“John Allan may be flaming, but he sure isn’t liberal! He’s the CNN correspondent to the Vatican and he wrote a slavishly fawning biography of Ratzinger and another one on Opus Dei.”
You’re out of touch to say the least. John Allen’s liberal views are well known. He ONLY routinely works for liberal outlets for instance. Also, about his supposedly “fawning” biography of Ratzinger:
“In 2000, Allen published a biography titled Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vatican’s Enforcer of the Faith. Several reviewers criticized this book for being biased as it often took an anti-Ratzinger stance. Joseph Komonchak, for example, called his writing “Manichaean journalism.” After some examination, Allen concluded that these criticisms were valid. As a result, in his next biography of the same man, The Rise of Benedict XVI: The Inside Story of How the Pope Was Elected and Where He Will Take the Catholic Church (2005), Allen tried to be fair to all sides and viewpoints. Allen acknowledged that his first book was “unbalanced” because it was his first book, and was written, he says, “before I arrived in Rome and before I really knew a lot about the universal church.” The book “gives prominent voice to criticisms of Ratzinger; it does not give equally prominent voice to how he himself would see some of these issues.”” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Allen,_Jr.
Thus, he himself admitts his first book on Ratzinger was biased while he got things balanced for the second time around. I don’t think you have a clue as to what you’re talking about.
And about his book on Opus Dei:
“Allen stated that one of his reasons for writing Opus Dei: An Objective Look Behind the Myths and Reality of the Most Controversial Force in the Catholic Church (2005) was that he felt that liberal and conservative Catholics were too often shouting at each other, and he hoped that a book that tried to be fair to all sides would lead to civilized discussion rather than rancor. Allen has been called by John Romanowsky of Godspy as having an objectivity that is “maddening.””
So, the very intent of the book was to dispell myths and to be OBJECTIVE - which means he had to seriously restrain himself from his own tendencies!
“Your misdirection is a great example of the RCC again re-defining words and ideas and hoping no one will notice.”
I did nothing that could even be remotely called misdirection. I was right on the facts - you weren’t. And I frankly don’t care what you “notice” but it would be great if you attempted, ATTEMPTED, to be objective on ANYTHING but your prejudices apparently won’t allow that.
As I said, Roman Catholic apologists habitually misdirect.