Against my better judgment, I just read a couple of blog-posts, this by Mark Shea and this by Simcha Fisher. Shea's piece actually has some interesting points (mostly those which Shea took from other sources), but in the main Shea's commentary paints a ridiculous caricature of the "hysterical" paranoiacs who are concerned about the strange and confusing things that Pope Francis says and does. (And make no mistake: Francis does say some strange things and people are seriously confused by them!) Sure, merely "hysterical" people exist: but what's the point of focusing on them, while ignoring those who actually have perfectly defensible grave concerns about what is going on? (Obviously it's easier to attack the weak and the lame. Maybe that's all Shea is capable of?)
Fisher, on the other hand, doesn't even attempt to address any argument of anyone in particular, and contents herself with bragging about her own super-sophisticated, voluntary ignorance and nonchalance and assuring everyone else that they should follow her lead, because "What does it matter?" (Brilliant analysis/argument, that... blech!)
Anyway, this is par for the course for these two (I usually avoid reading them). I think the main problem is that their preachy, patronizing commentary is aimed at anonymous targets whose views may or may not be totally whack, but who, in any case, insofar as their views have been actually presented, would appear to be not worth commenting on. So, a suggestion: How about, instead, engaging in some intelligent commentary on the thoughts of real people with thoughtful ideas and whose analyses are on record so that we have a context which makes it possible for an intelligent reader to actually evaluate your snide, critical comments?
And then there's Michael Coren: This guy is really lost of late. The other night he had a segment on "The Arena" about the Burke 'demotion.' He did the same thing as Shea and Fisher, painting an extreme caricature of those who are "seething with anger" about Burke's removal from the Apostolic Signatura. Coren, with his signature smugness and malice, talked about how these people pretty much regard Burke "as their pope" - What a stupid comment, especially coming from a guy who is taken (or mistaken) to be a kind of expert on Catholicism! So let's review:
For Catholics, the pope is the Bishop of Rome, the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff, yadda yadda. The pope is not just anyone whom we happen to admire as a rigorous, intelligent, courageous, outspoken expositor and defender of Christian doctrine. The fact that many people admire Burke in this way, as being rigorous, intelligent, etc., in no way implies that they regard him as their pope.
Conversely, the pope, again, is the Bishop of Rome, etc. The pope, as such, has a certain 'plenitude' of power in the Church, but this does not mean that the pope, as such, is necessarily someone who is admirably intelligent, rigorous, prudent, courageous, etc., or that anyone who fails to recognize these personal qualities in the pope is thereby failing to recognize that he is the pope. It just doesn't work that way.
Of course, Coren knows this. He nonetheless insinuates otherwise, knowing that his viewers for the most part won't know any better and will think he's saying something intelligent about those fanatical conservatives. Why would he do that? God knows best and God is his judge, but it seems to me that that's just the way smug left-leaning malice rolls - victory through hypocritical rhetoric of compassion, and truth and rigor and understanding be damned. Oh well. Pray for the man.
