Notice how this article completely skips over the more controversial side of his legacy:
1) In a statement made during a visit to Singapore in 2024, Pope Francis remarked, "All religions are paths to God," likening them to different languages leading to the same divine source. He elaborated by saying, "There is only one God, and religions are like languages, paths to reach God. Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian."
2) Pope Francis made notable strides toward LGBTQ+ inclusion, including approving blessings for same-sex couples in 2023 through the declaration Fiducia Supplicans this after his own Cardinals tried to nail him down on his beliefs in these areas which he refused to answer.
3) In 2024, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was excommunicated for schism after publicly denying the legitimacy of Pope Francis and rejecting the Second Vatican Council. Similarly, in 2023, Bishop Joseph Strickland of Texas was removed from his position after accusing the Pope of undermining Church doctrine.
4) In 2023, the Vatican, under Pope Francis's leadership, issued guidance allowing transgender individuals to be baptized and serve as godparents, provided it wouldn't cause scandal. This move was seen as a step toward greater inclusion of transgender within the Church.
Pope Francis's legacy isn’t just about progressive reforms — it’s about the divisiveness those reforms created within the body of the Catholic Church. He arguably did more to alienate traditional Catholics than any pope in living memory, and that tension is still reverberating.
Notice that when describing the legacy of someone who has just passed away, it is poor form to make disparaging remarks about the person. Nobody is perfect. Worse than that, we are all sinners.
While you are correct that nobody is perfect, with someone as influential as the pope I think it’s completely appropriate to mention aspects of his career that were harmful to Christianity.
Further, World is not taking its stand to live up to their motto of "Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth" - there is a responsibility here to recount those things which were positive and negative. The Biblical truth of the matter is that Francis was way off mark from Scripture.
Because it is uncivil to disparage someone immediately after their death has been announced. Save the negative remarks for later.
I'm not saying that the truth and facts should not be made known, debated, or discussed. Nor are good manners and being polite always the top priority. But these days a general lack of civility is a huge problem, especially on social media and in online forums. People are tearing each other apart, and being crass and rude for no good reason.
In addition to being expected to share the facts accurately, good journalists maintain a high level of professionalism. I believe that is what WORLD is doing here. The life and legacy of the deceased can be examined, dissected, and inspected later. There will be plenty of time and opportunity for that, until Christ returns.
so you're saying the other World article that does mention both his positive and negative deeds is uncivil? The article by Al Mohler?
The one that says "His 12-year papacy was marked by continual controversy" and "Francis will go down in history as the pope of liberal gesture—the vicar of equivocation." and "You just have to wonder if somewhere in Rome a stonemason is carving a new memorial stone with the words, 'Who am I to judge?'"
This article we are discussing is a news article, published in World's daily news summary, The Sift, under the category of Faith & Religion, soon after the death of the Pope. It follows the conventions of publishing news about the death of a prominent person: outlining the basic facts, and briefly listing the accomplishments of the person.
Mohler's piece was published under World Opinions, under the category of Faith & Religion, the next day. It is not a news article. It's an opinion piece, or editorial. It is not a news article. They are not the same type of writing, and do not have the same purposes.
Good journalism distinguishes between news reporting and opinion pieces. Bad journalism seeks to stir up emotions, cause controversy, distort the facts, etc.
So outlining facts means skipping over all the negative ones then? Or is that "bad journalism?"
"Bad journalism" as you call it seeks to "distort the facts" - which is also akin to omitting or downplaying the facts and so therefore from your own definition is "bad journalism."
KDON9307
Sadly, he has been at the front of leading the Catholic church even further astray. Trying to appease the world never works for a church.
Notice how this article completely skips over the more controversial side of his legacy:
1) In a statement made during a visit to Singapore in 2024, Pope Francis remarked, "All religions are paths to God," likening them to different languages leading to the same divine source. He elaborated by saying, "There is only one God, and religions are like languages, paths to reach God. Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian."
2) Pope Francis made notable strides toward LGBTQ+ inclusion, including approving blessings for same-sex couples in 2023 through the declaration Fiducia Supplicans this after his own Cardinals tried to nail him down on his beliefs in these areas which he refused to answer.
3) In 2024, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was excommunicated for schism after publicly denying the legitimacy of Pope Francis and rejecting the Second Vatican Council. Similarly, in 2023, Bishop Joseph Strickland of Texas was removed from his position after accusing the Pope of undermining Church doctrine.
4) In 2023, the Vatican, under Pope Francis's leadership, issued guidance allowing transgender individuals to be baptized and serve as godparents, provided it wouldn't cause scandal. This move was seen as a step toward greater inclusion of transgender within the Church.
Pope Francis's legacy isn’t just about progressive reforms — it’s about the divisiveness those reforms created within the body of the Catholic Church. He arguably did more to alienate traditional Catholics than any pope in living memory, and that tension is still reverberating.
Notice that when describing the legacy of someone who has just passed away, it is poor form to make disparaging remarks about the person. Nobody is perfect. Worse than that, we are all sinners.
While you are correct that nobody is perfect, with someone as influential as the pope I think it’s completely appropriate to mention aspects of his career that were harmful to Christianity.
and we are all accountable for our actions...
Further, World is not taking its stand to live up to their motto of "Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth" - there is a responsibility here to recount those things which were positive and negative. The Biblical truth of the matter is that Francis was way off mark from Scripture.
Those negative aspects are detailed in another World opinions article: https://wng.org/opinions/the-death-of-pope-francis-1745251908
okay then - why not here...
Because it is uncivil to disparage someone immediately after their death has been announced. Save the negative remarks for later.
I'm not saying that the truth and facts should not be made known, debated, or discussed. Nor are good manners and being polite always the top priority. But these days a general lack of civility is a huge problem, especially on social media and in online forums. People are tearing each other apart, and being crass and rude for no good reason.
In addition to being expected to share the facts accurately, good journalists maintain a high level of professionalism. I believe that is what WORLD is doing here. The life and legacy of the deceased can be examined, dissected, and inspected later. There will be plenty of time and opportunity for that, until Christ returns.
so you're saying the other World article that does mention both his positive and negative deeds is uncivil? The article by Al Mohler?
The one that says "His 12-year papacy was marked by continual controversy" and "Francis will go down in history as the pope of liberal gesture—the vicar of equivocation." and "You just have to wonder if somewhere in Rome a stonemason is carving a new memorial stone with the words, 'Who am I to judge?'"
This article we are discussing is a news article, published in World's daily news summary, The Sift, under the category of Faith & Religion, soon after the death of the Pope. It follows the conventions of publishing news about the death of a prominent person: outlining the basic facts, and briefly listing the accomplishments of the person.
Mohler's piece was published under World Opinions, under the category of Faith & Religion, the next day. It is not a news article. It's an opinion piece, or editorial. It is not a news article. They are not the same type of writing, and do not have the same purposes.
Good journalism distinguishes between news reporting and opinion pieces. Bad journalism seeks to stir up emotions, cause controversy, distort the facts, etc.
So outlining facts means skipping over all the negative ones then? Or is that "bad journalism?"
"Bad journalism" as you call it seeks to "distort the facts" - which is also akin to omitting or downplaying the facts and so therefore from your own definition is "bad journalism."
Sadly, he has been at the front of leading the Catholic church even further astray. Trying to appease the world never works for a church.
It never works for a Christian either. No man can serve two masters.
May he rest in peace.