The "Two Churches" mistake . . . and The New York Times

Kenneth Woodward observed recently that the NYT is a newspaper "with the soul of a church" -- a church that exercises (and sees itself as exercising) a "rival magisterium":

. . . No question, the Times’s worldview is secularist and secularizing, and as such it rivals the Catholic worldview. But that is not unusual with newspapers. What makes the Times unique—and what any Catholic bishop ought to understand—is that it is not just the nation’s self-appointed newspaper of record. It is, to paraphrase Chesterton, an institution with the soul of a church. And the church it most resembles in size, organization, internal culture, and international reach is the Roman Catholic Church. . . .

Almost on cue, Nicholas Kristof served up his variationon the "yes, the institutional Church and its old, out-of-touch, male leaders are no good, but the real Church is out there, in the trenches, doing things I like" story that one often hears.  To be clear, the people in Sudan whom Kristof describes, and admires -- but does not, I think, I understand -- are doing good work.  But, when Kristof imagines himself competent (or inspired?) to declare that so-and-so would be "a good pope" (how does Kristof know this?), I cannot help thinking of Woodward's "rival magisterium" observation.  

For Kristof, there are good guys (and women) helping the poor in Africa, and bad guys, in Rome, issuing "paleolithic edicts on social issues".  What he doesn't get, in my view, is the Catholic claim that the Church's "paleolithic" opposition to abortion comes from the same place as its commitment to the dignity of the poor, that its "paleolithic" proposals regarding sexual morality come from the same place as its call to generosity, and self-gift.  In a similar way, Pope Benedict's recent encyclical, I thought, was misunderstood by people who, like Kristof, think that the Church's social teachings are a disconnected jumble, rather than the implications of a unified and animating moral anthropology.

David Bonagura, at The Catholic Thing, responds to Kristof here, and concludes:

In his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, Benedict explained that “Christian charity is first of all the simple response to immediate needs and specific situations: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked,” and so on. What distinguishes Christian charity from ordinary social work is the additional communication of what Benedict calls “humanity” and “heartfelt concern,” a response to the spiritual needs of the poor. In order to provide this, charity workers require a “formation of the heart” that stems from “that encounter with God in Christ which awakens their love and opens their spirits to others.” Their love of neighbor then becomes “a consequence deriving from their faith, a faith which becomes active through love.”

Pope John Paul II compared faith and reason to “two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.” The same can be said of doctrine and works of charity: they are two wings on which the soul comes to know and communicate the love of God. Dogma and rules do not distract the Church from social justice; they allow social justice to flourish by pointing it towards its proper and ultimate end.