And then I'd like to highlight the comments from a Lutheran friend of mine. She wrote:

1) there is a difference between becoming "good" (which the pope did not say) and doing a "good" thing. 2) No one can be saved without faith (see their catechism #161); 3) There is all the difference in the world between those redeemed by the blood of Christ (everyone, not even just those with good works) and those to whom the redemption is applied--an article we Lutherans share. To quote [Catholic friend] "Nor can an atheist be saved precisely insofar as they are atheists; rather, insofar as they reject God, they are rejecting that redemption.  But today's atheist is potentially tomorrow's believer." Also, what is perhaps more disturbing is the implicit assumption of the articles that whatever the writer defines as "good" actually is good, when the popeexplicitlysays that he wants to work with atheists towards fighting for human dignity. I'm about 99% sure that the Huff Po. guys missed the part where abortion is an assault on human dignity.

Second, I'd like to point out what my boss Terry Mattingly wrote over at GetReligion in a post headlined

Yes, Pope Francis said: All are ‘redeemed!’ Is that news?

So, let’s repeat the theological “nut ‘graph” in this journalism class.

The pope said all are redeemed through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Check.

The pope said that it is important to recognize that all can do good and, thus, to move closer to God — even if they are not believers. Check.

Did the pope, to be blunt, say that hell is empty, that all have chosen to accept the redemption offered by Jesus Christ? Did he say that no one has chosen to remove themselves from the cleansing fire of God’s love? No check.

Was this sermon worthy of coverage? You bet. However, it helps if reporters interview a source or two, or three (these are ultra-complex issues) who understand Catholic tradition and thought.

I have more thoughts on this but the first thing to remember about papal media coverage is that it is almost always wrong.

If I might quote a friend:

"Nothing he said in his Wednesday homily contradicts Dominus Iesus. First off, he was not speaking about other faiths, he was speaking of those with no faith.  As Fr Z reports: Moreover, Francis was clear that whatever graces are offered to atheists (such that they may be saved) are from Christ.  He was clear that salvation is only through Christ’s Sacrifice.  In other words, he is not suggesting – and I think some are taking it this way – that you can be saved, get to heaven, without Christ."

This is in response to the initial claims that Francis wasn't reaching out to atheists so much as being a universalist.

You wouldn't know that from her media coverage. Despite being smaller than my church body (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod), ECUSA gets tons and tons more media coverage. Much of it quite friendly.

I'm a huge fan of Janelle Monae's videos. I think Tightrope is my favorite:

I'm already a huge fan of Dolby but you're right that this is an undervalued song. How about Aliens Ate My Buick? One of my desert island albums.

I spoke too soon!

Here's what we can assume happened at yesterday's messaging meeting (via John McCormack):

Josh Marshall (10:15a.m.): Lerner Must Go http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/she_has_to_go.php … Ezra Klein (9:45a.m.): Heads should roll at IRS http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/22/yes-heads-should-roll-at-the-irs/ …

Wheels on the bus go round and round! White House wants Lerner out.

And to think she was so very good at harassing people for their religious views!

I'm going to ask the suits to explain it, since I'm not technical, but we were notified of something along these lines that was to take place during our least busy hours (early AM today). And that went fine, but there was some debris left over when they finished and it caused some problems.

I was actually having trouble loading many pages and that's all been cleaned up -- but the alerts are buggy. I assume it's related to the work done above but I'll report it and make sure.

I do apologize for the frustrations and problems ...

She had same position at FEC as at IRS -- head of the enforcement division. It was under her authority that the FEC launched the onerous investigation of the Christian Coalition.

This exchange was just a small part of that investigation, which was wide-ranging.

What do you think are the challenges?

That's where I am, too. Of course, one way you can tell I'm a libertarian is that I'm far less interested in talking about the government's role in all of this than I am in people living virtuously without government coercion.

I was baptized into Christ when I was 3 weeks old. Lutherans emphasize baptism as the means by which we are brought into the faith, and we remember it daily and Luther wrote that we make the sign of the cross to remember this.

In fact, we tend to distrust emotional feelings of being saved as  opposed to objective things we can point to (e.g., I was baptized on this date and the Bible says baptism saves me, etc.).

I do remember dating a Mormon and him telling me to do that thing where I pray for God to show me that Mormonism was true. It didn't work. I remember wondering if that worked for a lot of people.

Also, it made me see some of the similarities between LDS approaches and others that arose from the burntover movements.

Now having said all that, I have had moments of religious ecstasy as well as inexplicable comfort. I've also had an experience of otherworldly evil ...

Which made it surprisingly hard for a logical fanatic such as myself to get fully into unbelief!

It's such a laughable idea that people would create more work for themselves because they were overworked. Laughable. But it gave the New York Times enough of an excuse to drop journalistic curiosity, so maybe I'm the foolish one ...

I'm surprised by how openly my scientist friends acknowledge that they research climate mostly because that's where the money is. One told me he had to figure out a tie between what he really wanted to study and climate and that if he didn't, he would never be able to study it.

Stem cell research is another obvious one. It turns out that embryonic-destroying stem cell research has been something of a bust while regular stem cell research that doesn't destroy other human beings holds great promise. But remember how California, flush with so much cash, decided to fund an ESCR to the tune of millions of dollars?

The other obvious area is anything dealing with sexuality. You'll notice that studies about, say, health effects of homosexuality disappear about 20 years ago. If they crop up again, they say things radically different. If your studies show anything negative about homosexuality that can't be spun as a result of homophobia, good luck keeping your job, much less getting funding! It won't happen. Only an idiot would actually try to research that issue independently and without a pre-determined agenda.

That's exactly right. I save some of what i want to say for engaging readers in the comments.

And there's nothing wrong with writing a post designed to generate comments. I mean, that's what we are -- a conversation site. We want the conversation and that's what makes us successful.

I like it in part because it's such a different style of writing than what I typically get to do as a journalist -- which usually means I just lay something out as dryly and fairly as possible under deadline pressure and word count limits.

TL;DR.

Just kidding.

As counterintuitive as it seems, and there are definitely exceptions to this rule, we've found that the shorter the original post, the lengthier the conversation.

It's kind of humiliating, actually, to spend all this time on a brilliant essay and get 0-5 responses. Then you post a silly picture or YouTube video or write a 1-sentence post and you're wrangling a 300+comment thread.

But them's the shakes.