Talk back!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Protestants reject the Pope as their spiritual leader? Seems to me that that was what the whole Martin Luther thing was about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Protestants reject the Pope as their spiritual leader? Seems to me that that was what the whole Martin Luther thing was about.
Yah, but Jeb! is Catholic. He converted when he married his present wife. It's in the linked story.
Yah, but Jeb! is Catholic. He converted when he married his present wife. It's in the linked story.
If you lived down here you would know that Jeb is "a deeply committed Catholic" who has a tendency to mention that fact every time he visits the Cuban community in South Florida.
That's the reason he had to jump into the Terri Schiavo case, and oppose abortion.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to keep his daughter away from drugs, or convince his wife that she should pay her customs taxes for tens of thousands of dollars in Paris fashions, or not to execute people, or support wars.
The death penalty is the law, and he has made no effort to change it after more than 6 years in office.
If you lived down here you would know that Jeb is "a deeply committed Catholic" who has a tendency to mention that fact every time he visits the Cuban community in South Florida.
That's the reason he had to jump into the Terri Schiavo case, and oppose abortion.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to keep his daughter away from drugs, or convince his wife that she should pay her customs taxes for tens of thousands of dollars in Paris fashions, or not to execute people, or support wars.
The death penalty is the law, and he has made no effort to change it after more than 6 years in office.
A committed Catholic?
I think I won't go there...
A committed Catholic?
I think I won't go there...
That's pretty much what I thought, Bryan. He trots out his Catholicism when it gets him votes, and puts it in the back of the closet when it could prove inconvenient.
That's pretty much what I thought, Bryan. He trots out his Catholicism when it gets him votes, and puts it in the back of the closet when it could prove inconvenient.
Anya, Michael - I put in quotes because that's how he describes himself whenever it is of political advantage, especially in the heavily Catholic Cuban area, or during the Schiavo fight.
I don't think he's committed to anything except his personal advantage.
Frankly, I think he harbors less than "loving" feelings towards George. George keeps getting all of the attention, while John has actually succeeded in business and politics with a minimum of assistance.
Anya, Michael - I put in quotes because that's how he describes himself whenever it is of political advantage, especially in the heavily Catholic Cuban area, or during the Schiavo fight.
I don't think he's committed to anything except his personal advantage.
Frankly, I think he harbors less than "loving" feelings towards George. George keeps getting all of the attention, while John has actually succeeded in business and politics with a minimum of assistance.
Bryan,
Oh. I thought you meant that he should be committed...
Bryan,
Oh. I thought you meant that he should be committed...
Perhaps it's proper form for a good Catholic, but does it bother anyone else to see Jeb!, who is, after all, governor of a state in the U.S., kneeling before the new pope, kissing his ring and bowing?
Jeb! was presumably at the installation in his role as a representative of the U.S., and not merely as a private individual with his own religious beliefs. (At least that's how the local evening news represented it here tonight.)
Should the U.S. have had representatives there? yes, of course. Should Jeb! be symbolically blending his secular representation of the U.S. with such a personal religious ceremony? I'm trying to be flexible, but once again I feel left out. This is not merely theoretical for me: I know some UU's from Florida. As governor of Florida, when Jeb! goes abroad under America's banner, he should be representing all Floridians, not just Florida's Catholics.
Perhaps it's proper form for a good Catholic, but does it bother anyone else to see Jeb!, who is, after all, governor of a state in the U.S., kneeling before the new pope, kissing his ring and bowing?
Jeb! was presumably at the installation in his role as a representative of the U.S., and not merely as a private individual with his own religious beliefs. (At least that's how the local evening news represented it here tonight.)
Should the U.S. have had representatives there? yes, of course. Should Jeb! be symbolically blending his secular representation of the U.S. with such a personal religious ceremony? I'm trying to be flexible, but once again I feel left out. This is not merely theoretical for me: I know some UU's from Florida. As governor of Florida, when Jeb! goes abroad under America's banner, he should be representing all Floridians, not just Florida's Catholics.
Steve: Yes, Jeb! was there as the U.S. government's representative. (Probably because Dumb-ya figured he'd already milked everything papal for everything he could already get, and he didn't want to look like he was heading in that direction himself--and especially not on "Just Us Crybabies" Sunday, when the base is all riled up already.)
As to the protocol, once upon a time bowing and/or kneeling to kiss the pope's ring (or the bishop's) was de rigeur for Catholics. Nowadays, that custom, while still permissible, has more or less been replaced by the handshake--at least if the bishop in question isn't a total phobe about getting lay "cooties" all over him.
However, apart from the kissing of the ring, the bow was appropriate. I'm sure the U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James bows when HM the Queen walks up to him, or at least bobs his head (the minimum sign of proper respect to the Crown). Or the ambassador to Japan when in the presence of the Emperor.
Just as Jeb!'s role is complicated by the fact that he's a Catholic as well as his doofus brother's representative, the pope's role is muddled by the fact that he's also technically a head of state, as well as the religious leader of a billion Catholics around the world. So no, I don't think the bow was anything to get worried about. The ring-kissing, well, yeah, I can see how that might worry people, but I doubt it's going to have any significant implications for government policies either in Florida or on the broader U.S. front. Jeb!'s just like his brother in that respect--sucking up for anything that he thinks might help him, and once he's gotten all the advantage he can out of it, it fades off his radar screen.
Steve: Yes, Jeb! was there as the U.S. government's representative. (Probably because Dumb-ya figured he'd already milked everything papal for everything he could already get, and he didn't want to look like he was heading in that direction himself--and especially not on "Just Us Crybabies" Sunday, when the base is all riled up already.)
As to the protocol, once upon a time bowing and/or kneeling to kiss the pope's ring (or the bishop's) was de rigeur for Catholics. Nowadays, that custom, while still permissible, has more or less been replaced by the handshake--at least if the bishop in question isn't a total phobe about getting lay "cooties" all over him.
However, apart from the kissing of the ring, the bow was appropriate. I'm sure the U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James bows when HM the Queen walks up to him, or at least bobs his head (the minimum sign of proper respect to the Crown). Or the ambassador to Japan when in the presence of the Emperor.
Just as Jeb!'s role is complicated by the fact that he's a Catholic as well as his doofus brother's representative, the pope's role is muddled by the fact that he's also technically a head of state, as well as the religious leader of a billion Catholics around the world. So no, I don't think the bow was anything to get worried about. The ring-kissing, well, yeah, I can see how that might worry people, but I doubt it's going to have any significant implications for government policies either in Florida or on the broader U.S. front. Jeb!'s just like his brother in that respect--sucking up for anything that he thinks might help him, and once he's gotten all the advantage he can out of it, it fades off his radar screen.
Dumb Yankee Question: Why is he "Jeb!"?
Dumb Yankee Question: Why is he "Jeb!"?
The original "Jeb" was James Ewell Brown Stuart of the Confederate Calvary.
John Ellis Bush went through the same initials to nickname process.
It was probably on a belt buckle.
His first cousin, John Ellis is the head of political coverage at Fox News.
The original "Jeb" was James Ewell Brown Stuart of the Confederate Calvary.
John Ellis Bush went through the same initials to nickname process.
It was probably on a belt buckle.
His first cousin, John Ellis is the head of political coverage at Fox News.
Michael, thanks for the explanation. As I said, I'm trying to cut him some slack there, but I'm finding it difficult, especially as the new pope has a history of meddling in American presidential politics.
Bryan and Anya, if I recall correctly, the exclamation point comes from one of brother Bush's recent campaigns, in which his initials were always followed by an exclamation on printed campaign literature. Correct me if I'm wrong about this.
Michael, thanks for the explanation. As I said, I'm trying to cut him some slack there, but I'm finding it difficult, especially as the new pope has a history of meddling in American presidential politics.
Bryan and Anya, if I recall correctly, the exclamation point comes from one of brother Bush's recent campaigns, in which his initials were always followed by an exclamation on printed campaign literature. Correct me if I'm wrong about this.
Steve, please don't buy into that media canard. Yes, Reuters and plenty of others have reported that the man formerly known as Ratzinger attempted to interfere in the 2004 presidential election. I'm not buying it, and here's why.
First off, I've yet to see any official copy of the letter in question. Just snippets reproduced by the U.S. Catholic bishops and a leaked copy that comes from the Italian press (always a suspicious source for correct information). Second, nobody has definitively established that Ratzinger wrote the letter in question on his own motion. Everything I know about the Catholic Church, and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in particular, suggests that if he did, it was a highly unusual move. CDF is rather like the Supreme Court in that respect: it only issues opinions on matters that have been properly brought to its attention.
(My suspicion: some ultraconservative twit of a bishop, like Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb.--who has a track record for these kinds of attacks--sent in a denunciation to Rome, hoping to score points with the late pope. Once that denunciation landed on the Congregation's desk, action had to be taken, and it pretty much had to turn out the way it did, given the current status of canon law and Catholic doctrine. So think of the letter as potentially like Scalia's vote in Hamdi earlier this year--he didn't like having to do it, but he held his nose and did it anyway.)
Next, even if Ratzinger did issue the letter on his own motion, I don't see how it could legitimately be construed as an unwarranted intrusion (or an intrusion at all) into American politics. The letter was not in any sense a public document. It was not officially released ("promulgated," as we say in the Church), it was not publicly disseminated, and it was not read out in Catholic churches across the land. It was sent to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for them to do with as they pleased. They thought it over, fought about it, and eventually decided that they were not formally going to recommend that anybody be denied the Eucharist, though leaving the decision finally up to the individual bishop. They issued a press release which quoted parts of Ratzinger's letter, but not the whole thing. And that press release would likely have gone unnoticed if Faux News and a bunch of conservative 527s hadn't decided to start this "Kerry's been excommunicated/denied Communion" meme that liberals then picked up and spread far and wide for them. And we're still trying to drive a spike through its heart, without much success.
Steve, please don't buy into that media canard. Yes, Reuters and plenty of others have reported that the man formerly known as Ratzinger attempted to interfere in the 2004 presidential election. I'm not buying it, and here's why.
First off, I've yet to see any official copy of the letter in question. Just snippets reproduced by the U.S. Catholic bishops and a leaked copy that comes from the Italian press (always a suspicious source for correct information). Second, nobody has definitively established that Ratzinger wrote the letter in question on his own motion. Everything I know about the Catholic Church, and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in particular, suggests that if he did, it was a highly unusual move. CDF is rather like the Supreme Court in that respect: it only issues opinions on matters that have been properly brought to its attention.
(My suspicion: some ultraconservative twit of a bishop, like Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb.--who has a track record for these kinds of attacks--sent in a denunciation to Rome, hoping to score points with the late pope. Once that denunciation landed on the Congregation's desk, action had to be taken, and it pretty much had to turn out the way it did, given the current status of canon law and Catholic doctrine. So think of the letter as potentially like Scalia's vote in Hamdi earlier this year--he didn't like having to do it, but he held his nose and did it anyway.)
Next, even if Ratzinger did issue the letter on his own motion, I don't see how it could legitimately be construed as an unwarranted intrusion (or an intrusion at all) into American politics. The letter was not in any sense a public document. It was not officially released ("promulgated," as we say in the Church), it was not publicly disseminated, and it was not read out in Catholic churches across the land. It was sent to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for them to do with as they pleased. They thought it over, fought about it, and eventually decided that they were not formally going to recommend that anybody be denied the Eucharist, though leaving the decision finally up to the individual bishop. They issued a press release which quoted parts of Ratzinger's letter, but not the whole thing. And that press release would likely have gone unnoticed if Faux News and a bunch of conservative 527s hadn't decided to start this "Kerry's been excommunicated/denied Communion" meme that liberals then picked up and spread far and wide for them. And we're still trying to drive a spike through its heart, without much success.
Michael - Whew! I never knew I'd elicit such a heated response by commenting on what I thought was a well-documented matter! I'll take everything you say under consideration, but I'm not sure yet whether it will change my impression that there was meddling that I would consider inappropriate.
Next, even if Ratzinger did issue the letter on his own motion, I don't see how it could legitimately be construed as an unwarranted intrusion (or an intrusion at all) into American politics. The letter was not in any sense a public document.
It does not matter to me whether it was a public document or not. If the official church position, public or secret, avoidable or inevitable, was directed at Kerry with the intent to imply that he is "not a good Catholic," the political damage is the same. With (if I recall) about 30,000 bishops out there, whoever issued the letter, or caused it to be issued, could be pretty well certain it would be leaked. Forgive me if I have a limited imagination, but I can't imagine it was not intentional on the part of someone within the Catholic hierarchy, at whatever level.
As you mentioned, Reuters (among many others) reported that Ratzinger appeared to be the author of the document. No, I haven't seen it either, and yes, the newsie types have been bamboozled a few times lately. Perhaps it was a setup, much as Dan Rather was clearly set up.
I don't want to believe that the Catholic Church engages directly in secular political matters, but given what else the church has covered up in the past couple of years... and Ratzinger's fingerprints seem to be on that cover-up, too, unless I am expected to disbelieve everything the news sites say about him... I can't help being suspicious. If I turn out to have done the man an injustice, I will publicly apologize... and not for the first time... on my blog.
Michael - Whew! I never knew I'd elicit such a heated response by commenting on what I thought was a well-documented matter! I'll take everything you say under consideration, but I'm not sure yet whether it will change my impression that there was meddling that I would consider inappropriate.
Next, even if Ratzinger did issue the letter on his own motion, I don't see how it could legitimately be construed as an unwarranted intrusion (or an intrusion at all) into American politics. The letter was not in any sense a public document.
It does not matter to me whether it was a public document or not. If the official church position, public or secret, avoidable or inevitable, was directed at Kerry with the intent to imply that he is "not a good Catholic," the political damage is the same. With (if I recall) about 30,000 bishops out there, whoever issued the letter, or caused it to be issued, could be pretty well certain it would be leaked. Forgive me if I have a limited imagination, but I can't imagine it was not intentional on the part of someone within the Catholic hierarchy, at whatever level.
As you mentioned, Reuters (among many others) reported that Ratzinger appeared to be the author of the document. No, I haven't seen it either, and yes, the newsie types have been bamboozled a few times lately. Perhaps it was a setup, much as Dan Rather was clearly set up.
I don't want to believe that the Catholic Church engages directly in secular political matters, but given what else the church has covered up in the past couple of years... and Ratzinger's fingerprints seem to be on that cover-up, too, unless I am expected to disbelieve everything the news sites say about him... I can't help being suspicious. If I turn out to have done the man an injustice, I will publicly apologize... and not for the first time... on my blog.
By the way, Michael, I've updated my earlier post on the subject with a link to your comment above. People deserve an opportunity to read an expert opinion as they attempt to make up their own minds about what happened.
By the way, Michael, I've updated my earlier post on the subject with a link to your comment above. People deserve an opportunity to read an expert opinion as they attempt to make up their own minds about what happened.
I don't think there are 30,000 bishops in the entire world, Steve. I believe there are only about 250 in the United States, and that's counting auxiliaries, Uniates, military, and some that I'm pretty sure are retired.
Nor do I think it can be legitimately concluded that the Ratzinger letter was specifically directed at Kerry (in fact, I think Ratzinger--and the U.S. Catholic bishops--bent themselves into pretzels to avoid mentioning him by name, even if, as seems plausible, it was Kerry that whoever sent the original denunciation to Rome had in mind). And if their intention was to brand him a bad Catholic, well, let's just say they were awfully damned oblique about it. That's not quite the style for the CDF (or for Ratzinger). When you're on the Inquisition's shit list, they have no compunction about letting you know it, and in no uncertain terms.
Now, I do think that whoever sent in that original denunciation was almost certainly angling for some publicity. I don't think he got it, however.
I don't think there are 30,000 bishops in the entire world, Steve. I believe there are only about 250 in the United States, and that's counting auxiliaries, Uniates, military, and some that I'm pretty sure are retired.
Nor do I think it can be legitimately concluded that the Ratzinger letter was specifically directed at Kerry (in fact, I think Ratzinger--and the U.S. Catholic bishops--bent themselves into pretzels to avoid mentioning him by name, even if, as seems plausible, it was Kerry that whoever sent the original denunciation to Rome had in mind). And if their intention was to brand him a bad Catholic, well, let's just say they were awfully damned oblique about it. That's not quite the style for the CDF (or for Ratzinger). When you're on the Inquisition's shit list, they have no compunction about letting you know it, and in no uncertain terms.
Now, I do think that whoever sent in that original denunciation was almost certainly angling for some publicity. I don't think he got it, however.
I wonder where I got the number 30,000. Maybe that's the number of priests in America, or in the world. I read it somewhere today.
I dont know what to think. Michael, I don't want you to think I am mounting an attack on the Catholic church. I just don't want any church meddling in American secular political affairs. Believe it or don't, at your own discretion, but I would raise a huge stink if I thought my own denomination were involving itself in politics. Almost to a person, so would every other UU I've ever met.
All of us who are not inside the walls of the Catholic church have only external sources for our information about it. I would tend to trust you over, say, AFP, which is the source of the story I quoted. (I read the story second-hand, through truthout, which typically posts things intact.) We bloggers are only as good as the information we can obtain. So was Dan Rather. It's a hazard of the news and opinion biz, for amateurs like me and for pro's as well.
For many of us, suspicions about the hierarchy of the Catholic church are inevitable following the pedophilia scandal. Stigmatizing all priests for the actions of a few is grossly unfair, as surely as accusing gays of untoward behavior is deplorable and bigoted. And I don't. I've known too many good Catholic priests to believe that for a moment. (Remember, I worked for a couple of decades teaching at a Catholic university; I've met more than a few priests in my time.) But it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that at least some portion of the church's leadership did indeed attempt to mount a cover-up. That makes me mistrust the leadership in a way that I do not mistrust either the lower-level clergy or the rank-and-file of Catholicism.
Not to worry, Michael: it was Calvin, not any pope, who condoned the burning of my spiritual forebears at the stake. 
But I do confess an uneasiness with all large, highly structured religious organizations... including the superstructure of my own denomination, as benign as I may think they are.
I wonder where I got the number 30,000. Maybe that's the number of priests in America, or in the world. I read it somewhere today.
I dont know what to think. Michael, I don't want you to think I am mounting an attack on the Catholic church. I just don't want any church meddling in American secular political affairs. Believe it or don't, at your own discretion, but I would raise a huge stink if I thought my own denomination were involving itself in politics. Almost to a person, so would every other UU I've ever met.
All of us who are not inside the walls of the Catholic church have only external sources for our information about it. I would tend to trust you over, say, AFP, which is the source of the story I quoted. (I read the story second-hand, through truthout, which typically posts things intact.) We bloggers are only as good as the information we can obtain. So was Dan Rather. It's a hazard of the news and opinion biz, for amateurs like me and for pro's as well.
For many of us, suspicions about the hierarchy of the Catholic church are inevitable following the pedophilia scandal. Stigmatizing all priests for the actions of a few is grossly unfair, as surely as accusing gays of untoward behavior is deplorable and bigoted. And I don't. I've known too many good Catholic priests to believe that for a moment. (Remember, I worked for a couple of decades teaching at a Catholic university; I've met more than a few priests in my time.) But it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that at least some portion of the church's leadership did indeed attempt to mount a cover-up. That makes me mistrust the leadership in a way that I do not mistrust either the lower-level clergy or the rank-and-file of Catholicism.
Not to worry, Michael: it was Calvin, not any pope, who condoned the burning of my spiritual forebears at the stake. But I do confess an uneasiness with all large, highly structured religious organizations... including the superstructure of my own denomination, as benign as I may think they are.
My guess would be an order of magnitude error. There ought to be around 3,000 bishops worldwide (I seem to recall that number being featured prominently in coverage of the Second Vatican Council).
And I don't think you're mounting an attack on the Church, Steve. You or any of the lefty bloggers that were repeating that story. But I think that somebody is mounting an attack, both on the Church and on pro-choice Catholics (especially politicians). And I'd hope that lefty bloggers would be smart enough to see through that and not help them out.
I don't want my church getting involved in politics, although with a few exceptions I think that the Church's policies would be better than what we've got now. But if my church can do it, then so can James Dobson's, or Fred Phelps's, God rot both of those miserable bastards in hell. And that's not a place I want my fair nation to wind up.
My guess would be an order of magnitude error. There ought to be around 3,000 bishops worldwide (I seem to recall that number being featured prominently in coverage of the Second Vatican Council).
And I don't think you're mounting an attack on the Church, Steve. You or any of the lefty bloggers that were repeating that story. But I think that somebody is mounting an attack, both on the Church and on pro-choice Catholics (especially politicians). And I'd hope that lefty bloggers would be smart enough to see through that and not help them out.
I don't want my church getting involved in politics, although with a few exceptions I think that the Church's policies would be better than what we've got now. But if my church can do it, then so can James Dobson's, or Fred Phelps's, God rot both of those miserable bastards in hell. And that's not a place I want my fair nation to wind up.
Commenting by HaloScan
