When those who resent organized religion lecture on organized religion their thoughts are barely organized.

The Democrats and the media — the two entities which have been attempting to sell us on a gauzy concept of unity — have been in a weather non-uniting pique of anger the past few days. A recent Supreme Court decision regarding the ability of churches to remain open and be free to worship, striking down an order by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo limiting this practice, has riled the left. Now a new op-ed in the New York Times has taken their outrage to new levels of imbalance thinking.

Pope Francis has written an editorial that ran in The Times the day after the decision, and the reaction to this has been a revealing enterprise. There are numerous layers of ignorance and obliviousness to be found. All you need to see to grasp the idiocy is that the people who are harping on this editorial are the very same voices who constantly decry religion and those who call themselves religious. Yes, once again religious words become a matter of convenience for the left, who usually declare religious thought to be a disqualifying characteristic.

In the editorial Pope Francis lends his support to governmental authoritarianism, being enforced for the cause of the common good.

With some exceptions, governments have made great efforts to put the well-being of their people first, acting decisively to protect health and to save lives. The exceptions have been some governments that shrugged off the painful evidence of mounting deaths, with inevitable, grievous consequences. But most governments acted responsibly, imposing strict measures to contain the outbreak.

Yet some groups protested, refusing to keep their distance, marching against travel restrictions — as if measures that governments must impose for the good of their people constitute some kind of political assault on autonomy or personal freedom! Looking to the common good is much more than the sum of what is good for individuals. It means having a regard for all citizens and seeking to respond effectively to the needs of the least fortunate.

 Understand too, this is the same man who lent his support to Joe Biden, a politician who uses his Catholic faith as a matter of convenience. He likes to be painted as a man who is devout, while at the same time he can push aside his faith for the sake of political expediency. Joe has rarely had to reconcile the contradiction of supporting abortion as a Catholic, due mostly to barely being challenged on the matter by the media. The Pope as well seems unbothered by Biden’s paradox.

So this editorial has given fuel to the left to further condemn Amy Coney Barrett, despite the fact that these social critics fail to see the blatant contradictions. Some voices have even suggested that ACB is defying her Catholic faith by acting in defiance of the Pope, even though he weighed in on the matter after her decision. Not to be overlooked, the critics today of ACB are doing so in opposition to their normal position of separating church and state. Suddenly they want the church to be included in the SCOTUS ruling process, all while blocking out the fact that the majority decision was arrived at by declaring the state should not be dictating religious practice — that is, remaining separate.

But let us try to untangle the Gordian Knot that is presented to us.

Those who say ACB is violating her faith by deciding in opposition to the Pope have to be suggesting by extension that she is favoring something else  — in this case it would be the Constitution, ergo the governmental doctrine. Except what Pope Francis says in his editorial is that the government is acting in proper fashion. So ultimately her decision, had she followed the Pope, would have been to rule in favor of statism. This also means then that ACB was expected to follow the Pope exclusively, which means she would have been ruling not based on what is written in the Constitution but by how the Pope tells her to rule.

Now let us recall the two confirmation hearings ACB sat through when her faith was brought up and presented as a disqualifying nature to her career. Those same scolds are today stating that Coney Barrett is in the wrong…for not adhering to her faith. Meanwhile ACB has in fact displayed what she said would be her guidance in her decisions; that she would rule on the law, not on her religious beliefs. Her critics today are the ones who are acting in contradictory fashion.

The SCOTUS ruling only said that a state government had no basis to enforce orders on church practices, stating people are free to attend services. They are not, it needs to be pointed out, required to attend. If a worshiper is concerned they need not attend services, not any more than they are required to go shopping if a store opens its doors. But ACB ruling on the Constitution and not the dictates of her religion’s leader is today a problem, when we have been promised she would have done the opposite, which was presented as the problem.

Some have even gone so far as to suggest this defiance to the words of the Pope is grounds for her and Justice Brett Kavanaugh to be removed from the church. So let us think this proposal through. Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh are thought to be rife for excommunication from the Catholic church for ruling in favor of people having the freedom to worship in a Catholic church, but Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are positioned as just below sainthood while harboring pro-abortion policies.

2020 never fails to disappoint.