After the media’s breathless run up to the election of Pope Francis, it seems that they taken upon themselves the task of scrutinizing his past. They are examining everything from his childhood, his education, his role in resisting the Argentinian military dictatorship’s “Dirty War” back in the late seventies through early eighties. One story from the Huffington Post exemplifies this (MSNBC is also showing its concern):
The election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the new Pope Francis brought joy to Argentina, but has also cast a spotlight on the religious leader’s dark past, scarred by allegations of collaborating in the case of two Jesuits who were kidnapped by the country’s military dictatorship for five months in 1976. One of them accused Bergoglio — then his superior at the Society of Jesus — of being behind his abduction.
Now, while I am glad to see that the press actually has the capability to dig into a person’s past, where was all this curiosity and zeal was (and is) when Øbama, our “lord and savior” (according to that great pundit, Jamie Foxx, anyway), was being “vetted”? If anything, the press was strangely (or typically, depending on your viewpoint) incurious and silent on president’s background, and remains so to this day.
Why is the background of the Pope, who is powerful in his own right, but really has little effect many of the U.S.’s citizens, subject to such intense scrutiny, but the background of the president, who directly affects every single one of us (including the church, as evidenced by new Øbamacare rules for Catholic institutions), not the subject of comparable levels of microexamination? For that matter, one might ask why was the background of newcomer Sarah Palin the object of such passionate “journalism”? Of course, these questions are rhetorical; the answer is clear.
As Mr. Spock would say, it is “fascinating”.
Don’t forget that prior to the pope’s election, there was much talk about how the new Pope, whoever he might be, will deal with the recent sex scandals that occurred in the church and how the church will deal with its policies on homosexuality. It is beyond amazing to me that they could issue these observations when the pederasty problem in the church appears to originate with the homosexuals that have joined the clergy. Obviously, it isn’t politically “correct” to note this Gordian Knot.
Similarly, the media has been running with stories incorporating the meme of the “Stained glass ceiling”, and pontificating (pun intended) about the church’s “inflexibility” on things like women priests potentially leading to it becoming “inconsequential” in the world.
Consider this: if the church is becoming so “inconsequential”, why would Biden, Pelosi and DeLauro attend the investiture of the new Pope? If the church is so rigid and inflexible, why would they allow this trio of abortion enthusiasts to receive Holy Communion? If the position of the church on the role of women in the clergy is so egregious, when can we expect the stories to commence on the role of women in Islam? Given the parameters the press uses for the Roman Catholic church, shouldn’t Islam likewise be in danger of becoming inconsequential? When will our crack reporters tackle this?
Clearly, the hypocrisy and liberal bias of the press with respect to the Church compared to that of Øbama is palpable. Maybe it is time the press remembers that the Church, any church, is based on faith, is equally protected by the First Amendment, and if you don’t like the tenets of the church you are in, perhaps you should find another that fits your needs, rather than forcing the church to change to suit you.