Shock: The MSM Doesn't Like the Pope

The always interesting Hugh Hewitt rounds up the reactions from what he terms the Junior Officers in the "Dictatorship of Relativism."

The best of course comes from the Red Star, also known as the Minneanapolis Star Tribune:

Greater roles for women, a more welcoming posture toward gays and lesbians, and a moderation of views on sexuality, genetic research, euthanasia or contraception to prevent AIDS -- none of these is likely to gain ground under Benedict.

I realize these are all important issues about which people feel passionately about. But a Church is not a sovereign democracy in which people get to vote.

Furthermore, I rather doubt that many of this nitwits are even Catholic, or, if they are Catholic, Catholic in anything other than name, so what the hell is all the fuss about?

The fuss, of course, is that the Church is not just a religious institution. It's an institution which exerts great political influence. "Creeping Papery" and all that jazz.

But it is rather revealing that our "diverse" media cannot view a centuries old spiritual institution, concerned primarily with, you know, salvation and God and Jesus and all that stuff, through any other prism but the nakedly political. The Church exists, in their minds, only to either thwart or advance their domestic material-world agendas. It is just an NGO like Amnesty International, only with weird headdresses and censers and subpar wine.

To be fair, as an agnostic and non-Catholic to boot, that's sort of the way I view the Church, deep down. I'm not religious and I never received Communion and frankly it doesn't really matter to me what the Church might have to say about transubstantiation.

But, you know, I'm just a lowly blogger. One would imagine that these idiots could manage at least the pretense of acknowledging the Church as something more than the Red Cross with Latin lessons.

But. They. Can't.

They will blather on forever about making their newsrooms "look more like America" (although, you know, blacks and Hispanics and women are still very underrepresented in the upper levels of power, even in this very "progressive" media industry), and yet they will not deign to bring in persons of strong faith who might temper their secular outlook by suggesting, "You guys do realize we're talking about a Church here, right?"

Churches, at least in America and more civilized parts of the world, are voluntary organizations. You aren't required to be a member of any church (trust me on this: the government hasn't forced me to join one yet, though the Baptists are scouting me and Lutherans have offered me a nice signing bonus), you can leave at any time, and furthermore, you're not ever really required to belive anything they preach to remain a member in good standing.

The left talks a great deal about diversity and freedom. And yet they seem awfully angry about any voluntary institution which stubbornly refuses to accept and promulgate their agenda.

Is there any room in this world for institutions to pursue a non-liberal or non-leftist agenda? It would appear the answer is no, by the MSM's lights. Diversity and freedom are all well and good, so long as your diversity is their "diversity," and you will always be guaranteed the "freedom" to live and worship according to how the liberals and leftists believe is proper.

And, of course: as they believe is "good for America."

Coming: Maureen Dowd explains to us that "Jesus thought he was 'all that,' but he ain'."

Ungreat Minds Think Alike, Too, Update: Jeff Goldstein strikes similar chords.

posted by Ace at 01:29 PM

| Access Comments