Amy Welborn posts various reactions to Deus Caritas Est. After citing a UK columnist writing of the dripping orthodoxy of the letter, she notes the NYT headline: "Benedict's First Encyclical Shuns Strictures of Orthodoxy."
In the story itself we find this:
Pope Benedict XVI presented Catholicism's potential for good rather than imposing potentially divisive rules for orthodoxy.
A comment in Welborn's post reads:
Here are the topics I saw refuted in the encyclical:
1. Marxism
2. The Culture of Death
3. Misusage/distortion of human sexuality (via eros), to include homosexuality, fornication, abortion, contraception and prostitution
4. Liberation Theology
5. Protestant absolutization of "the flesh profits nothing..."
6. Islamic fundamentalism
7. The idea of a "Church-State"
How anyone could read this and think it is uncontroversial is beyond me, and I don't think I'm reading more into this than was intended.
Amen to that. I guess it's better than yesterday's headline: "Pope Chooses an Uncontroversial Topic for First Encyclical: Love."
While I'm at it, there's a reason Times religion reporting is unfailingly ignorant. In the Feb. 2006 issue of First Things, Fr. Neuhaus reveals:
More than one person at the Times has explained to me that having someone report on a subject with which he is not familiar provides a fresh and unbiased perspective, and makes it more likely his reporting will be readily understood by non-specialists. That is not the policy on really important subjects, mind you, such as science, the Supreme Court, and same-sex marriage. But it will do for religion.
Read tcreek's first comment at Amy's post for two funny stories about what religion reporters don't know.
