Steve Kellmeyer
Has America lost its salt?
By Steve Kellmeyer
In his most recent column for Catholic Exchange, Mark Shea makes much of the fact that the press has, for the last three years, been intolerably cruel to Pope Benedict XVI. He uses as evidence word searches on Google.
But maybe everyone hates Hillary. Let's pick someone who has only been in the news for about three or four years, someone not quite so divisive... Hmmm... who could we pick?
Why the nasty numbers? Because Google counts a "hit" for every page that has those words, regardless of how the content is arranged. A news page may be talking about two dozen entirely different things (think the Washington Post or Drudgereport web pages), but that doesn't matter to the search engine. It doesn't distinguish between the appearance of Benedict's name in a religion lead and the appearance of the word "rigid" in a story about a new kind of plastic. As long as both words appeared on the same page, Google counts a hit.
The numbers are nonsense. But Mark Shea and Catholic Exchange apparently don't realize that, so they draw conclusions based on essentially no evidence at all.
Now, it may well be the case that the press is opposed to all things orthodox — in fact, I personally I don't doubt that it is. But we should be careful not to take scandal without good reason.
Quite frankly, the press doesn't know much about Pope Benedict, and probably never will. The man bemuses them, as did John Paul II, as does every Pope. In order to hate someone, you have to know them at least moderately well. There has to be a substance to hatred just as there is a substance to love. The press lacks substance, so it really isn't capable of hate or even strong dislike. It can manage only a puzzled shrug.
In times past, the Catholic Faith was, indeed, hated, but no more. Today, orthodox Catholicism is neither known nor considered enough of a threat to merit strong emotions. The elites literally don't know enough about real Catholics to care.
Perhaps we would like them to hate us, if only because that would make us more relevant in their world. We should recognize our desire to be hated as a perverse form of pride. After all, if they hated us, we must matter enough to them, we must hinder them enough, to make us a hated minority.
But what if we don't matter enough to them?
What if we aren't hindering them in any significant way?
That would mean we weren't living the Gospel very well.
Jesus made people angry enough to merit his execution.
Peter managed to proclaim the Gospel so effectively he got himself crucified upside down.
Paul started a fight in every town he entered, got scourged, beaten with rods, stoned and finally beheaded, martyred just like every one of the original apostles. Even John, the apostle of love who died a natural death, managed to make it to old age only by dint of miraculously surviving an attempt to boil him alive.
But when was the last time the holy example and sacred preaching of Catholics in America made our fellow Americans angry enough to burn down a convent, smash up a school or demolish church? When has our witness to the truth been so strong that those who follow demons ground their teeth at us, writhed in frustration, and ultimately martyred one or more of us?
The culture clearly doesn't love Catholics, for the conversion rate is not high enough to indicate that they treasure who we are or how we live. They aren't hot about us.
But at this point, it's not clear they really hate us. They aren't in a cold rage about us either.
Shouldn't we find that a little disconcerting?
© Steve Kellmeyer
In his most recent column for Catholic Exchange, Mark Shea makes much of the fact that the press has, for the last three years, been intolerably cruel to Pope Benedict XVI. He uses as evidence word searches on Google.
-
"Benedict XVI" rigid — 52,800
"Benedict XVI" hardliner — 27,100
"Benedict XVI" inflexible — 10,300
"Benedict XVI" dominating — 290,000
"Benedict XVI" ruthless — 126,000
"Benedict XVI" enforcer — 28,800
"Benedict XVI" archaic — 22,400
"Benedict XVI" medieval — 169,000
"Benedict XVI" intolerant — 148,000
"Benedict XVI" backward — 122,000
"Benedict XVI" "Hitler Youth" — 30,700
"pope cracks down" — 1,080,000
-
"Hillary Clinton" rigid — 102,000 (52,800)
"Hillary Clinton" hardliner — 26,100 (27,100)
"Hillary Clinton" inflexible — 31,400 (10,300)
"Hillary Clinton" dominating — 215,000 (290,000)
"Hillary Clinton" ruthless — 125,000 (126,000)
"Hillary Clinton" enforcer — 47,600 (22,800)
"Hillary Clinton" archaic — 53,300 (22,400)
"Hillary Clinton" medieval — 126,000 (169,000)
"Hillary Clinton" intolerant — 614,000 (148,000)
"Hillary Clinton" backward — 267,000 (122,000)
"Hillary Clinton" "Hitler Youth" — 11,700 (30,700)
"Hillary Clinton cracks down" — 426,000 (1,080,000)
But maybe everyone hates Hillary. Let's pick someone who has only been in the news for about three or four years, someone not quite so divisive... Hmmm... who could we pick?
-
"Barack Obama" rigid — 103,000 (Clinton: 102,000, Pope: 52,800)
"Barack Obama" hardliner — 24,500 (Clinton 26,100, Pope: 27,100)
"Barack Obama" inflexible — 37,800 (Clinton: 31,400, Pope: 10,300)
"Barack Obama" dominating — 247,000 (Clinton: 215,000, Pope: 290,000)
"Barack Obama" ruthless — 354,000 (Clinton: 125,000, Pope: 126,000)
"Barack Obama" enforcer — 93,800 (Clinton: 47,600, Pope: 22,800)
"Barack Obama" archaic — 105,000 (Clinton: 53,300, Pope: 22,400)
"Barack Obama" medieval — 131,000 (Clinton: 126,000, Pope: 169,000)
"Barack Obama" intolerant — 616,000 (Clinton: 614,000, Pope: 148,000)
"Barack Obama" backward — 272,000 (Clinton: 267,000, Pope: (122,000)
"Barack Obama" "Hitler Youth" — 8,500 (Clinton: 11,700, Pope: 30,700)
"Barack Obama cracks down" — 364,000 (Clinton: 426,000, Pope: 1,080,000)
Why the nasty numbers? Because Google counts a "hit" for every page that has those words, regardless of how the content is arranged. A news page may be talking about two dozen entirely different things (think the Washington Post or Drudgereport web pages), but that doesn't matter to the search engine. It doesn't distinguish between the appearance of Benedict's name in a religion lead and the appearance of the word "rigid" in a story about a new kind of plastic. As long as both words appeared on the same page, Google counts a hit.
The numbers are nonsense. But Mark Shea and Catholic Exchange apparently don't realize that, so they draw conclusions based on essentially no evidence at all.
Now, it may well be the case that the press is opposed to all things orthodox — in fact, I personally I don't doubt that it is. But we should be careful not to take scandal without good reason.
Quite frankly, the press doesn't know much about Pope Benedict, and probably never will. The man bemuses them, as did John Paul II, as does every Pope. In order to hate someone, you have to know them at least moderately well. There has to be a substance to hatred just as there is a substance to love. The press lacks substance, so it really isn't capable of hate or even strong dislike. It can manage only a puzzled shrug.
In times past, the Catholic Faith was, indeed, hated, but no more. Today, orthodox Catholicism is neither known nor considered enough of a threat to merit strong emotions. The elites literally don't know enough about real Catholics to care.
Perhaps we would like them to hate us, if only because that would make us more relevant in their world. We should recognize our desire to be hated as a perverse form of pride. After all, if they hated us, we must matter enough to them, we must hinder them enough, to make us a hated minority.
But what if we don't matter enough to them?
What if we aren't hindering them in any significant way?
That would mean we weren't living the Gospel very well.
Jesus made people angry enough to merit his execution.
Peter managed to proclaim the Gospel so effectively he got himself crucified upside down.
Paul started a fight in every town he entered, got scourged, beaten with rods, stoned and finally beheaded, martyred just like every one of the original apostles. Even John, the apostle of love who died a natural death, managed to make it to old age only by dint of miraculously surviving an attempt to boil him alive.
But when was the last time the holy example and sacred preaching of Catholics in America made our fellow Americans angry enough to burn down a convent, smash up a school or demolish church? When has our witness to the truth been so strong that those who follow demons ground their teeth at us, writhed in frustration, and ultimately martyred one or more of us?
The culture clearly doesn't love Catholics, for the conversion rate is not high enough to indicate that they treasure who we are or how we live. They aren't hot about us.
But at this point, it's not clear they really hate us. They aren't in a cold rage about us either.
Shouldn't we find that a little disconcerting?
© Steve Kellmeyer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
