When a Headline Engineers Outrage [it must be LifeSite News]
The facts they left out, the framing they chose, and the story readers weren’t supposed to see
LieSite News is at it again! In a post on 𝕏 they claimed Pope Leo ‘scandalously’ “approved beatification for bishop who admitted to ‘lying down naked’ with youth”
The article executes a classic bait-and-switch, shifting from “approved beatification” to “…beatification process” And if the post on 𝕏 tells a deceptive tale, the article is where the real treasure of journalistic scandal is found—in LSN’s reporting
No time to pretty this up, kids, so I’m just going to paste what I wrote on 𝕏 and maybe I’ll have a more technical reaction piece later. Here’s my response, followed by my conclusion
(The post, and the text—slightly refined—are found below):
1).Contrary to LSN’s post, he’s not beatified.
2) The title “Venerable” is because of the offering of his life. It’s basically de facto recognition. It doesn’t mean he’ll be beatified. Many “Venerables” never advance to beatification.
3) LSN lies to you in the post by saying “approved BEATIFICATION”. Then they only slightly refine it in the piece (classic bait-and-switch...and dishonest) by changing it to “...approved beatification PROCESS. A different thing altogether, and yet both claims are still deceptive and innacurate.
Regarding the creepy writings by the bishop.
I don’t have the book in front of me. Neither do you. We’re forced to rely on interpretations and trust quotes from basically two sites, LSN and InfoVaticana (they seem like Spain’s version of “LSN”). That’s it. Two sources, one echoing the other, and everybody else echoing them both. There are no other independent origins to reference, so readers are forced to trust what LSN and InfoVaticana (who are echoing EACH OTHER) are saying.
The book is not new, it just newly resurfaced. You’d think there’d be a lot more reporting about its contents from reputable Catholic news sources. But let’s assume LSN is directly quoting, and accurately representing the bishop’s writings.
What the bishop recounts in those writings is definitely creepy. Cultural in that region? Probably. I mean it’s the Amazon. Acceptable? Maybe for them, but not for the priest, in my view. Sinful? He claims in his writings that it wasn’t. That doesn’t make it okay. I’m not trying to defend that. BUT...
LSN weaponizes these accounts in order to diminish Pope Leo and, by extension, his pontificate. They want to be seen as the authority shining the light, not the dark and untrustworthy Vatican/Pope. The post and piece aren’t framed as “a scandalous bishop/priest who is made Venerable,” rather it’s framed as a bad Pope who is “beatifying” him (which is not the case).
Notably absent from their reporting (Classic for LifeSite News) is that this missionary bishop was murdered trying to make friendly contact with hostile people who were well-known for killing outsiders. He was going there to negotiate their relocation to protect them from oil company mercenaries planning to exterminate them. Does this erase the “creepy” of those writings? No. But it tells you a fuller story of who he was. So we aren’t told why he’s declared “Venerable.” We’re only told or signaled that he’s ‘being beatified’ “scandalously” by the Holy Father, despite these suspicious (and creepy, if accurate) writings.
I’m not defending what’s in those writings, believe me. But this is exactly what LSN wants—they want you to focus on the creepy writings so that their smearing of Pope Leo is effective. They don’t want you to see past the grift.
A friend called them “LieSite News” a couple of years ago, and honestly it’s just so fitting that I exclusively refer to them that way now.
This is the kind of emotionalized, unreasoned, and reactive Catholic “LieSite” News and their magical Bullshit Machine is forming. You wonder why I warn people about them?
It’s for reasons like this that I started The Forge.