Uh, you might want to go actually read her comments. Or is it not possible to criticize the actions of the Church without being anti-Catholic? Are that that far above reproach? You sound like a true liberal.
The RC Church DOES have ridiculous stances on illegal immigration. And saying that qualifies as Catholic bashing?
You really need to get a grip, my friend.
I completely agree with you. I stopped reading Hot Air a long time ago because it seemed they posted Catholic-related topics just to bait the anti-Catholic commenters. I can't tell you how many times I saw them warn people about anti-Muslim comments, but it was open season on Catholics.
Until this week, I thought MM's site was different. I see now I was wrong. She completely cherry-picked and misconstrued the Pope's comments, and she still hasn't admitted that. And the comments were just disheartening.
And they wonder why more Catholics aren't Republicans...
While nowhere near as vitriolic as the comments, Michelle's insinuation in her original that the Pope is advocating open borders to "fill the pews" is hurtful. She is an intelligent woman and should know better. What's even more ironic is that Protestantism is growing faster in Latin America and Mexico than Catholicism - so chances are a good percentage of the illegal immigrants crossing the border aren't even Catholic anymore.
This is nonsense: American Catholic institutions have very good demographic and economic reasons for supporting an increase in the (still overwhelmingly Catholic) Hispanic immigrant population in the United States. I suppose, for the sake of not offending Catholics, everyone should assume only the most benign explanations for the Catholic Church's behavior on this matter. In a similar manner, we should have accepted only the most innocent rationalizations offered by Church leaders for their behavior during the molestation scandals over the past several years. Oh, the anti-Catholicism of it all!
Questioning the motives of Church leaders for their behaviors and positions, especially ones that involve aiding and abetting criminals while turning a blind eye to citizens who suffer the consequences, like Jamiel Shaw, isn't the same as criticizing Catholicism generally.
Questioning the motives of Church leaders for their behaviors and positions, especially ones that involve aiding and abetting criminals while turning a blind eye to citizens who suffer the consequences, like Jamiel Shaw, isn't the same as criticizing Catholicism generally.
The difference is, Tommy, few - if any - of the posts were rational.
American Catholic institutions have very good demographic and economic reasons for supporting an increase in the (still overwhelmingly Catholic) Hispanic immigrant population in the United States
One of the more ignorant comments made to support Malkin's utterly vile charge...
"Economic" reasons? Maybe the commenter should journey into a heavily-Hispanic Catholic church and riff through the financial records someday.
He may learn something. There's no "money" in Hispanic ministry.
Just another example of Know-Nothing, writ large...
As I posted at MM sites, Hot Air is turning into a hate site. So is Townhall - the question: is any place on the right side of the blogosphere safe from the Know Nothings?
I proved the idiocy of the "economic" motive over on MM's site - too bad it wasn't put into a post, rather than being buried in a ton of Know Nothing comments.
Michele Malkin reasonable and level headed? I guess maybe in the way that Captain Ahab in Moby Dick was reasonable and level headed.
I agree with your post. Malkin has not been a force for calm disucssion. SHe represents the flip side of the left that also misrepresents the Catholic Church positon
I expect something like this from leftists. After all, they are all for secularism and against traditional values. But it's disheartening from conservatives. Very disheartening.
Even though Church officials might not agree with everything conservatives support and vice versa, traditional and faithful Catholics are among the best friends the right will ever have. Ditto for religious Jews, evangelicals, and Mormons. People need to realize that and get over their own personal prejudices.
"The RC Church DOES have ridiculous stances on illegal immigration. And saying that qualifies as Catholic bashing?
You really need to get a grip, my friend
Gorgon"
*********
Indeed, Gorgon - the fact the blogger is *absolutely terrified of addressing your point* - the only one raised by Ms. Malkin - quite vividly demonstrates the blooger has taken a wild swerve into MDS ("Malkin Derangement Syndrome") territory.
In this case the blooger FEELS a pet ox has been gored , not realizing (much less analyzing) the actual issue being discussed by the big kids: groups who push for a "no borders" policy.
Instead, it's all "Eeee! My ox! My ox!".
And this bit of elitist snobbery is true eye-rolling stuff:
"I would expect her to be equally as appreciative of THOSE OF US who will not cherry pick what portions of our faith we're going to follow and eschew"
Unbelievable.
"Grip getting" time may have passed, Gorgon, and it seems as if "get over yourself" might be a more apt suggestion.
At any rate, your excellent question (or Michele's point) will not be answered here.
KS
You want to talk about policies, Karen and Gorgon, fine.
But 95% of those posts didn't do that. Talk about goring oxes, the overall tone of that comment thread was "Eek! The Pope is going to overturn American sovereignty with one speech and the opinions of the Bishops!" and "Eek! The Pope just wants to fill pews!" and "Eek! Anyone who disagrees with us must love illegal immigration and have illegals over for tea on a regular basis."
Oh, and "Eek! The Pope was a Nazi! The Pope was a Nazi!"
Talk about the policies, fine. Here's the policy - once again:
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
I see nothing unreasonable in this - the OFFICIAL - position of the Church.
I disagree with Mahoney and other Bishops who lobby for no consequences and open borders. They need to pick up the Catechism and read it.
But the Pope's message was not about that. It was about treating them as human beings in as much as they deserve food and shelter - basic necessities.
You want to debate the reasonableness of the policies? Fine by me.
But when a majority of the posts contain nothing remotely discussing policy and some things more likely to be seen on the DailyKos, then there's a problem.
Wow. Thanks so much for taking a reasoned and rational stand on this issue.
Wow. Thanks so much for taking a reasoned and rational stand on this issue.
Are you being sarcastic, Rusty?
Guess not, after reading your post on the blog linked as your homepage. Thanks for the support. I appreciate it.
I find that most people are filled with the lies or slant they have been taught about the Catholic Church rather than what is truth.
As the great Archbishop Fulton Sheen once responded: “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church— which is, of course, quite a different thing.”
People are also afraid of that which they do not understand. I think that applies to much of what I witnessed this week(on speaking against the papacy and the Church).
To see an unbroken lineage to Peter, a follower of Christ, on US soil, scares some. For the non-Catholic, it might cause them to pause and think "What if they are right?" Not everyone feels that way but really, not everyone and every faith can be right. Just something to think about...
If Michelle Malkin was an aesthetically repulsive woman, hardly anyone would even care what she had to say about anything. At least that's why I started listening to her. Okay, that says more about me than her, nonetheless.
It may be illegal hiring practices, however I do judge people by the company they keep, and she tends to keep refugees from the K.K.K.
Amy,
Hard to imagine how you could have handled your defense of the Catholic perspective on illegal immigration any better than you did at Michelle's blog or here. Very...very well done.
I am glad to see your reconciliatory tone towards her, as she is a powerhouse for American Conservatism. This is the very first time I've been disappointed with Michelle on some level, with the offensive, unjust rhetoric. "Unholy Alliance" "Catholic Elites" "Open borders benefit Catholic churches looking to fill their pews and collection baskets."
Yep, they do hurt.
I hope people read all the Pope's speeches that he made while here. I think they would discover truth that they couldn't possibly have imagined possible. The Papal visit was wildly successful. I absolutely adore this Pope. His allowance, and ushering in of the Latin Missal to the faithful again, in my eyes is absolutely going to put the "Springtime of Christianity" as Pope John Paul II had spoke, into full bloom. We have a parish here in San Antonio that has the Latin Mass since, and it is nothing short of Heaven on Earth.
Anyway, you've got a loyal reader of your blog in me now.
God Bless you.
(Please continue to post at MM.com. She needs you.)
Schweggie:
Thank you for the kind words. It is rather...bizarre...to think I'm in a kerfluffle with Michelle Malkin. On a global level, no less.
I will probably post again at MM.com, but I really need to take some time away from it for now.
I also sent MM an e-mail of apology, I'm hoping she'll see one (or both) of these communications and respond on some level.
"Schweggie 04.21.08 - 8:44 am"
My feelings exactly. Michelle's two websites have been my "home pages" since IE7 with multiple tabs came out. My disappointment in Michelle grows more intense each hour she refuses to disavow 90% of the comment on those two hate filled threads. After being one her most ardent fans I admit the amount of respect I held for Michelle's opinions and judgement have diminished.
I am looking for new websites to start my days, this will be one of them.
Sorry, one clarification, I mentioned I was glad that you had a reconciliatory tone with Michelle, but I didn't tie it to why...and it could be interpreted as you needed to reconcile or apologize. You don't. 
But as faithful Catholics, making amends, no matter who is at fault, is second nature.
Zorro, I think this could be an indicator that Michelle needs to slow down a bit. She really cranks out posts these days at a much quicker pace than she used to. The original post loosely reminds me of what Rush Limbaugh terms 'drive by reporting' from the MSM. I mean, Catholics were absolutely relishing Peter's successor in Pope Benedict XVI, taking in EVERYTHING he has to say at his various speaking engagements, the reception on the tarmac by President Bush, the magnificent Papal Mass at Yankee Stadium, and then... where one would least expect an ambush, here comes Michelle with that drive by, BANG BANG BANG, then gone in trail of dust, yelling, "And don't forget about
Jamiel Shaw, you open border A-holes!!" Michelle would no doubt take umbrage at that characterization, but that is roughly how I interpreted that. I agree with her completely on Cardinal Mahony, but the way she lashed out at the Church in general, it was out of character.
But having said all that, I'm still giving Michelle a pass, and I'm still a big fan. :P
But we also saw what Amy is made of, and I was just like, wow. Amy needs to quit the day job and start blogging full time.
But we also saw what Amy is made of, and I was just like, wow. Amy needs to quit the day job and start blogging full time.
Figure out how I can get paid to do this, and you've got youself a deal, Schweggie.
I do feel I need to reconcile and apologize because I did shoot from the hip and have - as you can see - edited my comments as time passed and tempers cooled. We are called to forgive, and I have. But that doesn't mean I don't want to see progress and acknowledgement and change.
For now, keep doing what your doing.
Hey, I'm going to be in Madison on the 29th. Maybe I could have a cup o Joe with you and Dave? That would be cool. Will be my first time in Madison. I'm a little nervous going into a very blue state. Wondering if I should wear my Ronald Reagan tee...heh.
Schweggie:
The 29th of April? I'd love to, but have to decline. We're actually in Milwaukee, which is 90 minutes east of Madison. Since we both work (and my hubby until 6 pm), that's a bit of a trek.
But if you're ever in Milwaukee, we'll spring for dinner. We know some fabulous restaurants.
Hi Amy,
Nice, level-headed post and bravo to you on the charity you showed here.
God bless, Maureen
Yeah, there's a difference between what Malkin herself wrote and much of what went on in those two comments sections.
Malkin was undoubtedly throwing punches, but they were mostly above the belt (and those that weren't, I'd blame more on her credulity in accepting an MSM account of Pope Benedict's words rather than the words themselves).
But the stuff in the comments ... maybe 1/4 had a substantive point ... the rest were poison.
She really cranks out posts these days at a much quicker pace than she used to.
Well, maybe that is because she has a lot more free time on her hands after losing her Fox News gig.
I used to be a fan of Malkin's, until it started to became painfully obvious that she was nothing more than a nasty, shrill attention whore constantly looking for an outrage du jour to rile up her readership. Amy, you really don't need to apologize to her about anything.
Now that she is no longer on Fox News, she is likely going to become increasingly irrelevant. Her tv persona on Fox was unwatchable, and I doubt any other network is even going to touch her. She has nowhere to go now except on a gradual downward trajectory. But that's just my opinion, of course.
Well, maybe that is because she has a lot more free time on her hands after losing her Fox News gig.
Actually, I believe she quit Fox News after they refused to call Giraldo Rivera on the carpet for saying he'd spit in her face if he saw her.
And I agree with that move. I know she used to guest for O'Reilly on occassion, but between motherhood, housework, school work and my full-time job when I get home the last thing I'm able to do is watch Fox News. If I watch TV at all, it's shows that make me laugh or let me escape reality for a bit.
So I can't judge her on-screen performance, but I want to clarify I think the reason she left Fox News is for their refusal or inability to correct what she (and I) consider a threat and harrassment from Rivera. I know if I threatened to spit on a co-worker, I'd be on the unemployment line in a heartbeat.
And I have to verify that, but it's what I recall to the best of my ability.
I still agree with Malkin on many issues, but the comments on this post were out of control (as they were on the follow-up post, so I'm told) and I've been informed this happens quite a bit on HotAir.
Which is sad.
Maureen, thank you for the kind words.
Englishqueen,
I've always enjoyed your writing. I'm trading in Michelle's blog for yours.
I am not sure what people have to apologize for. SHe links to VDARE that is always talking anti Catholic Conspiracies.
I agree with Malkin on many issues. However on many issues she shoots first and even forgets to ask questions later.
At one point we conservatives prided conservative media as actually giving balance. Now we are just as bad as the liberals MSM was
Actually, I believe she quit Fox News after they refused to call Giraldo Rivera on the carpet for saying he'd spit in her face if he saw her.
Possibly, but I suspect that was merely her public reason for quitting. I think there was also a lot of backlash over how she handled the Graeme Frost story.
And while I may be a lot more liberal than I once was, I can assure you her television presence was awful. Whenever she would speak to someone who was on the opposite side of her on an issue, her face would literally twist with hatred, like it pained her to actually have to speak to someone with whom she disagreed. Even one of my co-workers, who is a fan of The O'Reilly Factor, told me that he would not watch the show if MM guest hosted because he could not stand her.
So, as uncalled for as Geraldo Rivera's remarks toward her were, when it came down to it, there was no question as to whose side Fox News was going to take.
And to echo what jh wrote above, Malkin does not just link to Vdare, she is a contributor to them. So, it should be no surprise what sort of people comment on her site.
Ms. Malkin I hope you read this because I just want to say you are dead to me.
It's one thing to disagree with the Pope on a non-doctrinal political issue(& for the record I do disagree with him on this issue)as long as you show him respect. It is another thing to disrespect him & to allow the comments box on your blog to become a vehicle for anti-Catholic Know-nothing hate propaganda. Until such time as you repudiate the trash spoken against the Holy Father in your commboxes & make it know it will not be tolerated no loyal Catholic should grant you the time of day.
PS I don't think Ann Coulter has EVER disrespected the Pope & she isn't even Catholic. Nothing like those self hating Catholics from either the left or the right.
Commenting by HaloScan
