Not a word about the presentation by Fr. Corapi. Instead, the spin is from the angle of how they're all rolling in ashes in their sackcloths over their pillars of their 'church' being told the teachings of the authentic Church.
This is a fun twist:
The conference came one day after Pope Benedict XVI said he would consider giving women more positions of responsibility in the church, but that women could never be priests. The Vatican also has rejected calls to let women serve as deacons.
The reporter was running around trying to find Chicken Soup for the Souls of women with inferiority complexes.
Where's all the quotes from the speakers like they did for the Voice of the Faithful Conference?
A surprisingly disrespectful piece about our teachings from Marie Szanislo. I thought she had more integrity than this:
"Catholic leader: Men rule roost and you gals"
Other than for the caveman spin, she got a few great quotes:
Men are the ‘‘natural” heads of their families and should persuade their wives to give up birth control, quit their jobs and home-school their children, a keynote speaker at the annual Boston Catholic Men’s Conference said yesterday.
(Note the natural in quotation marks!)
‘‘The first thing we have to do is get you off the birth control,” Sean Forrest instructed his audience of 5,000 men to tell their wives.
Forrest accused ‘‘feminist women in the church” of ‘‘watering down” its teachings on such issues, noting that 10 percent of women who hear him speak ‘‘get up in a huff and call me a sexist pig.”
‘‘I say, ‘You’ll be back,’ ” he said, sending ripples of laughter through the all-male audience.
5000 men gave Forrest a standing ovation.
I'm sure that the speakers mentioned the poison the secular schools are feeding children as the reason for all of the above.
This isn't about making women barefoot and pregnant to boost testosterone. It's about really Protecting God's Children. Genuinely protecting them.
With close to ten thousand people gathered up in a conference listening to speakers - what does the Boston Globe headline?
If the bishops halt gay adoptions by Catholic Charities, the United Way board will seriously review continued funding, said Bellows. Like many of today's philanthropic groups, United Way requires affiliated agencies to sign pacts that they will be open to accepting everyone regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, among other factors.
I guess the "everyone" they "accept" doesn't include Catholics.
As of late last week, it was unclear whether the agency was continuing to accept gays who apply to be adoptive parents.
How could it be unclear? You ask, they tell. What's the secret? Where's the transparency?
But late last week, when asked whether a gay applicant would be accepted, they declined to give a yes or no answer.
That's progress. The good old days of in your face public defiance have come to a halt.
''We're working to fulfill our responsibility to civil society and the church," said Reynolds, who declined to elaborate further.
We're down to the transparency of ambuguity.
One of the former board members, who asked to remain anonymous to avoid antagonizing the church further, said ''the bishops were warned" that alienating the board may affect the agency's fund-raising, but church officials did not seem moved by this factor.
It's a miracle!!!!
Here's a shockeroo:
John Shaughnessy Sr., a board member regarded by his colleagues as one of the most conservative members, voted in favor of allowing Catholic Charities to continue gay adoptions, but said he did not want to do anything to undermine the agency's humanitarian mission.
What happened to him?
In an interview before the board's meeting on Tuesday, he said he wants to support Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley, who he said ''exudes holiness" and has no choice but to go along with the Vatican's ban on gay adoptions. ''He can't make his own calls on this," Shaughnessy said.
There's your answer.
The Bishop, spun it as though the Vatican was wrong but he had no choice in the matter, confusing the teachings of the Church, exuding his personal holiness.
This is fascinating:
Newell Flather, head of Grants Management Associates, a philanthropic advisory firm, said that corporations and foundations, especially those helping the disadvantaged, shy away from giving to programs that appear to favor one group over another.
How do you explain favoring everyone but Catholics?
No shying away from discrmination there.
Anyone see anything in the Globe about the Men's Conference?
p.s. Thanks for forwarding yesterday's story on women's!