The election of Pope Leo XIV during the papal conclave has put the question to rest for now, but it will return: Why do progressive commentators feel at liberty to deride Christianity?
Though not the entire story, resentment is a simple answer. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), one nominal Catholic known for her abortion advocacy and her being publicly denied Holy Communion, shared her hopes for the Church in a Politico interview.
“An Asian Francis from the Philippines is wonderful,” she said. However, when asked whether she thinks, “We’ll see female priests in your kids’ lifetime,” Pelosi answered, “Maybe my grandkids’.”
The suggestion and Pelosi’s entertaining the doctrinal impossibility were inappropriate. However, neither mockery was surprising. We hear malicious jokes about Catholicism so often that it has become difficult to take stock of them. One recent, crass comment from CBS News noted that the cardinals are “rawdogging” the conclave by forgoing any access to the internet.
Bad actors, such as those above, have attempted to implement their wants for the church by joking, wishful thinking, or politically influencing them into existence. However, this has never worked, and it happens constantly, because nothing ever changes.
Of course, this pattern maps onto the whole Christian faith. Derision and misrepresentation are so rampant because, paradoxically, Christianity is so tolerant. Its pinnacle of charity finds expression in patience and mercy, such that it bears trespasses and suffering. This sometimes happens to its detriment when Pelosi-like scandalization misguides public perception. Most of the time, though, that quality translates to an efficient spread of the faith: Christianity is universal because it is willing to endure. Thus, every nation knows of it.
The standard comparison to progressives’ treatment of Islam fails in this light. Society cannot bear to mock Islam because the same characteristics do not apply. At the same time, that relationship plays out beneficially for humanity: the only reason the American freedom template works is that most people develop out of a sense of Christian charity, and that Christian charity stops the spread of what is antithetical to it.
If it is so charitable, and still can support a set of unchanging doctrines, what gives? Why target Catholicism when distant sects already ordain women? Why can we not offload liberal Christians into liberal Christianity?
WASHINGTON STATE DEMANDS PRIESTS BREAK THE SEAL OF CONFESSION
Much of it comes down to the same reason “queers for Palestine” ignore their likely execution in the face of radical success: progressive minds are so committed to the “imagined communities” framework that few believe there is anything concrete to their advocacy. The real Islamic State is imagined — or Americans, at least, will probably always find defense against it.
In other words, they do not want Islam for their own. They want Christianity, partly because it is the cornerstone, and partly because there is something truthful about it. Their continued welcome into the faith means continued stripes, which, we know, are a worthy price.