Here is her commentary on the new Pope. Her chief criticism is directed at his surname, his nationality and his unapologetic willingness to be what he is, a Catholic. She alludes to him as "God's rottweiler" and the "panzer Pope," then speaks of "ecumenism, tolerance and openness." This woman can't stay consistent for even a few paragraphs.
Fine writing does not self-consciously strain for cleverness, nor does it pepper a sentence with lengthy subordinate clauses and intrusive parenthetical excursions. As Kingsley Amis might say, a writer who prefers "instead of which" to "instead" is a wanker.
I must confess that I am not that familiar with a lot of her writing and so should not have remarked on its quality. What little I have read struck me as graceful and witty, but don't think it was about politics or religion.
I'm going to copy your description of good writing. Sometimes I try too hard to stay polite in some of my posts and wind up being sarcastic and disagreeable. I don't think I'm arch or kittenish like Maureen Dowd. I really hate that. Thanks. b.