Pat Archbold's "Controversial" Call for Pope Francis to Normalize Relations With SSPX Removed by National Catholic Register

Since the Register won't carry it, I will (and Pat also has it at Creative Minority Report):

Pope Francis and the SSPX: An Opportunity

By PATRICK ARCHBOLD

By now, many of you have probably seen the Tony Palmer video last week that was so exciting to many.

At a Protestant conference, Tony Palmer, an Anglican priest, brought along an iPhone video of greeting from Pope Francis. The subject of the presentation and of the Pope’s recording was unity of Christians.

In his remarks, Pope Francis made the following statements to our separated brethren regarding the separation: “Separated because, it’s sin that has separated us, all our sins. The misunderstandings throughout history. It has been a long road of sins that we all shared in. Who is to blame? We all share the blame. We have all sinned. There is only one blameless, the Lord.”

It is certainly true. Regardless of the truth of Catholic doctrine, the Church has accepted its share of the blame for the misunderstanding that were allowed to deepen and harden, leading to centuries of separation.

When I heard this, something else written by Pope Francis’ predecessor came immediately to mind. In 2007, along with the issuance of the “motu proprio” Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI issued a letter explaining his reasoning. In that letter, he made the following statement.

Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

It strikes me that this may be one of those critical moments in history to which His Holiness refers.

With the breakdown of discussion between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X at the end of the previous pontificate, the public mood during this first year of the current pontificate, and other internal events, traditional Catholics, both inside and outside the Church, have felt increasingly marginalized. Whether fair or true, I say without fear of contradiction that this is a prevailing sentiment.

This perception of marginalization has manifested itself in increasingly strident and frankly disrespectful rhetoric on the part of some traditionalists and their leaders.

I have great concern that without the all the generosity that faith allows by the leaders of the Church, that this separation, this wound on the Church, will become permanent. In fact, without such generosity, I fully expect it. Such permanent separation and feeling of marginalization will likely separate more souls than just those currently associated with the SSPX.

I have also come to believe that Pope Francis’ is exactly the right Pope to do it. In his address to the evangelicals, he makes clear his real concern for unity.

So here is what I am asking. I ask the Pope to apply that wide generosity to the SSPX and to normalize relations and their standing within the Church. I am asking the Pope to do this even without the total agreement on the Second Vatican Council. Whatever their disagreements, surely this can be worked out over time with the SSPX firmly implanted in the Church. I think that the Church needs to be more generous toward unity than to insist upon dogmatic adherence to the interpretation of a non-dogmatic council. The issues are real, but they must be worked out with our brothers at home and not with a locked door.

Further, Pope Francis’ commitment to the aims of the Second Vatican Council is unquestioned. Were he to be generous in such a way, nobody would ever interpret it to be a rejection of the Council. How could it be? This perception may not have been the case in the last pontificate. Pope Francis is uniquely suited to this magnanimous moment.

I believe this generosity is warranted and standard practice in the Church. We do not insist on religious orders that may have strayed even further in the other direction sign a copy of Pascendi Dominici Gregis before they can be called Catholic again. So please let us not insist on the corollary for the SSPX. Must we insist on more for a group that doctrinally would not have raised an eyebrow a mere fifty years ago? I pray not.

Give them canonical status and organizational structure that will protect them. Bring them home, for their sake and the sake of countless other souls. I truly believe that such generosity will be repaid seven-fold. Pope Benedict has done so much of the heavy lifting already, all that is required is just a little more.

Please Holy Father, let us not let this moment pass and this rift grow into a chasm. Make this generous offer and save the Church from further division. Do this so that none of your successors will ever say, “If only we had done more.”

Uhhhh ... Gosh ... Errrr ... Nope, I Got Nothin'

I'll just let it speak for itself. This, from the inimitable Iowa Hawk, is ... well ... special:

Oh, but that's not all:

http://twitchy.com/2013/05/07/meghan-mccain-any-republican-who-voted-for-sanford-but-is-against-gay-marriage-is-a-hypocrite/

http://twitchy.com/2013/05/08/generation-gestation-deleted-meghan-mccain-tweet-sparks-mockery-and-mccainhaiku/


Nope. Still got nothin'.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject: 
The Powerful Political Insights of the Paris Hilton of Pundits  

Who Cares ...

"The Completely Unedited Ramblings of an Idiot"

Pot ... Kettle

Michael Voris to "Traditional-Minded Catholics" RE: Pope Francis: "Keep Your Mouths Shut and Your Comments to Yourselves"

I am decidedly NOT a fan of Michael Voris' style (or usual style, anyway) but this video is a must see:

David Brooks Throws a Tantrum

David Brooks took to the pages of The New York Times yesterday to throw a great big temper tantrum over the fact that his elitist, pseudo-sophisticated notions don't hold sway with the conservative grassroots of the GOP and that the RINO party elders just don't have the wherewithal to take back his precious party from the riff-raff:

... But, of course, this is exactly what has been happening in the Republican Party for the past half century. Over these decades, one pattern has been constant: Wingers [ED.: Really? "Wingers"? I thought you were too sophisticated and too "no labels" to engage in such rhetoric. Hypocrite.] fight to take over the party, mainstream Republicans bob and weave to keep their seats.

Republicans on the extreme ferociously attack their fellow party members. Those in the middle backpedal to avoid conflict. Republicans on the extreme are willing to lose elections in order to promote their principles. Those in the mainstream are quick to fudge their principles if it will help them get a short-term win.

[...]

All across the nation, there are mainstream Republicans lamenting how the party has grown more and more insular, more and more rigid. This year, they have an excellent chance to defeat President Obama, yet the wingers have trashed the party’s reputation by swinging from one embarrassing and unelectable option to the next: Bachmann, Trump, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum. [ED.: Whoa, whoa, whoa! Wait a minute, @$$hole. You were singing Santorum's praises back when Gingrich was challenging your boy and Santorum was considered the "principled alternative" who you were hoping would steal votes away from Gingrich. Now he's "embarrassing and unelectable"? Do you think we're so stupid that we can't remember what you wrote just last month? Talk about "embarrassing", the way you Romneybots have all followed the EXACT SAME template of praising Santorum when you believed he had no real chance of beating Romney to trashing him now that he poses the most serious challenge to Dullard's election hopes, is laughably embarrassing.]

But where have these party leaders been over the past five years, when all the forces that distort the G.O.P. were metastasizing? Where were they during the rise of Sarah Palin [ED.: How about backstabbing her with whisper campaigns and feeding "background info" to fellow traveling columnists like you only too willing to dish dirt, trash reputations, and abandon the candidate YOU supported ALL ALONG going back to the 2000 election just because he picked someone from the "riff-raff" to be his running mate?] and Glenn Beck? Where were they when Arizona passed its beyond-the-fringe immigration law? Where were they in the summer of 2011 when the House Republicans rejected even the possibility of budget compromise? [ED.: The question is: Where were YOU? Wherever it was, it was obviously someplace where you were unable to pay attention to the actual facts of what actually happened. Because it's pretty clear to everyone else that it was the GOP who compromised their principles on the budget and got absolutely NOTHING in return.] They were lying low, hoping the unpleasantness would pass.

The wingers call their Republican opponents RINOs, or Republican In Name Only. But that’s an insult to the rhino, which is a tough, noble beast. If RINOs were like rhinos, they’d stand up to those who seek to destroy them. Actually, what the country needs is some real Rhino Republicans. But the professional Republicans never do that. [ED.: Bullshit. Ask anyone who has dared to pose a challenge to Dullard Flip Rino during this election season whether the "professional Republicans" fight back and fight dirty. Ask the Tea Party candidates who defeated the Establishment-anointed candidates during the 2010 election cycle whether the "professional Republicans" fight back and fight dirty, even showing a willingness to lose elections on principle - just like you accuse the "purists" of doing - rather than be shown up by the upstart riff-raff.] They’re not rhinos. They’re Opossum Republicans. They tremble for a few seconds then slip into an involuntary coma every time they’re challenged aggressively from the right. [ED. Whatever. Crybaby.]

Without real opposition, the wingers go from strength to strength. Under their influence, we’ve had a primary campaign that isn’t really an argument about issues. It’s a series of heresy trials in which each of the candidates accuse the others of tribal impurity. Two kinds of candidates emerge from this process: first, those who are forceful but outside the mainstream; second, those who started out mainstream but look weak and unprincipled because they have spent so much time genuflecting before those who despise them. [ED.: Oh the humanity! Dullard Flip Rino has actually had to act like he really gives a rip about conservative principles in order to try to convince REPUBLICAN voters to award him the REPUBLICAN nomination. He should've just been anointed on the basis of ... wait a minute ... I'm sure I can come up with a compelling argument for his nomination if you give me another 7 years of his running for President.]

[...]

Leaders of a party are supposed to educate the party, to police against its worst indulgences, to guard against insular information loops. They’re supposed to define a creed and establish boundaries. [ED.: In other words, the Establishment RINO minority should call the shots, and the conservative majority in the grassroots (i.e. the "riff-raff") should shut up, respect its "elders", send in money, and march in lockstep to the voting booth to do the bidding of our betters in the "educated class".] Republican leaders haven’t done that. Now the old pious cliché applies:

First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me. [ED.: Oh, good grief. Get over yourself!]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

My Comments:
Leaving aside one of the more pathetic invocations of Godwin's Law that I have ever had the misfortune of reading, I don't know what's more sad: (a) that Brooks actually wrote this whiny piece of drivel; or (b) that the man who voted for Obama in 2008 based, at least in part, on an admiration for Obama's pant crease, actually believes himself to be a "mainstream conservative".

Mickey Kaus, one of a dwindling number of principled Democrats out there, does a fine job of taking Brooks apart for this little diatribe.

David Brooks’ Sad Elite: David Brooks says extremist “wingers” have taken over the Republican party–because those condemned as RINOs are too timid to “stand up to those who would destroy them.”

(1) It sounds like he’s not really upset with RINOs. He’s upset with primaries.

(2) [...]

(3) [...]

(4) Is this the inverted country club Republican version of the Dems Fight-Back Fallacy? ‘If only those RINOs had some spine and fighting spirit they’d beat those irresponsible wingers.’ No they wouldn’t.

(5) Brooks thinks he’s a “mainstream conservative”? If so, he is an “insular information loop” of one.

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
David Brooks, Self-Anointed Member of "Educated Class", Admits Unwashed Red-State Conservatives Smarter Than He Is

Comeuppance for "Conservative" Critics of Conservatism (Who STILL Won't Admit That They Were Wrong)

Self-Critical Navel Gazing for Thee, But Not for Me

Another Elitist "Conservative" Realizes Too Late That "This Obama Fellow Is Unequal to the Task"

David Brooks Wonders What Went Wrong [UPDATED]

"Educated Class" Waking Up to Fact That Us "Yokels" Were Right All Along

Noemie Emery on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

Michael Barone on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

The "Elizabeth Bennett Conservatives"

Brooksback Mountain

Today's Must-Read: "Palinphobes and the Audacity of Type"

A Conservative Manifesto

Another Elitist "Conservative" Likes the Cut of Obama's Jib

The Liberal Media's Elitist Conservative Rats Leave the Sinking Ship

Victor Davis Hanson: "What is Wisdom?"

Let's Get One Thing Straight ...

The Powerful Political Insights of the Paris Hilton of Pundits

Just ... wow.



LOL! Seriously? Yes, conservatives, if only you could be as open minded as Meghan McCain ... so open-minded that your brain actually falls out.

The response to yet another of Ms. McCain's verbal lapses has not been without an "emoticon" of brutal ridicule:

McCain, known for her, shall we say, “creative” use of language more than her ability to, you know, like, think, immediately took to Twitter to explain herself ...

[...]

Twitter lit up with ridicule. Here are the highlights:

Slate’s Dave Weigel added, “Meghan McCain reporting that Jack Lew will take over as White House chef.”

Mike Flynn, Editor-In-Chief of BigGovernment, harkened back to another MSNBCer’s greatest his with, “Resist We Much the ‘Emoticon of Privacy’ #MeghanMcCainFail”

Townhall,com columnist Derek Hunter gave props to McCain’s ability to continually top herself by tweeting, “Every time I think @McCainBlogette has found her floor of stupid, she opens her mouth and out comes a shovel.”

Pajamas Media’s Stephen Green (VodkaPundit), added, “I have now watched @McCainBlogette‘s ‘emoticon’ video more times than I’ve watched Godfather I & II combined.”

From the woman who declared Rick Santorum to be a "moron". And just in case anyone has forgotten this gem from Ms. McCain:

“Joe the Plumber — you can quote me — is a dumbass."

Yeah, right back at ya, toots. And you can quote ME on that.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Who Cares ...

"The Completely Unedited Ramblings of an Idiot"

Pot ... Kettle

David Brooks, Self-Anointed Member of "Educated Class", Admits Unwashed Red-State Conservatives Smarter Than He Is

David Brooks: Obama is ‘certainly more liberal than I thought he was’. Ya think?

... Brooks’ apparent impression after that party was that Obama was “a Burkean” — and not a strict ideologue — who understood the “organic nature of change.” Aside from perhaps admiring the crease in Obama’s pants, nearly three years to the date after that party at Will’s house, Brooks admits he had the president completely wrong.

On Thursday’s “The Laura Ingraham Show,” Brooks said he still admired Obama, but conceded the president was more liberal than he originally thought.

“Yeah, I still like him — admire him personally,” Brooks said. “He’s certainly more liberal than I thought he was. And he’s more liberal than he thinks he is. He thinks he is just slightly center-left. But when you got down to his instincts, they’re pretty left...

And yet the simplest of red state rubes (upon whom Brooks showers so much disdain) might not know who Edmund Burke is but could've told you that Barack Obama had absolutely no conservative underpinnings and was as left-wing a candidate as this country has ever seen. The unwashed don't get caught up in such high-falluting nonsense as crisp pant creases, wonky philosophical conversations about Reinhold Niebuhr, and Harvard credentials in determining who is the best fit to lead our nation. But, then, it doesn't take a genius to figure out when someone is a frickin' socialist.

And so, with the advantage of hindsight, our intellectual betters in the establishment "smart set" can finally see what so many of us yokels and hicks and rednecks and bitter clingers could see so clearly 4 years ago. Turns out a plumber's assistant from Toledo really does have better political insights and is a better judge of political character than the house conservative at "the newspaper of record".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Comeuppance for "Conservative" Critics of Conservatism (Who STILL Won't Admit That They Were Wrong)

Self-Critical Navel Gazing for Thee, But Not for Me

Another Elitist "Conservative" Realizes Too Late That "This Obama Fellow Is Unequal to the Task"

David Brooks Wonders What Went Wrong [UPDATED]

"Educated Class" Waking Up to Fact That Us "Yokels" Were Right All Along

Noemie Emery on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

Michael Barone on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

The "Elizabeth Bennett Conservatives"

Brooksback Mountain

Today's Must-Read: "Palinphobes and the Audacity of Type"

A Conservative Manifesto

Another Elitist "Conservative" Likes the Cut of Obama's Jib

The Liberal Media's Elitist Conservative Rats Leave the Sinking Ship

Victor Davis Hanson: "What is Wisdom?"

Let's Get One Thing Straight ...

National Review "Anti-Endorsements" - Only Establishment Types Need Apply [UPDATED]

We all know that National Review is in the tank for Mitt Romney, and has been for at least the last 5 years. But, as Paul Zummo notes, the editors don't even have the courage of their convictions to come out and actually endorse the RINO no one outside the DC establishment seems to want, but instead pen an "anti-endorsement" of the only 3 candidates who could possibly pose a challenge to their boy:

... National Review hasn’t officially endorsed Romney. What they have chosen to do instead is cast aside any candidate that might actually have a chance at winning the nomination other than Romney.

After spending the better part of its op-ed trashing Newt Gingrich, and doing so in the exaggerated fashion that has become the hallmark of the establishment set, (For a more measured and fair assessment of Newt’s ideology, see Dan McLaughlin’s post at Red State.) National Review sets its eyes on the rest of the field.

Gingrich is not the only candidate whom we believe conservatives should, regretfully, exclude from consideration for the presidency. Governor Perry has done an exemplary job in Texas but has seemed curiously and persistently unable to bring gravity to the national stage. Republican presidential candidates have not been known for their off-the-cuff eloquence in recent decades, but conservatism should not choose a standard-bearer who would have to spend much of his time untying his own tongue. Representative Bachmann’s rise early in the primary season reflected the public’s hunger for sincere conviction; her later descent, following among other things her casual repetition of false anti-vaccine rumors, its desire that conviction be married to judgment. Representative Paul’s recent re-dabbling in vile conspiracy theories about September 11 are a reminder that the excesses of the movement he leads are actually its essence.

In other words, conservatives should ignore the four most popular candidates after Romney...

Paul then turns his attention to the 3 candidates left standing after National Review's self-appointed "winnowing":

... So who does National Review think conservatives should pay attention to:

Three other candidates deserve serious consideration. Governor Huntsman has a solid record, notwithstanding his sometimes glib foreign-policy pronouncements; his main weakness is his apparent inability, so far, to forge a connection with conservative voters outside Utah. Governor Romney won our endorsement last time, in part because some of the other leading candidates were openly hostile to important elements of conservatism. He is highly intelligent and disciplined, and he takes conservative positions on all the key issues. We still think he would make a fine president, but time and ceaseless effort have not yet overcome conservative voters’ skepticism about the liberal aspects of his record and his managerial disposition. Senator Santorum was an effective legislator. He deserves credit for highlighting, more than any other candidate, the need for public policies that topple barriers to middle-class aspirations. Weighing against him is a lack of executive experience.

I have nothing but the highest regard for Rick Santorum, but this is a joke. National Review winnows the field to two moderate squishes, one of whom has no chance at winning the nomination, and its third “viable” candidate is a solid conservative who, let’s face reality, also has little chance at knocking off Romney. In fact including Santorum in this litany is almost insulting. It’s a sop to the conservatives reading this editorial, but that’s all it is...

Although I agree with Paul that Santorum's inclusion is little more than an insulting bone thrown to conservatives, I do think there is a little more to it than Paul gives National Review credit for.

If National Review has proven itself to be anything over the better part of the last decade, it has shown itself to be little more than a big-government-advocating organ of the inside-the-Beltway GOP establishment. And look at the 3 candidates that NR would have us choose from - all of them GOP establishment-type candidates. And, yes, that includes Santorum.

Of all the “true conservatives” in the race, Santorum is the one who is most firmly planted in the DC establishment wing. He’s certainly the most “Wilsonian” of the conservatives (in the sense of advocating foreign policy adventurism in the name of making the world "safe" for democracy), which appears to be the most important criterion these days to the inside-the-Beltway types. He was also a key figure in the GOP Senate leadership prior to losing his re-election bid. Most telling, Santorum has proven street creds among the establishment set by showing that he will do the party’s bidding even at the expense of his pro-life credentials. It was "for the good of the party" that Santorum actively campaigned and cut TV and radio ads for pro-abortion liberal Sen. Arlen Specter, leading to Specter's GOP primary victory over the conservative pro-lifer Pat Toomey. Specter later defected to the Democrats after being re-elected with Santorum's help. (It is supremely ironic that Santorum's support for Specter over Toomey was partly based on the notion that Toomey was "unelectable", in that Toomey now occupies the U.S. Senate seat that Specter once held and that Santorum can't even pull 5% support in a GOP primary field.)

At any rate, that Santorum is the only conservative to whom National Review bothers to tip its hat, in my mind, only further confirms my assessment that NR has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the inside-the-Beltway GOP establishment.


UPDATE
In contrast to Paul's piece (as well as mine), Creative Minority Report seems to find National Review's non-endorsement endorsement of Mitt "fair, balanced, and reasonable". A disappointing assessment of NR's blatantly intellectually dishonest blather from the usually spot-on Archbold boys (for whom I have the highest regard, even when they're dead wrong).

National Review's piece is nothing short of bought-and-paid-for-by-Beltway-insiders political hackery. And, as bad as Newt Gingrich is and would be as the GOP nominee, Mitt Romney remains the ONLY candidate in the GOP field for whom I will NEVER vote UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Mark Steyn: Perry Right, Romney Wrong on Social Security

[SERIOUS CONTENT WARNING - I am in one of those moods UPDATE: Okay, mood has passed, so I've edited for content]

It's bad enough for a Republican (albeit a flip-flopping, pandering, pro-abort, health-care-mandating, Rockefeller RINO fraud) to resort to the demogogic Social Security scare tactics of the left in attacking another Repubican primary opponent, but I honestly NEVER thought I'd see the day when National Review would actually defend such nonsense. [REDACTED]

Fortunately, not every contributor at National Review has been coopted into pro-Romney hackery. Apparently, it takes a politically correct socialist "paradise" like Canada to produce a conservative intellectual with the clarity of thinking and ability to concisely cut through all the crap to get to the heart of the obvious truth of the sort that was once the hallmark of National Review, before it became a polical organ of the eastern establishment GOP:

... The fact that Rick Perry’s statement of the obvious is even “controversial” is testament to how diseased our public discourse is. Nevertheless, Maggie concludes by saying we should cut everything else until we’ve “fully funded Social Security for the next 50 years”:

A pension plan with an army. From a libertarian perspective, is that so bad?

Assuming that’s a serious question, I’ll rise to the bait. Taxing young people ever more onerously to prop up entitlements for older generations who enjoyed all the benefits of a prosperous America their grandchildren will never know is a great way to sever what little is left of the social compact...

... Whether or not, as Maggie says, 25-year-olds vote for Social Security, more and more Americans understand that we have looted the future to bribe the present, and that Social Security is Exhibit A in that indictment.

Exactly. Romney would rob your children to satiate his desperate yearning to be in the White House. I expect that from Democrats and leftists. Not people claiming to be "conservative". That makes him worse than Obama in my book.

Ross Douthat Cements His Position as Second-Douchiest "Conservative" Pundit in America

Of course the douchiest just so happens to be the other house "conservative" at the left-wing "newspaper of record". But Douthat is determined to give Brooks a run for his money:

... Rick Perry has many of the qualities that Romney seems to lack: backbone, core convictions, a killer instinct and a primal understanding of the right-wing electorate. He also has the better story. Where Romney has to run away from his Massachusetts health care bill and downplay his years as a downsizing artist at Bain Capital, Perry can spend the campaign reminding voters that almost half of the new jobs in Obama’s presidency were created on his watch in Texas.

What Perry doesn’t have, though, is the kind of moderate facade that Americans look for in their presidents. He’s the conservative id made flesh, with none of the postpartisan/uniter-not-a-divider spirit that successful national politicians usually cultivate.

Imagine if the Democratic Party nominated a combination of Al Franken and Nancy Pelosi for the presidency, and you have a sense of the kind of gamble Republicans would be taking with Perry. And even if that gamble worked, little in his record suggests that he’s prepared to preside over a polarized country, or negotiate his way through a divided Washington.

[...]

So whose door should Republicans be knocking on instead? Unless Mitch Daniels changes his mind or Jeb Bush changes his last name, the only compelling possibility remaining is Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.

Give it a rest, Ross. The guy who's been governor of New Jersey for all of 5 minutes (less time on the job, actually, than your favorite whipping girl, Sarah Palin, had as Governor of Alaska) has no intention of stepping in to save you elitists from having to suffer through yet another "red-state rube" from Texas as the GOP nominee.

Rick Perry's "Army of God"

Patrick Archbold notes the collective conniption the left and their media cohorts are having over Rick Perry and the very notion that he might ... gasp! ... take his religious faith seriously:

... Obama has often mentioned Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (including at Georgetown University) to make the case for his economic policies. In fact, the Politico ran a piece entitled "Barack Obama invokes Jesus more than George W. Bush."

So why is there no worry about Obama infusing religion into his politics? Ah, that's easy. Because the media believes that Obama's Christianity is only used to advance his politics while they fear that Perry's politics are actually informed by his Christianity. In short, he means it. And that scares the heck out of them.

[More]

Malthusian Nonsense Alert: "The Earth Is Full"

How long before China's chief cheerleader in the West, the New York Times' Thomas Friedman, calls for a U.N.-mandated 1-child policy for the entire world?

... “In China’s thousands of years of civilization, the conflict between humankind and nature has never been as serious as it is today,” China’s environment minister, Zhou Shengxian, said recently. “The depletion, deterioration and exhaustion of resources and the worsening ecological environment have become bottlenecks and grave impediments to the nation’s economic and social development.” What China’s minister is telling us, says Gilding, is that “the Earth is full. We are now using so many resources and putting out so much waste into the Earth that we have reached some kind of limit, given current technologies. The economy is going to have to get smaller in terms of physical impact.”

We will not change systems, though, without a crisis. But don’t worry, we’re getting there.

We’re currently caught in two loops: One is that more population growth and more global warming together are pushing up food prices; rising food prices cause political instability in the Middle East, which leads to higher oil prices, which leads to higher food prices, which leads to more instability. At the same time, improved productivity means fewer people are needed in every factory to produce more stuff. So if we want to have more jobs, we need more factories. More factories making more stuff make more global warming, and that is where the two loops meet...

[More]

Heck, for all I know, given Friedman's crush on all things ChiCom, he's probably already suggested a U.N.-mandated 1-child policy.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Hypocritical Malthusian Nonsense: Father of 5, Ted Turner, Wants U.N. to Institute World-Wide 1-Child Policy

Man vs. Nature: the Inhuman Agenda Behind the Fight Against “Climate Change”

What the One-Child Policy Has Wrought

Baby-Hating Malthusian Nonsense Goes Mainstream at Copenhagen

China Begins to "Figure it Out" on Demographics

Obama Culture of Death Update™: President's "Science Czar" Supports Forced Population Control Measures [UPDATED]

UK Government Official Says Having More Than 2 Children "Irresponsible"; Catholics Respond

Rich Leonardi on the "Obnoxiousness" of the Concept of "Carbon Footprints"

Malthusian Nonsense Alert: "Save the Planet — Have Fewer Kids"

Deacon Fournier Reviews Population Controllers

Malthusian Nonsense Alert: Babies a Drag on the Economy, Report Says

Darwin Catholic: "Want Sustainable? Try a Family"

Malthusian Nonsense in the Extreme: "When Should You Die?"

Population Control Movement is "Number One Violator of Human Rights," Author Claims

USAToday Columnist: Religion is Killing the Planet

The Pitter-Patter of Carbon Footprints ...

Cardinal Pell Criticizes Australian Medical Ass'n for Publishing Letter Advocating Carbon Tax on Children

Professor Solves Global Warming: Let’s Tax Reproduction

Global Alarming Update: Focus on So-Called "Carbon Footprint" Anti-Family

Malthusian Nonsense from "Global Warming" Alarmists

Cardinal Pell on Global Warming Alarmists: "Scaremongers" and "Zealots"

An Open Letter to Dodge

"Makes you almost want to have kids ... almost"

Dear Dodge,

I am a loyal Dodge customer whose 2 most recent vehicle purchases were Dodge Grand Caravans, including one in 2010. I recently viewed with horror your ad that depicts having children as something to be avoided. Just who do you think buys minivans anyway (clue: people with children). Which raises the question of why you feel the need to go out of your way to insult them? Is it going to help you sell these family vehicles by making families feel like personae non gratae?

Do you REALLY believe the childless and cynical Daily Show “smart set” to whom the commercial was obviously geared is going to buy a vehicle that averages around 20 mpg? Does it make you feel better about selling a vehicle that gets comparatively crummy gas mileage and thereby pollutes the environment more than other cars if you can make common cause with the sorts of people who view children as just another pollutant with a set of carbon footprints? Although the “smart set” may concur with the sentiment of the ad, they’ll be laughing on their way to buying a Prius.

Meanwhile, you’ve just angered a loyal customer who, although considering buying a Sienna last year, instead relied on my good experience with the Grand Caravan I purchased in 2002 (and still drive) and decided to buy another one. In making that decision, my wife and I took our kids with us to the dealership – they, like the children you disparage in the ad, crawled in and out and all over the interior of the vehicle (and, gasp, may have been a little loud), but I’m sure the salesperson and the dealership were more than happy to have sold the vehicle, which we bought due in no small part to our kids’ enthusiasm for it.

Well, I won’t be making that mistake again, unless I receive a written formal apology and Dodge makes a public statement of regret for running this abysmal ad. Believe me when I tell you that I am NOT the only parent who feels this way. You WILL lose customers over this unless you act to repair the damage you have done by gratuitously insulting those most likely to buy a Dodge minivan.

Yours truly,
James T. “Jay” Anderson
Norwalk, OH

Mitch "Truce" Daniels' Presidential Aspirations Now Officially DOA

They've been given the kiss of death by David "Pantcrease" Brooks.

GoDaddy (et al) Can Go to Hell

The NFL needs to apply their "personal conduct policy" to their Super Bowl ads.

What a bunch of hypocrites. They rightly punish Ben Rapistburger for his abusive off-the-field actions, but condone ads that celebrate the mentality that leads to players' off-the-field problems in the first place: the objectification of women and sex.

And all while the kids are watching. I guess the Super Bowl is not fit for family viewing any more (and really hasn't been for several years now).


UPDATE
By the way, GoDaddy wasn't even the worst offender this year. No, that dubious distinction, at least in my book, goes to Pepsi Max. Jerks.

Rachel Campos Duffy: "Being a Mom is the Best Job in the World!"

Rachel Campos-Duffy writes about her recent appearance, along with her husband Congressman-elect Sean Duffy, on "The View":

During my appearance on The View this week, Barbara Walters asked me, "Did you ever think, 'I wish I had a career and I didn't have six kids?"

It was a provocative question, especially since baby #6 was sitting on my lap at the time. I simply responded, "Being a mom is the best job in the world!"

Politico called the answer "diplomatic", and National Review's Kathryn Lopez tweeted that it was "graceful," but I couldn't help being disappointed with my response. Not that it wasn't true – being a mom is the best job in the world - but I felt that a question as culturally loaded as this one deserved a better answer, especially from someone who has written countless columns and an entire book on the subject of at-home motherhood and the sad fact that our culture does little to applaud or elevate this noble calling.

So, if I had it to do over again, what would I say to Barbara? I'd say, "Barbara, I consider it a privilege and a blessing to have six kids and watch them grow up. As fun as it is to be here with you all (and it is!) I wouldn't trade the precious and fleeting time I have home with my kids for anything."

[More]

My Comments:
In "my view" (which I consider to be much more authoritative than anything emanating from "The View"), Rachel's answer was perfect. Being a parent IS the best job in the world (the toughest, too).

However, I do agree with the assessments that Rachel was and is being "diplomatic" and "graceful" in her response. I have little tolerance for the bigoted anti-family hags that infest that particular program and their complete disdain for the people and the values that inhabit the vast region of this country between the two coasts. (Even Elizabeth Hasselbeck has finally been cajoled into being "pro-choice" and pro-same-sex marriage.)

Considering that Rachel was, unfortunately, passed over for the role of token conservative on "The View" in favor of Hasselbeck (I mean, they couldn't have an actual articulate conservative woman who was passionate about her views and could strongly defend them against the 3-1 onslaught), she is far more gracious than I would be to the women on that program who have shown nothing but derision over the years toward her faith and her values.

Keep up the good work, Rachel. You DO have the best job in the world.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Mr Duffy Goes to Washington [UPDATED]

Washington Post Profile of Catholic Father of 6 Running for Congress

Rachel Campos-Duffy: "Have We Become Too Casual? Why I Dress My Kids Up for Church"

Catholic Father of 6 Running for Congress Accused by Opponent of Being "Too Busy" With Kids to be Effective Representative

Rachel Campos Duffy: A Real Housewife of Wisconsin

Rachel Living in the Real World; The View Hags, Not So Much [UPDATED]

Bishop Blair: "Facts Rather Than Fiction" Regarding Pope's Condom Comments

Toledo Bishop Leonard Blair writes in the December 12, 2010 issue of The Catholic Chronicle:

Facts rather than fiction

Written by Bishop Leonard P. Blair
Saturday, 11 December 2010

... As I considered what to write for the December Chronicle, the recent controversy regarding Pope Benedict’s remarks about condoms immediately came to mind. I had to ask myself whether this was really an appropriate topic just before Christmas. However, today we cannot afford to look at Christmas in an overly sentimentalized way, stripping it of its power to change the world through the conversion of human hearts to the truth and love made flesh in Jesus Christ. What Christmas teaches us about life and love embraces every aspect of human existence, including sexuality and the crisis of AIDS, which is a moral crisis as much as a medical one.

In 2009 Pope Benedict made the claim that condom distribution is not helping, and may actually be worsening, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Now in 2010, he reaffirmed this claim in a recent book interview in which he repeats what he has said in the past, namely, that condoms are not the answer morally or otherwise to the scourge of AIDS.

In the interview the pope also said that the use of a condom by a prostitute with AIDS might represent a first step toward his or her moral awakening, toward a realization that the other person matters. In the context of all that the pope has said and continues to say about AIDS and condoms, there is no basis for asserting that either the pope or the church has changed Catholic teaching. All the pope did was to express a hope that maybe in the hypothetical situation he describes the use of a condom might be the first stirring of a conscience on the long road to conversion.

Let us look at the whole issue of condoms on the basis of facts. After Pope Benedict was roundly condemned, ridiculed and censored for what he said in 2009, the Washington Post published an op-ed piece by Professor Edward Green of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard University and author of a monumental study on the AIDS situation in Uganda. His op-ed piece, titled “The Pope May Be Right,” provided the following information:

“In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations’ AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa. In a 2008 article in Science called ‘Reassessing HIV Prevention,’ 10 AIDS experts concluded that ‘consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa.’ ”

[...]

As I indicated in a previous article, it is estimated that one in four of the 33 million AIDS patients worldwide is being cared for by the Catholic Church, including almost half of the total treatment efforts in Africa, where two-thirds of those afflicted with AIDS live. In Africa the Catholic Church is tremendously active in the fields of education, medicine and relief efforts. To the cries of those who call out for help in the face of AIDS, the church speaks and acts on the basis of moral and medical truths, not ideologyand fiction.

GetReligion on the “Is Rubio Catholic?” Story

GetReligion has taken up the story of whether Marco Rubio remains a practicing Catholic. (One of the links in the post is to my own post on the subject last week.)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on the subject:
Is Marco Rubio Still Catholic?

NPR Thinks Wishing Jesse Helms or One of His Grandchildren Would Die of AIDS is Okay [UPDATED]

This is the only conclusion one can draw from National Public Radio's decision to fire Juan Williams after Williams related to Bill O'Reilly his understandable anxiety over flying with Muslims after 9-11 (while nevertheless warning O'Reilly of the necessity of not stereotyping all Muslims for the actions of a few), but NOT firing Nina Totenberg several years ago after making the following statement:

“... if there's retributive justice, [Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

As the linked piece notes, Totenberg is still NPR's legal affairs correspondent. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude, therefore, that NPR thinks it's just great for one of its correspondents to publicly wish AIDS upon the innocent grandchildren of someone with whom that correspondent disagrees politically.

Any doubts about whether NPR is anything more than a left-wing propaganda organ may now be removed.




UPDATE
JUAN WILLIAMS: I Was Fired for Telling the Truth


UPDATE #2 (22 October)




UPDATE #3 (22 October)
The Corner has complied a list of Nina Totenberg's Greatest Hits: "What About Totenberg?"

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

Meanwhile, the NPR ombudman/person, while noting that the firing was "poorly handled", nevertheless defends the public broadcaster's decision to terminate the contract of Juan Williams.


UPDATE #4 (22 October)
For the record, someone in this whole Juan Williams - NPR dustup made a public comment that should cost someone that person's job. That someone was NOT Juan Williams, but NPR's CEO, Vivian Schiller:


Someone needs a refresher course on HR dos and don'ts. Ms. Schiller has likely opened up herself and NPR for a lawsuit. I, for one, hope Williams decides to take them to the cleaners.

Electoral Prospects Not Looking Too Promising ...

... when you're running a campaign ad just a month away from election day to reassure the voters that "I'm not a witch."

Alan Grayson: The Most Despicable Person in Politics [UPDATED]

Back during the Bush years, I can recall debates in the Catholic blogosphere in which Catholics of a certain left-leaning ilk accused those on the right of having questioned the patriotism of anyone who had opposed the Iraq War.

The thing is that I don't recall these instances of anyone's patriotism being impugned (outstide of David Frum's infamous piece at National Review in which he accused conservative Catholic commentators Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak of being "unpatriotic"; but then, any conservative worth a damn doesn't give a rat's patoot what David Frum thinks or says).

And, in fact, the left's protestations about having their patriotism questioned appears to have been nothing more than collective projection, imagining that their political adversaries were doing exactly what they would do if they were the ones trying to overcome opposition to a particular objective of national policy priority. This has been borne out since the election of President Obama: how many times have we seen the words "sedition" (also here, for example), "un-American" (also here, for example), "unpatriotic", and even "siding with the terrorists" (not to mention "racist") applied to critics of the Obama agenda?

But NEVER in my years have I EVER heard someone in politics say about someone in the opposition "He just doesn't love America like I do."

Until now:


The left-leaning FactCheck.org is having none of Grayson's BS attacks on his opponent:

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida is falsely accusing his opponent of evading the Vietnam War draft, claiming "he doesn’t love this country."

Republican candidate Daniel Webster didn’t "refuse the call to service," as claimed in a vicious TV ad featuring pictures of military graves and the sound of "Taps" being played on a bugle. In fact, the former Florida Senate majority leader was given routine student deferments until he completed his undergraduate degree. He then reported for a military physical and was disqualified for medical reasons...

I thought that disgusing ad couldn't be topped. Boy, was I wrong. I should have remembered we were talking about Alan "Republicans want you to die quickly" Grayson.

The following proves that absolutely nothing is beneath that contemptible POS:



The ad, attacking the Biblical beliefs of Christians and comparing them to the Taliban is disgusting enough. But once you learn the context of the remarks of Grayson's opponent, which Grayson twisted ... no mutilated ... completely out of context to make this despicable ad, there can be no doubt of the malicious bad faith on exhibit:



Once again, the left-leaning FactCheck.org lays into Grayson:

We thought Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida reached a low point when he falsely accused his opponent of being a draft dodger during the Vietnam War, and of not loving his country. But now Grayson has lowered the bar even further. He’s using edited video to make his rival appear to be saying the opposite of what he really said. …

The ad compares Webster to “religious fanatics” in Afghanistan and Iran. It says Webster opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest, which is true. But it also claims that “Webster wants to impose his radical fundamentalism on us,” and to support that claim it blatantly misuses a video clip of Webster speaking at a Christian conference in Nashville in 2009. …

Words fail.

A while back, our friends over at Vox Nova posited a question: "Will demagoguery triumph in 2010?" I don't know. Will it? Or will those allied to Grayson condemn him for this? Of course, Grayson may very well be a hero to them because of his claims during the health care debate that Republicans want people to die quickly ... a sentiment not too far off from one expressed many times over at that blog. That shouldn't stop them from recognizing that his demagoguery is worse than anything we've seen all election season. (Tu quoques arriving in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...)

To read most of the comments over there, it is clear that they believe Republicans and/or conservatives have a monopoly on demagoguery. But I have never seen ANYTHING like the disreputable, malicious, and calumnious demagoguery of Alan Grayson.


UPDATE
And now I'm left wondering if the guy is just completely nuts:



Everything is just so over the top when it comes to Grayson that it raises the question of whether he is emotionally and/or mentally stable. I'm no psychologist or psychiatrist, but he seems to me to border on insane.


UPDATE #2
Perhaps insane, but definitely a bad guy.

When even MSNBC calls Grayson out on his lies and distortions (one can only imagine the hate mail Contessa Brewer is receiving right now from the lefties who watch MSNCB and aren't used to seeing their icons called to account), that ought to be a clue that he has gone way too far, even by his own low standards.

Instead, this dirtbag defends his dubious deeds by doubling down on his despicable defamation:



In addition to repeating the lie about his opponent's remarks regarding wives submitting to their husbands, Grayson regurgitates some others that, once again, the left-leaning FactCheck.org has tagged as false:

... the ad’s claim that Webster would “deny battered women … the right to divorce their abusers” is a distortion. The claim is based on legislation he sponsored in the Florida House of Representatives 20 years ago. The bill, HB 1585, would have allowed Florida residents the option of a “covenant marriage,” which would limit their divorce rights. Under the proposal, couples could dissolve a covenant marriage only in cases of adultery. But that would not have applied to anyone who did not choose to enter a covenant marriage. The legislation died in committee in June 1990. Webster has not advocated for covenant marriages as a congressional candidate...

This is a very bad man. The left lionizes him. That's all you need to know.


UPDATE #3 (29 September)
I could kick myself for not titling this post "The Devil and Daniel Webster".


UPDATE #4 (30 September)
The GOP has released a new ad responding to the Devil's ... errr ... Grayson's tactics: