The TV Coverage
The only 24-hour news channel I get is MSNBC, so I see everything with respect to the Pope's trials through their eyes. A few thoughts:
1. Yes, I get it: some Americans (& American Catholics) think the Pope is a hidebound conservative on all things sexual. The MSNBC people keep trying to get one of their guests to say as such. The catch is that the guest is Fr. Owen Kearns, LC, of the uber-orthodox National Catholic Register. He keeps artfully dodging the question, talking about how much the Pope loved America, etc. I can only assume that they confused the Register with the more well-known and more liberal National Catholic Reporter, though I suspect that even they wouldn't've given them the kind of red meat they so clearly crave. (It's not just MSNBC, it seems.)
2. There's a risk that, in an attempt to praise the current Pope, we'll accidentally defame his predecessors and setting impossibly high standards for his successors. A lot of the "man on the street" commentary has basically amounted to saying that the Pope was great because he was "for us", that he loved the laity and didn't just "sit in the Vatican issuing orders". (NOTE: not exact quotes.) These are indeed admirable qualities in the man, but they're not necessary attributes of a Pontiff. It's surely no knock on John XXIII or Pius XII that they basically never left Italy. Nor would it be a legitimate criticism of John Paul II's successor if he doesn't visit 100+ countries or celebrate outdoor Masses with millions of congregants.
1. Yes, I get it: some Americans (& American Catholics) think the Pope is a hidebound conservative on all things sexual. The MSNBC people keep trying to get one of their guests to say as such. The catch is that the guest is Fr. Owen Kearns, LC, of the uber-orthodox National Catholic Register. He keeps artfully dodging the question, talking about how much the Pope loved America, etc. I can only assume that they confused the Register with the more well-known and more liberal National Catholic Reporter, though I suspect that even they wouldn't've given them the kind of red meat they so clearly crave. (It's not just MSNBC, it seems.)
2. There's a risk that, in an attempt to praise the current Pope, we'll accidentally defame his predecessors and setting impossibly high standards for his successors. A lot of the "man on the street" commentary has basically amounted to saying that the Pope was great because he was "for us", that he loved the laity and didn't just "sit in the Vatican issuing orders". (NOTE: not exact quotes.) These are indeed admirable qualities in the man, but they're not necessary attributes of a Pontiff. It's surely no knock on John XXIII or Pius XII that they basically never left Italy. Nor would it be a legitimate criticism of John Paul II's successor if he doesn't visit 100+ countries or celebrate outdoor Masses with millions of congregants.
<< Home