Archbishop Chaput uses "Alternate Facts" to attack marchers?

[Martinius]

The March for Life in year 44

In his weekly column, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia condemned angry anti-Trump marchers. His very first sentence was:

"Since Inauguration Day critics of Donald Trump have marched, rioted, verbally abused and in some cases viciously assaulted their opponents on a scale previously unseen."

WHAT???

Now, there were some problems, including vandalism, on Inauguration Day, and on the day before. But the next day, AFTER the Inauguration, the Women's March was described as one of the most peaceful ever in Washington. I could not find any reports of any fights, vandalism, or rioting. At least not by the women and their friends. Then I thought he was referring to Thursday, when Trump was in Philadelphia to meet with Congressional Republicans. But the news sources I checked said there were NO arrests, no problems other than a shoving match by a couple of people, and only one civil citation issued.

So what is Chaput talking about? What alternative universe is he in? Perhaps he was recalling some of the tussles that occurred at Trump rallies, but that was BEFORE the inauguration. There has been no rioting, no vicious assaults by marchers in the past week. Even Fox News didn't report any. And then to say it has been "on a scale previously unseen" is totally false. It doesn't even qualify to be labeled "alternative truths".

I am just amazed that a Catholic Archbishop would lie so blatantly, when the whole world can see he is wrong.

 

[Hank77]

The March for Life in year 44

In his weekly column, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia condemned angry anti-Trump marchers. His very first sentence was:

"Since Inauguration Day critics of Donald Trump have marched, rioted, verbally abused and in some cases viciously assaulted their opponents on a scale previously unseen."

WHAT???

Now, there were some problems, including vandalism, on Inauguration Day, and on the day before. But the next day, AFTER the Inauguration, the Women's March was described as one of the most peaceful ever in Washington. I could not find any reports of any fights, vandalism, or rioting. At least not by the women and their friends. Then I thought he was referring to Thursday, when Trump was in Philadelphia to meet with Congressional Republicans. But the news sources I checked said there were NO arrests, no problems other than a shoving match by a couple of people, and only one civil citation issued.

So what is Chaput talking about? What alternative universe is he in? Perhaps he was recalling some of the tussles that occurred at Trump rallies, but that was BEFORE the inauguration. There has been no rioting, no vicious assaults by marchers in the past week. Even Fox News didn't report any. And then to say it has been "on a scale previously unseen" is totally false. It doesn't even qualify to be labeled "alternative truths".

I am just amazed that a Catholic Archbishop would lie so blatantly, when the whole world can see he is wrong.

Maybe he is remembering the rioting after election day and before Inauguration Day?

 

[Martinius]

Maybe he is remembering the rioting after election day and before Inauguration Day?

That's what it sounded like to me. But he definitely says 'since'. And I don't get his hyperbole about rioting and assaults 'on a scale previously unseen'. I can send him a whole list of riots and assaults if he wants, none having to do with Trump. Who does he think he's fooling?

 

[Hank77]

That's what it sounded like to me. But he definitely says 'since'. And I don't get his hyperbole about rioting and assaults 'on a scale never before seen'. Who does he think he's fooling?

I don't remember this kind of response to any election before either. What are you referring to?

 

[Martinius]

I don't remember this kind of response to any election before either. What are you referring to?

I wasn't referring to election riots. I was thinking more about riots, vandalism and such that have occurred at various marches and protests of various kinds over the years.

 

[pdudgeon]

maybe he was ill when writing, and had a deadline to make.
I've seen other recent examples of mistaken writing caused by illness, so this could be just another case.

 

[Davidnic]

There was 277 arrests, various assaults, and police put in the hospital on inauguration day and violence at other demonstrations. If he is using not seen as in not in living memory he is factually right. 1855 would be the only other comparable election related violence I can think of with the know nothings when they killed 22 Catholics. Which is out of living memory.

 

[Martinius]

There was 277 arrests, various assaults, and police put in the hospital on inauguration day and violence at other demonstrations. If he is using not seen as in not in living memory he is factually right. 1855 would be the only other comparable election related violence I can think of with the know nothings when they killed 22 Catholics. Which is out of living memory.

The issues you mention occurred on Inauguration Day, not "since", as Chaput states. He also did not specifically limit his comparison to other inaugurations. His statement makes it sound like he is saying it is the worst violence ever. Not even close.

Perhaps Chaput was just repeating what someone else (Steve Bannon?) told him. Or that he was getting his information from Breitbart, rather than the biased media. So I did a search at Breitbart, and the only story about riots or violence was about Inauguration day itself. Not "since". Nothing. Not even when Trump was in Chaput's neighborhood of Philadelphia. I would hope that Chaput would publish a retraction, admitting that he was incorrect, or that he mis-spoke, or was mis-informed. To not do so will greatly tarnish his credibility.

 

[Armoured]

The March for Life in year 44

In his weekly column, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia condemned angry anti-Trump marchers. His very first sentence was:

"Since Inauguration Day critics of Donald Trump have marched, rioted, verbally abused and in some cases viciously assaulted their opponents on a scale previously unseen."

WHAT???

Now, there were some problems, including vandalism, on Inauguration Day, and on the day before. But the next day, AFTER the Inauguration, the Women's March was described as one of the most peaceful ever in Washington. I could not find any reports of any fights, vandalism, or rioting. At least not by the women and their friends. Then I thought he was referring to Thursday, when Trump was in Philadelphia to meet with Congressional Republicans. But the news sources I checked said there were NO arrests, no problems other than a shoving match by a couple of people, and only one civil citation issued.

So what is Chaput talking about? What alternative universe is he in? Perhaps he was recalling some of the tussles that occurred at Trump rallies, but that was BEFORE the inauguration. There has been no rioting, no vicious assaults by marchers in the past week. Even Fox News didn't report any. And then to say it has been "on a scale previously unseen" is totally false. It doesn't even qualify to be labeled "alternative truths".

I am just amazed that a Catholic Archbishop would lie so blatantly, when the whole world can see he is wrong.

Well, what's more important? Facts? Or pandering to misogynists and armchair martyrs?

 

[Davidnic]

Since includes the day. "I have been without a mother since July 4th, 1984" Includes the day itself.

 

[Martinius]

Since includes the day. "I have been without a mother since July 4th, 1984" Includes the day itself.

David, come on. Even if he included that, Archbishop's statement is still false, or at the minimum an exaggeration. Using the word "since" implies that he thinks that riots and vicious assaults are continuing. Simply not true. However you interpret what he said, it is totally unworthy of someone in his position.

 

[Martinius]

maybe he was ill when writing, and had a deadline to make.
I've seen other recent examples of mistaken writing caused by illness, so this could be just another case.

Don't you think this is just a little farfetched? And there is always an editor who will review the column before it is published. No, he meant to say what he said, and I have to believe that until he corrects or retracts his words.

 

[Davidnic]

I think the Archbishop is getting a bad rap here. Obviously he is talking about the violence starting on Inauguration day and the invective that continues. Comments like he is pandering or lying in favor of Trump neglect the fact that he was one of Trumps first opponents on Immigration.

Trump's immigration plan undermines American identity, Archbishop Chaput says

And during the campaign he came under fire by conservatives for saying neither candidate was really a good choice.

 

[Fantine]

Let's be charitable.

Maybe he just listens to stations that promote "alternative facts" and repeated them.

I know two people who attended the Washington march and many who attended a march in our state capitol, and they described them in very positive terms.