The New York Times Defends Pope Francis in Appalling Article
When Pope Francis first made his grand entrance onto the world stage, many Catholics such as myself (note that byline) had a moment of pause. Suddenly the liberal media, and even many protestants, said "I really like this pope." It's not the job of the pope to be liked by protestants. It's not the job of the pope to be liked by media. It's the job of the pope to be a stalwart Catholic leader despite what the culture may or may not be doing. But media went all in with Francis. The opening paragraph of The New York Times's recent article telegraphs all the reasons why:
ROME — Since the start of his papacy, Francis has infuriated Catholic traditionalists as he tries to nurture a more welcoming church and shift it away from culture war issues, whether abortion or homosexuality. “Who am I to judge?” the pope famously said, when asked about gay priests.
See. For the media, Francis was new age. He echoed the sentiments of the left's most ardent desires, moving away from tenets the Church has always deemed moral rights and wrongs. For this, the media cast their support in for Francis. For this, many "Catholic traditionalists" recoiled.
Just how angry his political and doctrinal enemies are became clear this weekend, when a caustic letter published by the Vatican’s former top diplomat in the United States blamed a “homosexual current” in the Vatican hierarchy for sexual abuse. It called for Francis’ resignation, accusing him of covering up for a disgraced cardinal, Theodore E. McCarrick.
Um. Yes. Those "Catholic traditionalists" who adhere to basic morality like "thou shalt not rape, molest, or otherwise harm children, no exceptions" take issue with any person in the church who may have played a role in said raping, molesting or otherwise harming children. No exceptions.
With the letter — released in the middle of the pope’s visit to Ireland — an ideologically motivated opposition has weaponized the church’s sex abuse crisis to threaten not only Francis’ agenda but his entire papacy. At the very least, it has returned the issue of homosexuality in the Roman Catholic Church, which many conservatives are convinced lies behind the abuse crisis, to the center of debate.
M'kay. Loathe though I am to go full outrage, I can think of no greater reason to be outraged than over the harming of children at the hands of anyone. Gay, straight, male, female, Catholic, mormon, Islamic, or vegetarian. So for The New York Times to make the case against the pope, or any cardinal, bishop or priest in his charge as "ideologically motivated" is disgusting. Hard stop.
Secondly, these cases of molestation, with accusations people as high up as the friggin pope covered them up, is entirely about abuse, corruption, and evidence of real evil. Who cares about whether or not Francis' agenda is threatened?
That was a rhetorical question.
The left very much cares about dismantling the church's traditions and adherence to what the Church considers moral values. Despite how modern culture is shifting. See, like it or not, whether you're Catholic or not, the church isn't supposed to "move with the times" on issues of church doctrine like abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism and so forth. These matters are not up for debate in the Church. If you disagree, you're free to not be Catholic.
But the left can't stand anyone, especially an entity as large as the Catholic Church, would remain unmoving on issues like homosexuality, when the rest of the modern culture has given it the stamp of approval.
So now the media is trapped between a rock and a hard place. They've been cheering on Francis for his shifting views on homosexuality, but now it looks as though he's played a role in covering up the sinful acts of homosexual priests in the church. Based on this article, it seems clear at least The New York Times is more concerned with advancing a homosexual agenda than protecting children from abuse.
Huh. That rather sounds like the issue "Catholic traditionalists" have with this pope and other members of the Church, no?