The level of myopia and incuriosity is not consistent with the mission of a news organization.

For about 30 seconds I wondered how the mainstream press would react to the election of a pope from Africa. Would it take even a day to give the church some congratulations on making its global mission more obvious and visible to the world? And for so quickly — in decades — moving from a papacy that had been dominated by Italy to an office open to the first world, or to anyone.

Well, the New York Times has an article on the “meaning” of Africa’s rising share of the Catholic Church. And . . . all that matters is whether the Times perceives the candidate as affirming church teaching on sexual morality, or is likelier to use rhetorical, or pastoral, tactics to undermine or change this teaching.

It takes no interest in the men themselves whatsoever beyond this. Not even in their politics. Consider how the Times describes these men:

Among Francis’ potential successors from Africa is Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo, the 65-year-old archbishop of Kinshasa, whom Francis made a cardinal in 2019, who was a member of his Council of Cardinals and who led the opposition to the Vatican’s declaration allowing the church to bless homosexual couples.

That opposition essentially forced Francis to let African bishops ignore the policy.

Nothing about Ambongo’s aid to pro-democracy protestors in the Congo, or his personal opposition to the unconstitutional power grabs of Congo’s president, Joseph Kabila:

“Other African contenders include Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, who was a candidate in the 2013 conclave and holds views similar to Francis’ on climate change, social justice and homosexuality.”

Does he? He’s criticized some legal penalties imposed on homosexual activity in Africa, implying they were too harsh. But he’s also supported anti-sodomy laws and demanded that the media respect the “difference” between human rights and morality.

Finally, we come to the description that is the most silly:

“Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, who was a leading opponent of Francis and his attempts to modernize the church.”

Nothing about Sarah’s published books on spirituality or his collaboration with Francis in the curia. Nothing about his fluency in at least four languages. Nothing about his twin criticisms of colonialism in Africa and mass immigration into Europe. Nothing about his political savvy in openly resisting the dictatorship of President Ahmed Sékou Touré in Guinea. Just that he’s against “modernizing the Church” — a euphemism that only has meanings to progressives who believe one’s place in temporal history ought to determine their moral and political commitments.

The level of myopia and incuriosity is not consistent with the mission of a news organization.