not too moderate
By Diogenes (articles ) | Nov 17, 2010
The Washington Post explains the surprising result of the USCCB presidential election:
Victims' advocates spoke out against Kicanas, but the more significant opposition came from conservatives, who considered him too moderate in tone.
The use of terms like "liberal" and "conservative," when applied to Church affairs, invariably introduces some confusion, since the Church is not a political institution. But leave that aside.
"Conservatives" were concerned not by the tone of remarks by Bishop Kicanas, but by their substance. They (or should I say "We") were concerned about his track record-- not a question of tone but one of past action-- and just as importantly, inaction.
But even if it were a question of liberals vs. conservatives, and even if it were just a matter of tone, the language of the Post analysis creates an odd asymmetry. If there are conservatives on one side of a election contest, what would you expect to find on the other side? Do conservatives generally oppose candidates who are "too moderate," or is there another word that might be used there?
C'mon, Washington Post; it's OK; you can say it. The sentence above begins to make sense if you report that conservatives opposed Bishop Kicanas because they considered him too liberal.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!