Here’s an articulate, well-written, often condescending, hard-nosed description of papal and Vatican politics by a true-blue liberal writing regularly for National Catholic Reporter.
I have no trouble believing (for the most part) this account of mutual counter-purpose in which Francis and Sarah are now positioned.
It’s good stuff, if without regard for the needless character of the conflict. My problem is with the conflict as needless. What does Francis have to lose by allowing Latin mass, ad orientem, communion on the tongue and all that?
Unless the novus ordo would be undermined and with it the social justice agenda. Or unless Francis just doesn’t like it; makes his skin crawl — a distinct possibility but something he could offer up in his Morning Offering — and become a better man for it.
Oh, another thing. Is the writer sure about his assessment of traditionalists’ numbers and overall strength? Seems sure of himself, but it’s a big claim. More later (I swear) of this fellow’s columns from Rome.
Oh. Robert Mickens is his name. Has impressive c.v., in addition to his very good writing.
Could be a deal here. Trump rethinks DACA on right-to-life grounds, Francis rethinks his free-maket hostility on right-to-prosperity grounds. Or maybe his suspicions of Latin mass and priest facing the people on freedom-of-worship grounds.
Just trying to be helpful.
NatCath Register has story: Pope Hopes Trump Will Rethink DACA Decision on Pro-Life Grounds | ncregister.com
Great was the fall of this once noble operation:
Founded in 1971 as a non-profit legal advocacy group, the SPLC began nobly, battling and winning against racist factions like the Ku Klux Klan.
But over the years, the SPLC began to shift ideologically and is now widely-regarded as “an attack dog of the political left.” Detractors allege that at its base, the center’s turn to the left is less about principle than it is about money.
Since its founding, “The SPLC has … established itself as the nation’s most prominent hate-group watchdog,” notes Politico writer André Chung. “It has also built itself into a civil rights behemoth with a glossy headquarters and a nine-figure endowment, inviting charges that it oversells the threats posed by Klansmen and neo-Nazis to keep donations flowing in from wealthy liberals.”
Their discoveries multiply, often with alarming miscalculation:
Cornell University law professor William Jacobson has condemned the SPLC for pursuing a decidedly partisan political agenda under the banner of civil rights. “Time and again, I see the SPLC using the reputation it gained decades ago fighting the Klan as a tool to bludgeon mainstream politically conservative opponents,” he said.
“For groups that do not threaten violence, the use of SPLC ‘hate group’ or ‘extremist’ designations frequently are exploited as an excuse to silence speech and speakers,” Jacobson notes. “It taints not only the group or person but others who associate with them.”
Bad cess to them in their current transmogrification.