The Press and the Pope

The mainstream media seem to be disappointed by the selection of the new pope; as if their opinions should have any validity in matters of religion, but when did lack of credentials ever bother them?

Kenneth Woodward, an old hand at Newsweek writes:

[He] [Ratzinger] repeatedly insisted on Christ as the one way to God and was notoriously hard on Catholic scholars who tried to find theological common ground with Hinduism in particular. He seemed unconcerned that other religions have their own understandings of Jesus [![, or that these understandings might provide missionaries in the field with ways to make Christianity more adaptable to local cultures.

Funny, I don't recall Christ instructing either his apostles or the seventy to "provide ways to make my doctrine more adaptable to local cultures." He did say, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's."

He also got a lot of criticism from scribes and Pharisees, so Pope Benedict is in good company.

Update: James Taranto has this, more fundamental point:

Yesterday's item about liberals' unhappiness with Benedict XVI brought an interesting observation from reader Roger Gore:

Regarding Andrew Sullivan, et al., I find all this politicking and commentary that surrounds the new pope (and the process of election, which itself seems far too founded in the ways of the world) a bit curious.

I am not Catholic, but it seems to me that if the pope is really God's mouthpiece on the earth--as the Catholic Church claims he is--then why the dissent? Either the man speaks for God, or he does not. If he does, the dissent is at best foolish, for who in his right mind would think to argue with Almighty God over his own doctrine? Can God really be lobbied, swayed, and convinced over same-sex marriage, condoms, celibacy, etc.? If the pope does not speak for God, then the Catholic Church is void of its stated "divine authority," and so why have a pope to begin with?

Indeed. If you're not Catholic, and especially if you're an atheist or agnostic, then it makes sense to regard the church as just another worldly institution. After all, you don't believe in papal infallibility or the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. But if you do believe in these ideas, what could it mean that you oppose the new pope and his adherence to tradition, other than that you're disappointed in or angry at God for not changing his mind?

I'd be willing to bet modest money that Roger Gore is a Mormon, since we make the same point about believing in continuing modern revelation through a living prophet.