Orrin Judd has a post that cites an article about the silliness of those railing against a conservative Catholic Church and Pope. The basic point is that Churches which have followed the advice to “go with the times” and become politically correct have also faced a strong dropoff in clergy and parishoners, while conservative Churches have done much better.
I think this is obvious — if the Church doesn’t stand for some eternal verities, what is it except a pale imitation of a social club?
So one wonders why the chattering classes go on about the Catholic Church doing something that both thought and experience show would enervate the Church? For those of us cynical Machievallians, the firs thought is that the destruction of the Church is the goal and the chatterati are using the tropes of the day to achieve that goal. But really, having seen them screw up recent Democratic Party efforts at the Presidency the same way, I just don’t find it plausible. They haven’t demonstrated that level of cleverness for decades.
Instead, it is once again the strong aversion to intellectual diversity that is the hallmark of the Modern American Left. How dare the Catholic Church assert beliefs and practices that are not in conformance with that of the MAL? That calls in to question the MAL’s psychologically necessary conceit that they are the smartest, most insightful, wisest group of people ever gathered together in human history. All must be forced in to the same shape, that ordained by the current fashion among the MAL, in the same way that Communism makes society a uniform, drab grey of conformity. I used to think that support for Communism among the MAL required them to overlook this problem, but now I wonder if instead it was viewed as a good thing. It certainly meant that one could live without ever having to grapple with deep issues or having one’s life choices challenged by the examples of others. And isn’t that security worth any price?