The Council of the Media

Richard March Hoe's printing press—six cylinder design, circa 1864

Here we have an excellent video outlying the proper attitude a Catholic should have during these turbulent times. As I have said on my blog before. The pope is human, and we must give him the same charity and grace we would give to any human being. Not every word that falls from his lips is infallible. The Catholic position is to say that a pope only speaks infallibly when he does so ex cathedra. Nevertheless, we are to listen attentively to the Holy Father, and take his magisterial teaching seriously. It may not be perfect, but it is nevertheless important.

The problem of our era is similar to that of the 1960s, and the usual suspects are hard at work again. I am speaking here of the infamous COUNCIL OF THE MEDIA, which Pope Benedict XVI so wisely pointed out to us in his last public address before retiring from the papacy. I cannot stress this enough. Pope Benedict XVI gave us a final teaching before his farewell address, and it was simply this. Beware the COUNCIL OF THE MEDIA. For this is a threat that the Catholic Church has still not yet conquered.

For my traditionalist friends, I must say this. If you believe that all was well in the Church before the Second Vatican Council, you are believing a delusion. In fact, there was a massive problem in the pre-conciliar Church. It had nothing to do with tradition, or doctrine, of course. It was rather the systematic organisation that was making the Church mechanical and superficial. The Church had become more of an institution than an organism, and as a result, unscrupulous men were able to find cracks in the edifice to sneak though. It was in the 1950s and 60s that the Catholic Church first became home to an overwhelming number of homosexual men seeking ordination to the priesthood. At that time, they were still in the closet, but in time, a small minority of them would seek out early-teen boys to pray upon for sexual abuse. As the priest in the video above accurately points out, the expectation in the 1960s was one of 'change', and this was promoted at every corner with the infamous Council of the Media. Everyone expected radical changes with Vatican II; clergy and laity, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Why? Because the Council of the Media said so! It said so in every newspaper article, television report, radio report, and cinema news clip. The Catholic Church was about to radically change its doctrine, or so they said, and people believed it. Because you see, at the time following the Second World War, journalists had the respect of the world, and so it was assumed that if you heard it in the news, it must be true. Little did the public know that within the press corps lie communist moles seeking to spread the 'errors of Russia' upon an unsuspecting Western world. (Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!) The goals of the Soviet Union at that time have since been revealed after the fall of communism in Russia. The KGB concocted a propaganda campaign called 'Seat 12' in which the legacy of Pope Pius XII would be dragged through the mud, with lies and slander, so as to undermine the moral authority of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the Western news media (penetrated by communist moles everywhere) was constantly reporting that the Catholic Church was about to change its moral teaching on sexuality, so as to again undermine the moral authority of the Catholic Church. The communists knew that this was a winning strategy for them. If the moral authority of the Catholic Church could be successfully undermined, many good Catholics would turn away from the faith, while many bad Catholics would take advantage of the situation to further corrupt the Church. This in turn would weaken Western civilisation and prepare it for a communist takeover. It didn't matter whether the moral teaching of the Church actually changed or not. What mattered was that the PERCEPTION of change become commonplace. The Soviets were masters at propaganda, so therefore, the news media (not the Church or the state) was their primary vehicle of dissemination.

Those of you familiar with this blog know that I am a believer in the Marian apparition at Fatima, and as a believer in that apparition, it should be no surprise then why I see a direct connection between the 'errors of Russia' and what Pope Benedict XVI called the 'Council of the Media.' We were amply warned about this, by the Virgin Mary herself, decades in advance! The 'errors of Russia' would spread around the world after the Second World War, and so they did.

So as Pope Benedict XVI taught us, the Council of the Media overshadowed the real Second Vatican Council. The minimal changes foreseen by the conciliar fathers were transformed, by the Council of the Media, into enormous and monumental changes that didn't really exist. Unfortunately, this message was embraced by almost everyone, clergy and laity alike, because you see, the news media said it. In the age of Walter Cronkite, everything the news media said was taken as true because of the enormous respect they had gained following the Second World War. It would be decades (not until the 1990s) before the integrity of the media would be questioned. So the age in which we live, indeed the age I have spent my whole life in, is the age of the media. The Council of the Media rules all, and dictates all 'truth', only as the Council of the Media defines it.

Turn on the "closed caption" feature to read the pope's comments in English.

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were the Catholic Church's only beacons of real truth in all of this. It was their joint witness that gave clarity to the vision of the Second Vatican Council. Were they perfect? Of course not. Was everything they did without error? No. But it was clear, and the lasting effect they had on the Catholic Church gave us a vision of Vatican II that is significantly different from what has materialised in many dioceses throughout the West. We could say that many Catholics today (clergy and laity alike) are influenced more by the Council of the Media than they are influenced by the authentic Second Vatican Council. That however is gradually changing, as we have seen in the last decade, and we will see even more of in the decades ahead.

The curse of sexual abuse, in which we saw its aftermath unfold in the 1990s and early 2000s, is in fact a rather old thing. You'll notice that most of the priests accused of sexual abuse are either dead now or approaching retirement age. These men were ordained in the 1950s through 1970s, at the time when the institutionalism of the Catholic Church was at its greatest. This was the very problem that Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and the conciliar fathers were trying to correct with the Second Vatican Council. It wasn't so much a problem of doctrine. The doctrine of the Church was sound. It wasn't so much a problem of tradition. The tradition of the Church was sound. The problem was that the Church had become too mechanical, too institutional, and as a result, it was allowing dissenters to get into the priesthood by simply jumping through the right hoops. These dissenters are what have brought so much trouble on the Catholic Church in our lifetime. They are dissenters of sound doctrine, sound tradition, and sound Christian virtue -- especially on sexual matters. Their glory days were between the 1950s and 1970s, but since then (thanks to the joint witness of John Paul II and Benedict XVI) their number has radically declined. They are now a geriatric generation, approaching the twilight of their influence, but some of them have ascended to positions of power now. It has been an influence directed more by the Council of the Media than the Second Vatican Council. For as Pope Benedict XVI taught us, the Second Vatican Council has yet to be properly implemented.

To my traditionalist friends, and I do count myself among you, as I am traditionalist of sorts, you are mistaken if you think Vatican II was the cause of the problems in the Church today. Blaming Vatican II is like a farmer who shoots his own dog because some wolf ate one of his sheep. All Vatican II ever sought to do was correct an institutional and mechanical problem. It never sought to change tradition or correct heretical doctrine. This is why both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Paul VI specifically said Vatican II was a 'lower council' than Vatican I and Trent. Unlike those two previous councils, which defined doctrine and condemned heresy, Vatican II was simply intended to be 'pastoral' and correct some smaller institutional problems. It was the Council of the Media that transformed it, and turned it into a 'supercouncil' of some kind, that supposedly alters the Church radically, changing both tradition and doctrine. None of this is true, but the Council of the Media has been so effective that most people believe it's true. My traditionalists friends, our enemy is the Council of the Media, not Vatican II, not the Novus Ordo mass, and certainly not the pope! By attacking the council, the liturgy, and the leadership of the Catholic Church, you give the erroneous Council of the Media what it wants. You play right into the Council of the Media's hands. You marginalise yourselves, divide Catholics, and that is exactly what the Council of the Media intended all along. To my modernist Catholic friends, you have done the same, only in reverse. You have believed the lie that Vatican II was a 'supercouncil', just as our traditionalist brethren did. They only difference is, you embraced it, and then you ostracised your traditional brethren for not going along with you.

We are all being played here! The result of communist infiltration into the media has succeeded far beyond the expectations of old Soviet Russia. Sadly, we all fell into the trap, and even more sadly, we unwittingly helped them accomplish their goal, even long after their evil empire collapsed. It happened because we all believed the lie. The lie was that Vatican II was a 'supercouncil' that abrogated all previous Church tradition, doctrine and councils. Modern Catholics believed it and embraced it. Traditional Catholics believed it and rejected it. But both camps believed it. It's a lie I tell you -- a damned lie! It is HERESY to say that Vatican II changed Church teaching or abrogated Church tradition. Both Paul VI and Benedict XVI said so, and Saint John Paul II showed us through the course of his entire twenty-seven year pontificate. Yet so many of us believed it, and that is why the Church is so divided today.

So here we are, fifty years after the Second Vatican Council, and approaching the upcoming 2015 Ordinary Synod on the Family. While I have pledged not to discuss the inner workings of the synod, I will freely discuss the abuses of the media. It is an abuse that not only affects the upcoming synod, but the Holy Father himself, because you see, it is the media that has seized upon his ambiguous statements to once again promote their agenda. The Council of the Media is back, and in fact, it never left us.

We have to understand how the Council of the Media works. It operates in a very theatrical way. To create the perception of change, whether the change is real or unreal does not matter, it must create a perception of conflict. In order to create this perception of conflict, it must typecast certain figures within the Church. Once a figure is typecast, he remains in that role, insofar as the media will report on him. Whenever the media has to change the role of a figure, it doesn't work so well for them. So it's imperative that the media stick to the typecast role they create for certain figures. The figures of which I speak here are popes. John XXIII and Paul VI were both typecast as liberals, when in fact, they really were not. Yet the Council of the Media wanted people to believe that, in order to foster the conflict and perception of change they wanted. John Paul II was also typecast as a liberal, but his overt orthodoxy became impossible to hide. Later, they tried to re-typecast him as a conservative (something the media considers bad), an opponent to 'change' (something the media considers good), but it didn't work out so well for them, namely because he was already popular and trying to re-create a new media persona is a difficult thing to do. Benedict XVI however was easy. He had already defined himself as staunchly orthodox while Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The media went to work on him instantly upon election, as a 'mean-hearted arch-conservative' and 'enemy of change and all that is good'. Even though this depiction wasn't entirely true. Benedict XVI proved himself to be open to all sorts of change when it was orthodox, and through his pontificate, the greatest ecumenical triumph of all modern history occurred. (I'm speaking of the creation of the personal ordinariates for Anglicans.) However, the media was successful in typecasting Benedict XVI this way, and learnt that in order to be successful they have to stick to their guns. So that is what they did, all the way to end of his pontificate. Even to this very day, years after his retirement, he is still typecast by the media as an 'arch-conservative' and 'enemy of change'. Now we reach Pope Francis, who really does display a lot of openness to change, but that doesn't mean he wants to change doctrine or tradition. In other words, the kind of change Francis appears to want is the kind that stays within the realm of orthodoxy. Nevertheless, the media has typecast him, just as they did with all the rest, but this time they typecast him as a radical liberal, who wants to change EVERYTHING, were it not for those 'evil conservatives like Cardinal Burke' standing in the way.

Do you see how this work folks? It's all a game. It's all theatrics, and it's played out on your television screens, radio stations, and Internet news feeds. No doubt Francis is more liberal than Benedict, but that doesn't mean he's the radical liberal the media makes him out to be. No doubt Benedict was more conservative than John Paul II, but that didn't mean he was the arch-conservative the media made him out to be. This media game of theatrics is one of hyperbole. They take a trait of a man and exaggerate it far beyond what it really is, to the point where the man simply becomes a caricature of himself. It happened to John Paul II, it happened to Benedict XVI, and now it's happening to Francis with unprecedented force. Sure, Pope Francis said 'who am I to judge?' in reference to a gay priest who repented of his homosexual behaviour, but how is this not Catholic? He was only echoing the Catechism. It was the media that cited it out of context, blew it out of proportion, and made it into something else. For it is the same Pope Francis who has on more than one occasion outright condemned the LBGTQ gender theory as 'ideological colonisation' on par with Nazism. I bet you didn't hear about that in the news media! Of course not! Why? Because it doesn't fit the radical liberal caricature the media has moulded for him, and the media has learnt (from John Paul II) that you can't change the narrative in the middle of a papacy when a pope doesn't do what you like. It doesn't work. So their solution is to squelch the 'ideological colonisation' talk, and make sure you (the public) never hear it. Then they'll keep reminding you of the 'who am I to judge?' comment, and never bother to cite its context. Pope Francis is what the media says he is, or at least that's the narrative the media wants you to believe. So the Council of the Media is back, and it's in full swing, ready to dictate the 'facts' to you as they want you to know them.

I think all Catholics (both traditionalist and modernist) have a lot of soul searching to do in the year ahead, because I believe that by Easter of 2016 there will be no room left for division. I don't have any secret knowledge mind you. It's just a hunch. The common sin both traditionalist and modernist Catholics are guilty of is the same sin they both keep committing over and over again. It's the sin of trusting our enemies more than our brethren. The Council of the Media is not our friend. It has lied to us over and over again, for more than fifty years! It told us the Second Vatican Council is something it's not. This gave rise to the heretical 'Spirit of Vatican II' that led to all kinds of liturgical and doctrinal innovations, and simultaneously led the heretical 'Rejection of Vatican II' that spawned to the SSPX and other fundamentalist groups, some of which are schismatic. Mission accomplished for the Council of the Media! The seamless Catholic Church, of the first half of the 20th century, is now ideologically divided, all because both parties (modernists and traditionalists) believed the lie that Vatican II changed Church doctrine and practise. Now the Council of the Media is going into overdrive with Pope Francis and the Synod on the Family, hoping to accomplish the same thing it did in the 1960s and 70s, only on a larger scale. As before, they are leading us all into the expectation of 'change' and it doesn't matter of change happens or not. Or even if change does happen, and it's only a minor change. The Council of the Media will blow it way out or proportion, misreport it, and turn it into something it's not. I'm sure they'll get a little help from the inside too, but as I said in a previous essay, I'm not going to comment on the Synod until after Easter of 2016.

The Council of the Media knows its time is short. Alternate media outlets (like this blog for example), as well as other blogs, Internet media outlets, and social media, are starting to blow their cover. People are beginning to question the media, and Catholics should especially. Every single report about the pope, the synod and the Vatican, that comes out of the mainstream media should be questioned, examined and doubted. They're not our friends. The Council of the Media has done nothing but abuse us for decades. We should never trust them again. Please remember that in the months ahead.



Shane Schaetzel is a published author and columnist for Christian print magazines and online publications. He is a freelance writer and the creator of 'FullyChristian.Com -- The random musings of a Catholic in the Ozarks.'

Catholicism for Protestants

Please share this story. Social media links provided below for your convenience... 


TantamErgo said…
What do you mean by Easter 2016? Does that have something to do with Fatima, I thought that was 2017