Citizen Journal Blog

Here in New York City secularists are agitated over coverage of the Pope and his funeral, which has been an extraordinary show of strength for the Catholic Church and people whose faith is a driving force in their lives. By most measures, though, coverage at the Vatican has been respectful (Christopher Hitchens� article was one exception) and those who recoiled at the Pope and his teachings have, at worst, avoided comment on the spectacle. WNYC (an NPR outlet in the city) tends to give a fair read of the left�s temperature, and for the past few days, the Pope�s death has muffled the most outspoken church-haters. MORE

But they�re simmering and for the Church, the free pass is just about over. Having paid their dues with weeklong restraint, my guess � just a guess � is that by Monday or so, the sneering left will turn their bullhorns back toward the Church, always a favorite target. Media coverage will shift to the College of Cardinals and with that will come an Abu Ghirab-like apoplexy over Cardinal Law and priest sex abuse; calls for a �progressive� Pope; and eye-rolling over traditional teachings. In other words, back to normal.

(The Church certainly deserves some criticism. My friend Kevin Whelan (a Bostonian) is asking questions about Cardinal Law and why he's at the Vatican, rather than in jail.)

I think the succession process will ultimately project tradition and strength and enhance the Church's standing, regardless of which continent the new Pope comes from. But media watchers should pay attention over the next few weeks because the left will have its media back, and you bet they're ready to roll.

Replies: 7 Comments

Posted by: scooter On Monday, April 11th

"A fiction," I said. "At last you understand," you said.

That sounds like denying they exist!

Posted by: Publicus On Monday, April 11th

Scooter, I never questioned whether church-hating exists. I asked to know who exactly qualified, and why. A general designation of "church-hater" is too vague to agree or disagree with. I asked to know more.

You have a habit of mistakenly characterizing my positions and then arguing based on the error. Just FYI.

Posted by: scooter On Monday, April 11th

Seems to me, Publicus that you're ignoring the elephant in the living room. "neglecting to mention whose the opinion is" -- how about the people one meets, particularly in NYC - do you want a list? If you debate whether "church-hating" exists, you're wasting your time - of course there are people who hate the RCC. If you don't believe it, stop by Union Square in NYC one afternoon and hold up a sign saying you're trying to recruit priests. You'll have your list, and fast.

Posted by: Publicus On Sunday, April 10th

I'm still waiting to know who the church haters are. Scooter seems at last to understand (wat to go!) the technique used so widely here, that of classifying a faceless enemy without naming him on order to characterize his opinion while simultaneously neglecting to mention whose the opinion is, and where that opinion can be found. There may indeed be church haters, but in the absence of a specific identity, it seems we are to conclude they're common and lurking just outside our vision. It's a time-tested way to stir up passion, so perhaps it's intended that way.

Posted by: scooter On Sunday, April 10th

Just a straw man, Publicus. I'm sure it's a fiction.

Posted by: Aaron On Saturday, April 9th

Way to characterize anyone who disagrees with the church as hating it. That's just simple right-wing exaggeration right there... and it's kind of funny becauase you take all sorts of time to insult those people, and then parenthetically mention that they have a good point... so wait, which is it? I think you'd like to have your cake and eat it too: "The church may not be infallible, but all those OTHER guys disagreeing with it, what a bunch of church-haters!"

Posted by: Publicus On Saturday, April 9th

Who are the "church-haters?"

CJ's Bloggers

At the Turn