Following the lead of our august newspaper confreres at the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and possibly the Muncie Morning Tidbit, The Catholic Register will not be endorsing anyone in the election race to succeed Pope Francis.

We arrived at this historic decision following deep reflection and philosophical dialogue within the Register’s editorial board endorsement subcommittee, which comprises the Editor and his highly sophisticated cats. Their collective wisdom gave rise to the articulation of a triune rationale for non-endorsement. 

1.        There is no election race to succeed Pope Francis, who with great physical courage in the face of advanced age and some infirmity remains firmly at the headship of Holy Mother Church. 

Advertisement

2.        Even if the need for a new Holy Father were to fall from the clear blue sky, imitating Benedict XVI’s unforeseen departure in 2013, it would not necessitate a “race.” There would be a graceful turn to the Cardinal electors gathered in solemn conclave guided by the Holy Spirit. The Paraclete does not need the pointless puffery of a newspaper editorial “endorsement” to pilot the specifics of salvation.

3. The presumption of any newspaper (indeed any media outlet) telling its readers what it would do if it were them while they make their democratic choice is vanity pathetically beyond the pale. It’s vanity as the Teacher in the book of Ecclesiastes coined it: Not mere pride but foolishness and a chasing after wind. 

However, the howling south of the border since the Post and Times opted for endorsement neutrality ahead of next week’s Presidential vote suggests our rationale #3 isn’t unanimously considered the cat’s meow. 

Thousands of the newspapers’ readers have reportedly cancelled subscriptions. A boycott campaign is developing against Amazon Prime because Jeff Bezos owns both the online delivery giant and the dwindling Post. Editorial staff in Washington and L.A. have abandoned their posts. Some have resigned in fits of pique over being brought back to journalistic Switzerland where they must revert to former norms of neutrality. (See: foolish/chasing wind, above.)

Advertisement

Obviously, we are spoofing those in our trade who have swapped their commitment to providing information and encouraging debate for the dubious distinction of taking themselves far too seriously and acting like half-baked activists. There is a serious point to be made, though, even if it arises out of mere journalism.

What we’re witnessing from these nattering nabobs of the newsroom, as befits the media racket generally, is a rushed and inevitably cock-eyed representation of a much wider phenomenon. It’s the warping of cultural institutions away from their mediating function, and toward their refashioning as political strongholds for those of a given ideological bent. 

An obvious object of finger-pointing in that regard is the long march through the institutions begun decades ago by a catch all of leftwing dogmatists. A weirdly predictable outcome from the past year was the experience of such triumphalist progressives on North American university campuses incoherently giving ideological comfort to, and even sporting the costumes of, neo-fascist Hamas terrorists. 

Yet blame doesn’t rest on their shoulders alone. Equally culpable are their doubles on the conservative right who’ve caused the ethos of mediating institutions, and more their very language, to be degraded to mindlessly crude invective including quasi-violent name calling. We’re ready for your close up now, Mr. Trump.

The bounce back response is what might be called the negative neutrality of enforced safe silence, e.g., the uber rich owner of a newspaper in the heart of the world’s capital city making a market rational decision to endorse none of the above for President of the United States.

Here is where the spotlight should helpfully shift, as always, to Holy Mother Church. Whatever its flaws of turgidity and arcanity, and against the predictions of many, the recently concluded Synod on Synodality was a global model of civil dialogue. It engaged profoundly held differences of opinion and approach, bravely clarified even some of the more contentious (women in the diaconate, for example), and concluded as it began: a crucible of listening without any obligation to pro forma endorsement on the part of participants.

Advertisement

Fittingly, that was for a long time the very premise on which newspapers, and their come-lately journalistic cousins in radio and television, natively operated. Listening, however imperfectly, to a community of voices was considered a prerequisite to informing and so mediating debates arising from cultural difference. Knee jerk endorsement – or the current buzzword “privileging” – of one over the others? Not so much. 

We are happy to report that the Register’s editorial subcommittee on endorsement, including the Editor’s cats, unanimously still votes for that.