CNN's Roland Martin Uses CNN.com Platform to Attack the Pope

Photo of Matthew Balan.
  • Bookmark and Share

On the same day that he attacked the GOP as being "scared of black folks," CNN contributor Roland Martin posted a column on CNN.com in which he proclaimed the "irrelevancy" of Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church, specifically in the context of a recent document that clarified what the Catholic Church teaches about other Christian denominations. He advised non-Catholic Christians that they "shouldn't even bother getting upset" over the recent document issued by the Catholic Church. "Just chalk up to an old man trying to get a little attention," he said of Pope Benedict XVI. Martin also described the Pope as a "hardliner" who was trying to correct interpretations of the Second Vatican Council by liberals, who, in the Pope's view, had gone "too far in some of their declarations." At the same time, he also praised a Catholic priest in Chicago (Martin's current place of residence) who launched a death threat publically against a gun shop owner in a nearby suburb earlier this year.

Martin's column, as described by CNN, "are part of an occasional series of commentaries on CNN.com that offers a broad range of perspectives, thoughts, and points of view." CNN's own past indicates that they probably aren't going to make the "range of perspectives" very broad. When controversy erupted over the Danish Mohammed cartoons in 2006, they took the following stance: "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam." Apparently, the same kind of respect won't be shown to Catholics who might be offended by Roland Martin's column. In their own descriptive for the column, CNN summarizes Martin's viewpoint with the following: "This is evidence of [Pope Benedict's] ego being more important than work of Christ, columnist says."

Martin became a CNN contributor earlier this year, and besides his regular appearances on "American Morning," has written a couple of columns on religion and politics on CNN's website. In the first article on the subject, he criticized Christian conservatives' focus on abortion and homosexuality. In the second, he continued his criticism of pro-life Christians. In both of these articles, Martin identifies himself as a Christian.

In this most recent commentary, Martin gave an account of his background as someone who was "born and raised in the Catholic Church" and was once a "die-hard Catholic." He contrasts the "bland" Catholic parish he grew up in with that of Father Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina parish in Chicago, who "will surely have your soul jumping with his strong sermons and willingness to engage the community to get involved in direct action." However, Martin doesn't mention Father Pfleger's involvement with Jesse Jackson's Rainbow-PUSH Coalition's "direct action" against Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale, Illinois, in which he threatened to "snuff out" the shop's owner. I guess Martin warms up to the Catholic hierarchy when they support left-wing causes.

Martin then spent the second half of his column quoting from Scripture in his criticism of the Pope and the recent document, something that he didn't do in his other columns. He also includes the following lament: "It is these kind of missives by Pope Benedict XVI that do nothing to support or build the community of faith. All it does is divide."

Even with this kind of preaching, Martin's use of terms like "hardliner" and "liberal" in his column demonstrates that he can't escape his liberal viewpoint when writing about religion.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Nothing to fear, only more splintering of the Christian church..

CNN sounds apathetic at the very least about the Pope's recent comments, which is a convincing poker tell. Whenever the media asks the American people not to get upset about something, there must be a larger agenda at work. This is because it betrays the interest of the contemporary media not to stir up controversy. It is my guess that they enjoy seeing the Christians fractured because it leaves a strategic opening for the left.

Furthermore, the apparent inception of a new "Council of Constance" by Pope Benedict comes with poor timing. What the world needs is Christian leadership in the face of virulent Islamic nationalism and what we are getting is vacillation and further attacks on the Christian world.

Well we are still getting the

Well we are still getting the leadership of Jesus Himself as always...and a crucified pope is in very good company...

But is the body of Christ really any different today than it every has been for the last 2000 years? I don't really think so...too bad...

Gay haters unite!

(I apologize for giving Marti

(I apologize for giving Martin more than seven seconds of attention. These stories are just bait to me. I had to read his original article, and it's as bad as I expected.) Altar boys aren’t authorities on church teaching. Martin’s grasp of Catholic teaching is at best, wrong, and at worst, stupid. It isn’t that Catholics deny the authority of scripture. It’s that we respect the authority of bishops as well.

  • The Catholic Church believes that it began with the original apostles. The earliest New Testament writings (Paul’s letters) didn’t start until nearly twenty years later. The first Gospel, by Mark, probably wasn’t written until after 64 AD, a full generation after the original apostles. In fact, it was the bishops who codified the New Testament after the turn of the first century, over seventy years after the original apostles. From the earliest times, the church believed that the authority of the bishops and the authority of the scriptures went hand in hand. From the earliest times, the church taught that the Christian story, and its meaning, wasn’t something individuals could grasp on their own. It was always to be shared within a community, led by the authority of the bishop. That’s why, until relatively recently, the church discouraged people from reading the bible independent of the community, i.e., the mass.
  • Since Vatican II, however, the church came to believe that if individuals respected the authority of the bishops, there was no harm in encouraging reading scripture. In fact, the council acknowledged that our Protestant friends had become much better at reading scripture than we were, and that we needed to improve.
  • Non-Catholics have every right to dispute whether bishops should have the authority that we Catholics say they have. But Roland Martin has no right to misrepresent Catholic teaching and ask us to trust his criticism because of his altar boy authority. 

When Roland Martin claims that the pope is irrelevant because it isn’t scripture, he simply alerts us to his shallowness. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s an altar boy who thought he knew everything when he was just an altar boy. That same arrogance filters through everything else he says and writes. He also thinks he knows everything about politics and life.

KC--I was born in 1962 so I c

KC--I was born in 1962 so I can't speak to how much the Catholic Church discouraged laymen from reading the bible or whether it is a fallacy.  One has to remember that until the last 100 - 150 years, many to most people were illiterate so reading the Bible wasn't an option.

However since Protestants abide by Luther's erroneous teaching that all believers can read and interpret scripture for themselves, it is of little value since they misinterpret so much of scripture.  Just look at John 6:22 - 71 where Christ teaches that man has to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have (spiritual) life.  Christians (Catholics) for 1500 years understood Christ was literal in His teaching here.  Catholics know that Christ was literal in His teaching because He emphasized it (3) times in this chapter to the point that many of His disciples stopped following Him because they were so scandalized. (Jn 6 : 60-66).  Protestants will insist that Christ was speaking symbolically even though all evidence argues against them.

So reading scripture in and of itself is of little benefit if one is interprting it incorrectly.  So to state that Protestants were/are much better at reading scripture is spurious.

Protestants...spurious.

"So to state that Protestants were/are much better at reading scripture is spurious."  What you fail to understand is that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to live within us to "help" us understand scripture.  Jesus also said not to forsake meeting with one another.  I imagine this was to teach and encourage one another.  Many of the New Testament books are written to help us understand the Old Testament and the Gospels.

Again, this is a media site,

Again, this is a media site, so that's an argument I'm going to dodge (mostly). I was just trying to explain why Martin's comment betrays a misunderstanding of why Catholics traditionally didn't read the bible. I will say, however, that Protestant theologians did develop biblical studies (hermeneutics, exegesis, etc.) far more than we did. As far as I'm concerned, good for them, and we're happily profiting from their labors. But again, we Catholics believe that the bible is the bible, and the bishops are the bishops, and both have their role.