I wonder what Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles would have to say to the accusation that "his outspoken views [on contentious US migrant law ] were an attempt to increase Latino numbers in Catholic churches faced with dwindling attendances." The media which otherwise is sympathetic to the migrants, would pick the church apart if it stands with the victim. Even though the cardinal is only stating the basic biblical position i.e., to "stand with "the poor, the stranger and the least among us"," he cannot escape the vitriolic attacks from certain apostles of liberal humanism.
The situtaion for the church, it seems, is same all over the world. It faces similar kind of criticism in US as it does in India. Here the church, extending support to the downtrodden: the dalits and the tribals, is percieved and portrayed with suspicion. All sorts of motives are attributed to the work of church in India. The communists suspect the church because to them Indian church is a direct beneficiary of the CIA money, which it uses to create trouble for the communist movement. The extremist organization try to garner political support publicising the idea that the church is trying to undermine nation's unique and pristine culture. The liberals want the church to limit its activities in the areas of health and education, but they also subscribe to the theory that church's evangelistic efforts only disrupt the society.
I wonder what our ecclesiologists have to say about it?