth in the matter.... then people need to tell them to get it right.

They (CNN) are liberal, I have seen them lie numerous times. When they present only one side of a matter, and spin it so that the other side looks bad, when given all the facts on the matter people would go for the other side, it constitutes lying. They present only certain facts or quotes so to deceive... hence lying.

CNN lies. They have numerous times done it to the point of bashing the Church.

"The media" in general are not for what is right, they are for ratings. There are some good media sources, but the mainstream is not. They push abortion, ssa marriages, etc...


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Sojourner]

I did not see the report; as I don't have cable, I never watch CNN, and therefore am not up on their news reporting habits regarding religion or anything else.

I never said that you should not tell them what was inaccurate about their reporting; in fact, I encourage you and others to continue give feedback about errors or misleading reports. However, I think a more subtle, diplomatic approach could be more effective than the attack you levied ... which [i]was [/i]a personal attack against those involved in 1) presenting this particular story and 2) those involved in presenting news at CNN.

You may not agree with the story, which is fine, and you may choose to write to CNN to let them know of your disagreement, which I applaud. All I am saying is that in the writing, it might serve to you well to keep in mind that people might be coming from a slightly different perspective than yours and might not be aware of all the resources of which you are aware.

Again, this does not excuse sloppy reporting, but in pointing this out, it is important to be respectful -- even if they are not respectful to that which you hold dear.

[quote]"The media" in general are not for what is right, they are for ratings. There are some good media sources, but the mainstream is not. They push abortion, ssa marriages, etc... [/quote]
You are correct in this statement, and I think we've seen the evidence of this in the spate of news reporters who have been uncovered after having made up stories and sources.

I think my fellow journalists should be taken to task for such shoddiness, both in reporting and in editing, and I am saddened to see that so many are willing to abuse the public trust for the purpose of getting ratings. One of the most recent is at USA Today, in which reporter Jack Kelley was uncovered as having made up or plagiarized several stories in past years. I met Jack on a couple of occasions, and in fact decided to pursue a career in journalism largely due to his example. It saddens me to see this, because I (being an idealist) believe that we as the press have a responsibility to report accurately and fairly that which we see and hear, and to serve as a means of keeping governmental and other entities accountable to the public.

In all honesty, I think the church needs to take a more proactive approach with the media, to gently but firmly encourage ethical behavior and "fair and balanced" reporting by all media outlets. I also think Christians should encourage other Christians who are thinking about entering a media profession to do so, and then to support these people in their careers. It is a difficult and demanding job ... there is a reason so many members of the press are bitter and cynical.

(of course, you know I am a bit biased in my feelings on this ... but at least I'll admit it )