The Conclave, which kicked off on Wednesday, has garnered significant attention from mainstream media—something quite unusual given their typical disinterest in religious matters.
As they reflect on the legacy of Pope Francis and speculate about his successor, the articles from prominent progressive outlets blend expressions of sorrow for the late Pope with concerns about the potentially less congenial future of the Church.
Benedict XVI, despite being often criticized, was often depicted inaccurately. (He even authored a circular named “God is Love.”)
For instance, New York magazine posed a question: “Is Christianity heading to the right after Francis?” The Atlantic published an article discussing the troubling future of progressive Christianity.
So, why the media frenzy? Are journalists genuinely mourning the loss of their Holy Father while anxiously pondering the spiritual state of his American followers?
Useful tools
Definitely not. The underlying cause of this mild media hysteria is straightforward: Pope Francis provided them with plenty of material to criticize and marginalize American conservatives. His focus on social issues rather than strict doctrines made it easy for the media to play with his words.
Take his encyclicals, for example. The two—”Fratelli Tutti” and “Laudato Si”—that cover more social themes received widespread attention, while the other two—”Lumen Fidei” and “Dilexit Nos”—barely registered. There’s speculation regarding whether these encyclicals were more secular in nature.
Given various factors, the next Pope is likely to adopt a more conservative stance than Francis, comparable to his predecessors, Benedict XVI and John Paul II.
Attack change
Writers at legacy media outlets recognize this shift and appear ready to alter their strategies. They may approach Francis’ successors much as they treated his predecessors.
During Benedict XVI’s papacy (2005-2013), there wasn’t a barrage of articles attempting to persuade Americans that the Pope was aligned with the Democratic National Committee and that conservatives were unfaithful Christians.
Instead, Benedict was labeled a regressive, untouchable traditionalist who supposedly ignored the spiritual needs of his community. He was unjustly characterized as inflexible and harsh, contrary to substantial evidence to the contrary. (Remember, he authored an encyclical actually titled “God is Love.”) If the successor resembles Benedict, foreboding media critiques can be anticipated.
Behind the lie
This leads to a pressing question: why does the media consistently misrepresent the Pope? Is it to diminish any authentic religious convictions people might hold? Understanding this requires insight into those who make these claims.
One illustrative case is author James Carroll, who has written about both Benedict and Francis for outlets like The Atlantic, The New Yorker, and Politico. Carroll was a harsh critic of Benedict, accusing him of “moral weakness” and disastrous impacts.
In contrast, Carroll lauded Francis when he first appeared on the scene, depicting him as a hopeful liberal reformer. Carroll contrasted Francis’s welcoming attitude toward progressive ideas with Benedict’s more traditional stance.
However, as Francis’s papacy continued without fully embracing progressive ideas, Carroll expressed disappointment. By 2018, his faith in Francis had waned, but he continued to compare him unfavorably with Benedict to emphasize division among Catholics.
Carroll exemplifies why secular media figures, even those identifying as “Catholic,” often lack credibility in their commentary about the Church. Here’s someone who was a priest but left the vocation after just five years, devoting much of the rest of his career to undermining progressive ideals.
There’s no more love than that
Carroll gained notoriety for his piece in The Atlantic titled “To Save the Church, Dismantle the Priesthood.” Essentially, he would argue there’s never enough liberalism from the Pope to satisfy him. The Church falls short of progressivism to truly fulfill his desires. This, unfortunately, mirrors the typical approach of mainstream media. Don’t be fooled into thinking these individuals harbor any genuine religious interest.
The legacy media in this country appears more intent on attacking American conservatives. The writers associated with these outlets often embody secular progressive values, viewing liberal globalism as their highest moral principle. To them, religion is merely a social construct that serves their political ambitions.
The notion of true religion as a means of pursuing justice seems wholly lost on them. It resembles their own vague social principles. Political liberalism has become their sole sanctity.
This worldview accounts for their disdain toward conservatives. Lacking a fundamental understanding of genuine religious belief, they tend to assume such convictions are insincere. Their actions can’t stem from honesty, leading them to project that onto others. When politics shapes everything, even the Papacy becomes merely a political pawn.
