Also, American Catholics reflect the voting public at large, which is to say that they are—and have long been—pro-choice.

Gallup Poll “More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time”

oops.

I certainly hope that there is some part of the religion beat that Lisa Miller is capable of covering/opining on with some level of understanding, if not sympathy.  From what I’ve seen, such territory would appear small (UUs, Hare Krishnas, perhaps?  One can, it seems, only hope).  One would think that, given the amount of attention focused over the last couple of decades or so on the political “religion gap” or the rise of the Religious Right/Left and, of course, the various streams of “beyondists”, an otherwise reputable publication would require its religion reporters to have some semblance of understanding of the object of their coverage.  Alas, Ms. Miller looks increasingly like a Christian Scientist on the Health beat.  Once one gets past the sneers, there’s not much left.  I’m constantly put in mind of Terry Eagleton’s delicious slam of Dawkins’ The God Delusion: “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.”  The same, alas could be said of Ms. Miller talking about Catholic history.  A pity.  She might be a decent writer if they let her cover something she actually understood.

They enrage conservatives, who want them to renounce reform, and inflame liberals, who want them to take an easier stand on abortion. The bishops refuse. They believe they’re right, and righteousness drives them. “We hold those two values together in a way that both parties don’t,” says Richard Doerflinger, who runs the pro-life office of the USCCB. “We think they really demand each other and can’t be separated at the level of principle.

Actually, I think she captures the idea with her comments above but then follows with her own editorial.“But the 40 million Americans without health care might not agree.” That’s what bugs me about Newsweek in general.

What a confused and funny article.  The author appears to not quite know what tack to take, to hide his own anger at RC bishops actually expressing an opinion in the public sphere.

RE: “Nevertheless, the new prominence of this ancient fraternity is somewhat surprising.”

Well, actually . . . the “new prominence” of killing babies is somewhat surprising—and it’s hardly surprising that RCs and others opposed to baby killing would engage in a “new prominence” to resist it.  I don’t see why RC bishops should be left out of the crowds of opposition.

RE: “For one thing, the American public hardly regards the institutional Catholic Church as sacrosanct. Thanks to continuing sex scandals, many Americans—even American Catholics—roll their eyes on the subject of the Catholic hierarchy’s ability to stand as a moral example.”

Well okay then—so nobody cares what the RC bishops say.  Then why are you writing an article about it?

Of course, it’s because some people *do* care what the RC bishops say.  It hardly works to say “these people are saying things out loud that I don’t approve of—but nobody cares.”  You wouldn’t write an article about such people.