I love the Holy Father. This isn't a statement about his personal qualities - I don't know him as a personality - it is about my attitude to a fellow human being, a fellow Catholic, and a superior in the Church. I wish him well - but more than that, I will give him the benefit of doubts in various ways, not to be stupid but just to be humane, and when he proposes dogmatic truths I give my assent, when he proposes pious initiatives I will, if it lies in my power, support them.
The Tablet hates the Holy Father. Again, I don't think that is so much about his personal qualities, but what he represents, his relationship to Tablet writers as a superior, as the carrier (perhaps on occasion an unwilling carrier) of values and traditions. I fancy if Hans Kung were elected Pope, they would soon hate him too.
Just look at the subtitle on this Tablet article. Who else, but a 'liberal', would be able to generate such instant moral certainty? This book, which they have seen fit to print in extract, doesn't allege he alienated people, it reveals it - and exactly how he did it. And isn't 'alienate' an interesting word? Did Our Lord alienate the scribes and the Pharisees? Or did he rather justly oppose them? Is there a possibility that the Holy Father's actions, which made him enemies, might admit of a positive evaluation? Is that even worth discussing? It seems not.
Why, this is hell, nor am I out of it.
Whatever ecclesial environment the liberal finds himself in, it is still hell, he carries hell with him, it is the eternal hatred of authority, of the past, of order and beauty, which can never go away.