Today’s Boston Globe Magazine has an article on “The Crusaders”, it’s term for so-called conservative Catholics, focusing on their influence in Washington and Rome.
I don’t think it’s possible for most media to write about orthodox Catholics without using terms like “ultraconservative”. It also simplistically describes the motivations of orthodox Catholics in terms of politics and power. No mention of salvation, worship of God, or anything like that. It’s all about controlling others, policies, and programs. Check out this description of John Paul II:
Two years after Kennedy’s election, Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II is now a towering historical event, representing for some the ongoing spirit of reform in the church and for others a kind of theological breeder reactor, constantly on the edge of going out of control. While favoring the latter view, Pope John Paul II, who has led the Catholic Church since 1978, also has reinterpreted the events of the council in such a way that they support his traditionalist view of the church.
Look at the characterization: Conservatives view Vatican II as something to be controlled, while progressives try to implement reform. And to the reporter John Paul II is “reinterpreting” Vatican II, not following the actual letter of the documents as written.
The comment about George Weigel is bizarre, intimating that there’s something nefarious about him working at the Ethics and Public Policy Center which received less than $10 million over the past 20 years from the liberal bogeymen: the Olin, Scaife, and Bradley Foundations. As if liberals don’t get funding from big foundations.
It also posits that orthodox Catholics have already “lost” the battle for America because the polls say a majority of Catholics don’t agree with the Church’s teachings on the usual topics, mostly having to do with the groin area. Again it’s a purely materialist, political view, with almost complete disdain for the concept that such ideas may not find their truth in their popularity but with whether they are true or not.
The article also seems to be clearly anti-Deal Hudson, portraying him as vindicative and clearly political. It makes hints about him being anti-Semitic for supporting Mel Gibson’s movie, as the article points to a web site supporting the movie by a former Pat Buchanan campaign operative, as if they were the only two people dismissing the anti-Semitism charges against the movie.
Meanwhile, the progressives are portrayed as the majority viewpoint locked out of power by the papacy of John Paul II and conservatives’ influence with him. They even quote Fr. Richard “where’s my collar?” McBrien as saying that they will be lost without John Paul II as their patron.
In the view of the reporter, the Church is a political power institution, conservatives are the wacky fringe, and liberals are the voice of reason. In other words it’s the same old garbage, packaged in a shiny new wrapper.
