Perhaps that's unfair -- I'm thinking of the bizarre, sensationalistic "documentaries" about angels, devils, exorcisms, the historicity of the Bible, Templar conspiracies, etc on stations of the ilk of the History channel -- is it fair to call basic cable "mainstream" media?
Oh, and as a kind of side note to his main premise, McBrien tells us that:
Benedict... hoped to ... promote eucharistic adoration (a devotion outside of Mass that focuses one's attention and prayer on the consecrated Host.)Hmmm... okay, he's writing for a secular, predominantly non-Catholic audience, I can see where he'd feel the need to explain his particular bete noir (he has contempt for, perhaps hates Adoration, writes to that effect often.)
But in that case, wouldn't you think he owed it to his audience to explain that we Catholics think that what we are "focusing [our] attention and prayer on" is the actual Body and Blood, Soul and Divinty of Jesus Christ truly present in that "consecrated Host"? that it's not worshiping a chunk of bread as it would be, (by their own beliefs,) were most other Christians to do likewise?
And I'm not sure about the accuracy of this description of the intent or result of VC II:
Second Vatican Council's reforms of... the way authority is exercised in the church, from the bottom up rather than the top downAnd this made me giggle: the pope's forceful personality.
But what really struck me was his fretting about "widespread indifference" and "outright opposition" to the Pope's initiatives, which represent a, (wait for it....,) "minority agenda."
I think he actually means that description to disparage the Holy Father's goals. What a foolish criticism. Is Right determined by majority vote? Is Truth to be found in polls?
Oh, Richard, Richard, Richard... open your eyes. Look at the world. Look at the actual practice of the putatively Faithful.
Catholicism is a "minority agenda."