Why is the mainstream media so obsessed with who will replace Pope Francis?

The papal conclave, which began Wednesday, has attracted unusual interest from a mainstream media normally not given to dwelling on matters of faith.

In both their reflections on the late Pope Francis and their speculations on the next supreme pontiff, the stream of articles coming out of the reputed mouthpieces of American progressivism has been a mix of regret at the passing of a noble ally and trepidation at the prospect of a less friendly pope going forward.

Benedict XVI was painted as an inflexible and cruel man, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (He literally wrote an encyclical titled "God is Love.")

To give just a few examples, New York magazine published a piece asking, “Will Christianity Make a Turn to the Right Post-Francis?” while the Atlantic examined “Progressive Christianity’s Bleak Future.”

What is the reason for this media meltdown? Is the American media genuinely saddened by the passing of the late Holy Father and fearful for the spiritual welfare of his flock in America?

A useful tool

Certainly not. The reason for the minor hysteria among the legacy outlets is quite simple. The Francis pontificate gave the media a useful tool with which to attack and isolate American conservatives. Pope Francis was less focused on doctrinal matters than he was on pastoral concerns; it was relatively easier for the media to twist the pope’s words when he spoke about the environment and social inequality.

For example, Pope Francis published four encyclicals. Two of them, "Fratelli Tutti" and "Laudato Si," received a plethora of coverage, while the other two, "Lumen Fidei" and "Dilexit Nos," received no attention to speak of. Guess which two addressed more secular issues and which were concerned with theological topics.

Due to a number of factors, it is quite likely that the next pope will be far more conservative than Francis — more in line with his two immediate predecessors, Benedict XVI and John Paul II.

A change of attack

The writers of America’s legacy outlets are aware of this, and they are preparing to change their angle of attack. It is very likely that they will treat Francis’ successor the same way they treated his predecessor.

During the pontificate of Benedict XVI (2005-2013), there was no barrage of media articles trying to convince Americans that the pope was actually a signatory (in spirit) of the DNC platform and that conservatives were bad Christians for not following suit.

Rather, Benedict was labeled as a regressive, out-of-touch traditionalist who didn’t care about the spiritual welfare of his flock. He was painted as an inflexible and cruel man, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (He literally wrote an encyclical titled "God is Love.") If the next pope is anything like Benedict, we can be assured the media will go right back to these calumnious attacks.

Behind the lies

The question must be asked, why do the media do this? Why do they lie about the popes again and again? It is an important question to answer in order to purge any thought from our minds that these people may be acting with a single shred of genuine religious conviction. To understand why they lie, you have to understand the sort of people they are.

A very useful example for understanding the media lies is the writer James Carroll, who has written about both Benedict and Francis for outlets such as the Atlantic, the New Yorker, and Politico. Carroll was a constant critic of Benedict and wrote articles attacking his “moral weakness” and “disastrous influence.”

When Francis assumed the office, on the other hand, Carroll took to the pages of the New Yorker to praise him as a long-awaited liberal reformer. He contrasted Francis’ seeming openness to progressive ideas with Benedict’s cold-hearted traditionalism.

However, as time went on and Francis did not live up to his progressive ideas, Carroll began decrying the pope’s failure to address patriarchy and gender inequality. By 2018, he stated that he had lost faith in Francis, but was happy to keep contrasting him with Benedict in order to divide Catholics.

Carroll is a prime example of why members of the secular media (even those "raised Catholic") should never be trusted when they comment on the Church. In Carroll's case, we are dealing with a former priest who abandoned his ministry after only five years and has spent the majority of his career since then calling the Church evil and oppressive for not conforming to his progressive ideals.

No greater love

Carroll is most famous for his 2019 Atlantic article titled "Abolish the Priesthood." In other words, there will never be a pope liberal enough for him, and the Church will never be progressive enough to make him happy. In this, too, he is typical of the mainstream media. Do not think for a second that there is even the slightest shred of genuine religious concern in these people.

The purpose of the legacy media in this country is to attack American conservatives. The people who write for these outlets are secular progressives who have liberal globalism as their highest moral ideal. They are not religious in any real sense because to them religion is merely a social construction subordinate to their political goals.

They cannot conceive of true religion as a habit of justice whereby we render to God His due for the same reason they cannot conceive of God as anything other than a vague set of social principles: nothing is more sacred to them than political liberalism.

This lack of any purpose beyond politics explains their hatred of conservatives. They cannot understand genuine religious conviction. They do not believe, and so they assume that nobody else does. They cannot act in good faith, and so they assume that nobody does. When politics is everything, the pope is just one more thing to politicize.