Around 11:45pm CST, CNN announces that Biden is Obama’s choice
August 22, 2008
CNN seems to be the first to break the news: Sen. Barack Obama has selected Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate.
150 Comments
Comments are closed.
Catholic perspectives on culture, society, and politics
Blog Associations
Site Counter
Ad Free
Biden completely solidifies PA and helps tremendously in places like NE Ohio.
This may force McCain to decide how committed to pro-life he really is., if he wants to ake PA.
If he counters with Ridge for VP, I’d love to hear to chorus of rationalizations from those who now support McCain vociferously and also falsely claim that it is simply a sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate.
I have to admit I thought Obama would be a tad more bold. I am not seeing millions of Americans waking up and going WOW Biden.
Why Obama did not pick a Governor is beyond me.
I like Biden and actuallyRepublicans that follow this stuff like it is afootballgame like Biden too. However gosh his mouth will get him trouble.
I think it was a safe and sane choice for Obama but will not change the electoral map. I guess now the ball will be in McCains court as to VP
Obama and Biden together on television, in periodicals, and online , I think, is going to make a huge impact. Biden’s mouth may be an issue, but he will most certainly own McCain on foreign policy. Ridge and Lieberman may be the only ones who can save McCain now.
Why are these anonymous party officials unable to keep their mouths shut for a few hours? That should be the real story.
I am in NE Ohio. The problems that people have here with Senator Obama go deep enough that they are not going to be helped much just by seeing Biden on the ticket. McCain’s pick, whoever that is, will make a similarly small splash. In general I think the importance of the vice presidential selection is pretty much over-rated. People vote based on who is at the top of the ticket, the bottom half of the ticket is more or less overlooked by everyone outside the beltway, at least in my experience.
“Obama and Biden together on television, in periodicals, and online , I think, is going to make a huge impact. Biden’s mouth may be an issue, but he will most certainly own McCain on foreign policy. Ridge and Lieberman may be the only ones who can save McCain now.”
Policraticus , I guess I just don’t see that. Especially how Biden will own McCain on Foreign Policy. In a way I see this as a very inside the belt way pick. It is similar if McCain chooses Romney. All the talking heads say GREAT what a awesome pick. However would it really?
As to Biden. I was not exactly picking up a huge wave of Biden excitement when he ran for PResident this year.
Like I said he is competent and if Obama got the nod and something happened to him Biden is compent enough to step in an the Republic will be not fall apart. Besides that we now have a ticket with no executive experience.
Biden is a safe pick but he is not a game changer that I can see.
As to Ridge and Joe that I really don’t see that happening. Ridge if picked would be a lot like Biden as to excitement . Lot os inside the beltway and pundits going good pick but a big yawn elsewhere. I mean I was not exactly seeing people going wow recall when Ridge was Director of Homeland Security what a great VP
One other note. It is interesting to see that several picks for VP if they just had a couple of years more experience would have been interesting VP picks
On the Dem side we see that in Kane
On the GOP side we see that in Jindal and Palin.
all three had great stories and are fresh faces but just too fresh.
From the NOR — some awkward moments:
Biden, on a post-debate appearance on MSNBC, October 30, 2007: “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.”
Biden appearing on The Daily Show, August 2, 2005: “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off, be well off no matter who…”
On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.”
… and Biden on Obama:
Reacting to an Obama speech on counterterrorism, August 1, 2007: “‘Look, the truth is the four major things he called for, well, hell that’s what I called for,’ Biden said today on MSNBC’s Hardball, echoing comments he made earlier in the day at an event promoting his book at the National Press Club. Biden added, ‘I’m glad he’s talking about these things.’”
Also that day, the Biden campaign issued a release that began, “The Biden for President Campaign today congratulated Sen. Barack Obama for arriving at a number of Sen. Biden’s long-held views on combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” That release mocked Obama for asking about the “stunning level of mercury in fish” and asked about a proposal for the U.S. adopt a ban on mercury sales abroad at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
Assessing Obama’s Iraq plan on September 13, 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany” of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. “I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”
Speaking to the New York Observer: Biden was equally skeptical — albeit in a slightly more backhanded way — about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
… all things considered, better than Sebelius.
This is the very best choice of the candidates available whom Obama could have chosen. Biden is solidly “working class,” a very devout Catholic, even if “pro-choice” (I’d like to see Chaput attempt to “excommunicate” HIM!), and he has more foreign policy experience than anybody else running in 2008. (Plus, despite his occasional verbosity his quips are sometimes deadly: he ENDED Giuliani’s bid with the one about every third word being “9/11″!)
I’d like to see Chaput attempt to “excommunicate” HIM!
Umm… what?
Biden — the perfect foil for Palin!
Biden isn’t in Chaput’s diocese, he can’t excommunicate him. That’s the duty/right (privilege?) of the local ordinary.
But we do now have a potential showdown over Communion for the 08 election. Ought to keep things interesting.
As for Biden being a devout Catholic– you can’t be a devout Catholic and support the killing of 50 million babies.
My disappointment in Biden was his completely and utter lack of knowledge regarding the natural law as evidenced in the Thomas hearings; whatever you think of the now-Justice, Senator Biden made himself look completely foolish to anyone who knows something about NL, which is all the worse because of his natural intelligence.
digbydolben writes : “a very devout Catholic, even if “pro-choice””
Very Devout?.
Can a man likewise be “very devout’ and pro-choice concerning rape?
Or, can a man likewise be very devout and pro-choice concerning incest?.
If not, then why can a man be very devout and yet be pro-choice concerning baby murder?
What does the term pro-choice mean if not that the person thinks that the choice in question is an acceptable choice to make? And what is that acceptable choice? Baby Murder. Thus according to Digbydolben a man can think it is acceptable to chose to murder babies and still be a devout Catholic. Amazing.
I’d like to see Chaput attempt to “excommunicate” HIM!
You’re not the only one.
I was hoping for Clinton, but Biden still excites me. He was my first choice when this all began, and I’m glad he’ll be part of the race. Biden’s intelligence on foreign policy is unmatched, and he adds some flavor to a sometimes very bland debate. Also, it’s nice to have a Roman Catholic involved (and please, can we nip this excommunication non-sense in the bud). Good choice!
Biden is going to do the same thing as THIS with McCain’s addlepated gaffes:
It’s an absolutely brilliant choice on Obama’s part. The one portion of the population that’s been really un-sold on Obama are the old folks, and the old folks LOVE Biden. Whoever did Obama’s polling on this one served him well.
In this election cycle, in which the Republican party has exploited– and will exploit like there may in fact be no tomorrow–the fear of the ‘unknown other’, a VP choice of Biden’s stature and counterattack skills should be able to deliver even a significant portion of the “bitter” voters.
Biden is slimy and dishonest, although that doesn’t distinguish him from most other politicians. See http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWUzZmMxMjgwOTg2MDZmZjAwNWM0YWFhMjQ4Y2M2N2E=
I suspect that some will respond to the Biden choice with his history of plagiarism:
“Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.” Wikipedia
Some examples in Biden’s history:
(1) ” Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., fighting to salvage his Presidential campaign, today acknowledged ”a mistake” in his youth, when he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school. “NY Times 8/23/08
(2)”Controversy helped derail Biden’s candidacy for the U.S. presidency in the 1988 Presidential campaign. He was found to have plagiarized a speech from British Labour Party (UK) leader Neil Kinnock. The plagiarism was considered all the more serious, because it included details of Kinnock’s life which were not true in Biden’s case. After Biden withdrew from the race, it was learned that he had correctly credited Kinnock on other occasions but failed to do so in an Iowa speech that was recorded and distributed to reporters by aides to Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee. Dukakis fired the senior aide responsible, but the damage had already been done to Biden.”
Congresspedia
Obama may not consider this a problem given his “borrowing” from Deval Patrick…birds of a feather.
Christopher forwards verbatim some of the talking points bump from the McCain rapid response team, and SB delivers us a National Review opinion piece (I know, that’s a redundancy if we’ve ever seen one).
Hilarious, little gal’s main man, George Bush, fabricates documents to send our nation into its bloodiest, most unjust war of choice since Vietnam, and she comes out with plagiarism charges against Biden about lifting from a foreign minister’s political speech from 20 years ago…
You need a McCain-Bush hug.
And Mark comes back with a non sequitur, which is more intelligent than his usual gutter-minded insults.
Little gal, no problem with Biden being a plagiarizer, Obama takes pieces of the communist manifesto all the time! (not sure if that’s public domain now though…)
For all the talk about “change” and the same old politics from OBama, he certainly picked someone that idealizes the old trash politics very well.
Not to mention, Biden is even a racist:
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
“I’ve had a great relationship (with Indian Americans). In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking,”
Mark:
I have never been a Bush supporter (geez, how many times do I have to say this?). I do admit to supporting McCain though when he ran for President eight years ago.
Little Girl
Your definition of plagarism, you do realize, would also turn many writers of the Bible, and many Church Fathers, into plagarists? I’ve always thought “plagarism” is a rather odd category, and one of the great new sins we find in the capitalistic world, one which counters the way writing has been done for most of human history. Of course, I do think people should indicate the source of their words, but that’s because of the hermeneutic issues involved.
Sorry, little gal.
S.B.,
You seem fixated on me.
I told you that I was going to try harder.
I thuought you were going to pray for me, but instead tell me directly that my mind is in the gutter.
Please explain.
Mark DeFrancisis writes : “”George Bush, fabricates documents to send our nation into its bloodiest, most unjust war of choice since Vietnam”
No. That honor belongs to Clinton who is responsible for the bloodiest most unjust war since Vietnam. His sanctions against Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of non combatants.
btw, If you want to know the mind of Biden, you need look no further than his switching his position from pro-life to pro-death when he decided to run for president. Along with Mary Rose Okar, he was a one time the standard bearer for pro-lifers in the Democratic party.
It’s good to know that we can take it from Biden that Obama is “clean” and ‘nice looking’ – and the first of his tribe to be that way. Heh. Biden’s just another heavily pro-abortion Catholic, with one claim to fame that separates him from Barry ‘Let ‘em die’ Obama – Biden voted to ban partial birth abortion.
Little gal,
Correct you are about the heinousness of the Clinton sanctions. Very, very good comeback.
I just don’t think the plagiarism stuff will work for the Republicans. Only my opinion.
About your last comment, working with the “pro-life” movement in its earlier years could be very much a turn off experience. I know. This is no excuse for Biden, though.
Henry:
It’s ‘little gal’ , not girl.
I didn’t provide ‘my’ definition of plagiarism; the source is given. You are welcome to spend your time comparing definitions of plagiarism. I do recognize your tactic in your post as one of Aristotle’s Tricks of Rhetoric though….
“But we do now have a potential showdown over Communion for the 08 election. Ought to keep things interesting.”
Yes, another chance for some US Catholics to embarrass themselves, and show they are more aligned with the way of thinking of American dualists than Catholics.
It’s ironic that SB links to Kathryn Jean Lopez, who herself would be on the list for being denied communion if Canon 915 were to be interpreted as some right-wing Amiercans desire.
The Kinnock story is easily deflected: do you really want to get into what John McCain was doing in the late 1980s? (hint: Keating 5).
I think the Biden pick is interesting, precisely because he has a reputation for mouthing off without thinking. Perhaps it’s a sign that Obama is not going hit back against McCain and the right-wing message machine. I really think they should make an ad showing 9/11 and how Bush’s disastrous detour into Iraq let Bin Laden go, and John McCain was the biggest supporter of this strategy.
Some great Biden quotes!
“I refuse to sit back like we did in 2000 and 2004. This administration is the worst administration in American foreign policy in modern history — maybe ever. … Every single thing they’ve touched has been a near-disaster.”
“”Rudy Giuliani… I mean, think about it! Rudy Giuliani. There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence — a noun, a verb, and 9/11. There’s nothing else!”
Give’em hell, Joe!
What I don’t understand is how MM can accuse others of “American dualism”. It hardly gets any more black and white than MM. Well, I guess his dualism is European. The enthusiasm for Barry & Co. is pretty embarrassing as well for a Catholic.
Can any – any Obama supporters here deal with issues instead of immediately falling back on ad hominem?
Just answer these simple questions:
Biden has been rather a hawk on the Iraq war, in contrast to Obama’s position.
Biden is on record declaring Obama’s inexperience. Repeatedly.
Biden is closely tied to credit card companies which have played a huge, destructive role in American life of late.
Biden is not known for his honesty.
Most importantly, Obama runs on “hope” and “change” nd a “new way of doing politics.”
Please, Obama suporters, explain how this choice expresses those values.
My opinion?
Everyone else said “no” to Obama. You might want to consider that possibility. The ship is sinking…
I think this is a disastrous choice for the Catholic Church. It already has Morning’s Minion crowing about how much better a Catholic he is than others, and I don’t see it getting any better.
“It already has Morning’s Minion crowing about how much better a Catholic he is than others, and I don’t see it getting any better.”
Excuse me????? Why are so many people incapable addressing the substance of what I write rather than simply lying about it?
Biden has been rather a hawk on the Iraq war, in contrast to Obama’s position….
Biden admitted he voted incorrectly. And he actually called for troop withdrawals, you know, like the 16 moth plan Obama put forth and Iraq agreed to.
Biden is on record declaring Obama’s inexperience. Repeatedly…
He was his ex-opponent. Candidates always go after each others ‘weaknesses.’ Welcome to politics. Obams’s choice of an “experienced” candidate only makes more sense.
Biden is closely tied to credit card companies which have played a huge, destructive role in American life of late..
? Links?
Even if so, look at the alternative. McCain’s main economic advisor, Phil Gramm, was virtually personally responsible for our housing/sub-prime crisis (via deregulation)…
…Biden is not known for his honesty…
The plagiarism affair in college more than 30 years ago? God forgives. Grace transforms.
Most importantly, Obama runs on “hope” and “change” and a “new way of doing politics”….
Is tha tin itself a transgression, politically or religiously?
http://www.tnr.com/columnists/story.html?id=ba9b09bb-ed01-4582-b6ec-444834c9df73&k=93697
All we can say for sure is that its going to be interesting.
Where did this “Scranton” and “solidly working class” nonsense begin? It’s a PR invention, a fable. His middle class parents left Scranton when he was a very young boy.
I don’t think Biden even read his “autobiography”, let alone wrote it because it is wrong about the location of the old steel mills in Claymont, Delaware and his supposed proximity to them as a boy, among other obvious things. He lived in Mayfield, a North Wilmington middle class suburb in the heart of Brandywine Hundred. He went to one of the most elite private schools in the state. He’s lived in various huge mansions in Greenville for what, the last 30 years or more?
Yet, the press buys and advances his penchant for inventing things and distorting things to look like something other than the sell-out self-important striver he is.
I would not want to go up against man in a VP debate:
I really think they should make an ad showing 9/11 and how Bush’s disastrous detour into Iraq let Bin Laden go,
That was result of a bad decision in ’01, not because of Iraq (assuming that he was in Afghanistan and then fled to Pakistan at the end of ’01, and not before).
What I wanted out of a Vice Presidential candidate for Obama was somebody who could help him with foreign policy issues.
Watch these clips and get it through your heads that Biden will EAT McCAIN ALIVE in the foreign policy debate. I am SO happy!
I would not want to go up against man in a VP debate:
Interesting. Being a print media kind of guy, I’d never actually heard Biden speak before.
Frankly, though, I’m not impressed. There’s a difference between being smart or being a strong debater and simply being someone who shouts a lot. (Though this difference can often be elided in internet conversations!) And, of course, it doesn’t help that all the stuff he was shouting turned out to be dead wrong.
People generally do not like a bully — and Senator Biden (known for delivering lines like “I will screw you, badly.” with a smile) will probably come off as one if he decides to spend debates bellowing like that video clip.
On the Catholic pro-choice politician issue: Biden’s ordinary has apparently said that it is absolutely unacceptable for a Catholic politician to be pro-choice, and has said that such a politician should voluntarily not bring himself forward to receive communion. Whether Biden will choose to respect the teaching of his ordinary on this will, I’m sure, be seen.
DC buys the “surge” mythology, I see…
Darwin: “Whether Biden will choose to respect the teaching of his ordinary on this will, I’m sure, be seen.”
I’m not certain that Bishop Saltarelli has said what you say he has – he might have because he is active in the pro-life activities in the Diocese of Wilmington – but I have seen Joe Biden go up for Holy Communion at the 5p.m. Sunday Mass at St. Patrick’s on King Street in Wilmington within the last year.
I would imagine that he is a parishoner at St. Joseph’s on the Brandywine.
Digby, I found this statement from Bishop Saltarelli:
The promotion of abortion by any Catholic is a grave and serious matter. Objectively, according to the constant teaching of the Scriptures and the Church, it would be more spiritually beneficial for such a person to refrain from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. I ask Catholics in this position to have the integrity to respect the Eucharist, Catholic teaching and the Catholic faithful.
In a spirit of pastoral charity, I strongly remind all Catholics – both highly visible public officials and the everyday parishioner — that they must examine their consciences about their worthiness to receive communion, including with regard to “fidelity to the moral teaching of the Church in personal and public life.”
It is not my expectation that individual priests, deacons and extraordinary ministers of communion will make judgments on their own as to the worthiness of individual Catholic public servants to receive communion. That is ultimately my responsibility in light of Catholic moral theology and the Code of Canon Law. At this stage, I much prefer the active engagement and dialogue called for by Catholics in Public Life.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07saltarelli.htm
Watch these clips and get it through your heads that Biden will EAT McCAIN ALIVE in the foreign policy debate.
Digby, you seem to be under the impression that McCain and Biden are going to debate each other at some point in the campaign. This is incorrect. Biden will debate the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, whoever that ends up being. Obama, however, is going to have to debate McCain by himself. He won’t be able to call in Biden as a sub when the discussion turns to foreign policy.
Frankly, I wouldn’t be too scared of McCain debating Biden in any event. Even assuming arguendo that he is substantively better, more informed, and more articulate on the subject of foreign policy, the winner of the debates is typically judged not by who was better on the subject, but by such things as body language, odd gestures, etc. (Think Bush’s smirk, Gore’s sighs, or Nixon’s famous five o’clock shadow) Occasionally it will rise to the level of a single witty line or gaffe, but that’s as substantive as it tends to get.
If you think Biden is going to confine his “debate” with the Republicans to his Vice Presidential opponent, you haven’t been listening to him over the past year and a half.
Also, the Senator from Deleware is no longer so verbose as he used to be; he’s learned to issue devestating quips, like the Rudy Giuliani “9/11″ one.
McCain IS going to have to “debate” Biden on foreign policy; my prediction is that Biden is going to become Obama’s chief spokesman on foreign policy, and that, over the next few weeks, Obama will be mainly talking about economic policy and NOT about foreign affairs–unless there’s a crisis.
Biden will be the one talking about the “exhaustion” of our defense capacities by two wars, one of them unnecessary, and about the dangerously “simplistic” aspects of the Bush-McCain-Cheney approach to dealing with Iran and Russia. The choice of the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate effectively SILENCES the Republican attack machine regarding Obama’s “national security” qualifications, and you know it.
Let “Bishop Saltarelli” ban Biden from taking Communion: I bet most Roman Catholics in America will just ignore that fact and make up their own minds. Lay Catholics in any country do not like to be told how to vote by priests.
That poor, overplayed POW card will have to receive lamination, to prevent it from disintegrating into thin air.
“We need more than a good soldier; we need a wise leader.” Biden today.
Wolf Blitzer:Senator McCain if you knew then what we know about WMDs, would you have supported the war with Iraq?
Mr. McCain: Absolutely.
Such a dogged, foolish answer makes next to irrelevant questions about 2007 troop levels and what actually caused the temporary reduction in violence…
Joe Biden could also convince many grandmothers and great grandmothers in OH, WV, and PA that its O.K. to vote for this ‘black man’.
My Western PA older relatives LOVE Mr. Biden so much that some would probably even be reassured heartily by the later that its O.K. if there grandchildren and great grandchildren even married into African American families
Poor McCain. All of the subtle and not so subtle racism of the his campaign will be for political nought, amd only thus serve todisgrace an otherwise fairly honorable candidate.
It’s ironic that SB links to Kathryn Jean Lopez, who herself would be on the list for being denied communion if Canon 915 were to be interpreted as some right-wing Amiercans desire.
It’s not ironic at all; I wasn’t making any claim about whether Biden should be denied communion. Anyway, Lopez’s article was just a convenient way to link to a lengthy quotation from Clarence Thomas’s autobiography, which describes two scenes in which Biden is dishonest (i.e., in deliberately misquoting an earlier Thomas speech to make it appear that he had made the opposite argument).
Given that you and Mark D. can’t come up with any rebuttal other than stupid ad hominems, I take it you concede the point.
What are we supposed to rebutt?
I myself agree with Senator Obama that Thomas was the least qualified nominee in decades.
Many of his judicial opinions have simply been outrageous, after he finally emerged from under the robe hemmings of Scalia to actualy say something on his own.
I wish Biden would have been more effective in his onslaught.
What are you supposed to rebut? The quotations from Thomas’s book. Not that you can . . . Thomas is speaking about a matter that is public record (i.e., what Biden said at the Thomas hearings, and what Thomas had actually written, which was the opposite of what the dishonest Biden claimed).
By the way, Thomas has never been in the “robe hemmings [sic] of Scalia.” No one thinks that except for racist idiots.
And what irony . . . Mark pretends to think that McCain’s ads have been racist, even while he says something that is much more directly racist about Clarence Thomas, namely, the cliched and uninformed accusation that the black guy couldn’t think for himself but was just parroting the conservative white guy.
I speak bases his record and in conformity with the great majority of the African-American community.
No, you’re not speaking based on his record. That is a lie.
If you have any interest in Thomas’s actual record (as compared to your racist stereotypes), check out the following article by ABC news reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg (widely known as one of the top Supreme Court reporters): http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009590
Or check out this blog post by a law professor. http://volokh.com/posts/1170023935.shtml
Both of these links should be simple enough for the layman to understand. Disagree with Thomas if you like, but stop with the racist stereotypes, OK? It’s offensive.
Why are so many people incapable addressing the substance of what I write rather than simply lying about it?
What you wrote was that this is “another chance for some US Catholics to embarrass themselves, and show they are more aligned with the way of thinking of American dualists than Catholics.”
Clearly, you don’t think you are more aligned with the way of thinking of American dualists than Catholics. And someone who is more aligned with the way of thinking of American dualists than Catholics is a worse Catholic (qua Catholic) than someone who is not.
The substance of what you wrote, then, is that this is another chance for some US Catholics to show they are worse Catholics than you are.
To call it “crowing” is, admittedly, to apply a strong editorial bias, but I think it’s justified by the generally high level of sanctimony you write with on political topics.
DC buys the “surge” mythology, I see…
Actually, I’m not sure that the “surge” in troop levels was all that key. What as key was the implementation (far later than it should have been, but not too late) of a decent counterinsurgency strategy under Gen . Petraeus (who literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency tactics.)
However, Biden insisted that Iraq could never cool down, and that it would be necessary to section it into smaller countries based on ethnic dividing lines. He’s proved to be dead wrong, and the coalescence of Iraq over the last year has proved.
And, at least according to news notes I saw this morning, many in the Iraqi government are pretty unimpressed with Biden as Obama’s selection for that reason. They won’t forget any time soon that he’s the one who wanted to partition their country.
Let “Bishop Saltarelli” ban Biden from taking Communion: I bet most Roman Catholics in America will just ignore that fact and make up their own minds. Lay Catholics in any country do not like to be told how to vote by priests.
Digby,
You might be right on that, but if so, it’s a shame. The bishops should not be ignored, much less scorned — no matter what they’re talking about.
Tom: so that’s what you are getting at. My point here is simple: are there any other countries where Catholics loudly try to use the eucharist as a partisan bludgeon? Why is the US different? I remember poor old Cardinal Maradiaga getting hectored by the US right for saying he was not going to turn polictians away from the Eucharist.
I agree that much of the “Thomas is stupid” stems from racism. I believe Thomas is highly intelligent. It’s his arrogant disdain for the legislative arm and his huge chip on his shoulder that make him problematic as a judge.
I myself did not imply he was stupid. But at the time of his nomination, he was grossly, grossly underqualified.
He has come into his own, however. Nevertheless, his jurisprudence, in my humble opinion, is deplorable.
What do you mean, Thomas’s “huge chip on his shoulder”? The only type of case where I could see that comment as even arguably relevant is in the handful of affirmative action cases that have appeared before the Court in the past 16 years, out of the more than 1,000 other cases that Thomas has heard in that time. So even if your comment is true, it’s hardly relevant to anything. Plus, if you actually read Thomas’s opinions in those cases, he draws on a long history of black pride going back to Frederick Douglass. See, e.g., Mark Tushnet’s essay, “Clarence Thomas’s Black Nationalism.”
I myself did not imply he was stupid.
What you said played right into the racist stereotype of Thomas as a stupid guy who doesn’t know how to do anything except tag along with the white Scalia. Your comment much more clearly invoked a racist stereotype than anything McCain has ever said w/r/t Obama.
SB,
You are correct. I should have been more careful and precise.
DC,
We will see how much Iraq holds together after our inevitable departure, whenever that is.
Like you and all people of good will, I hope that country (and the region) does not slip into chaos.
I myself am not sure that the political progress has been made is even enough to guarantee that a partitioning of the country into three would not have been the best solution. Now, it looks like a unified country may indeed be possible and thus, Mr. Biden’s judgment then was wrong . But what do I know. Only time and the results of hopefully much more of the needed EXTENDED AND CONCENTATED DIPLOMACY will tell, and matters then, whatever they become, will still be tenuous at best.
Forgive me for guessing incorrectly as to your precise thoughts.
The video I linked, I now see, was not the one I actually intended. The latter was Biden’s fuller, unadulterated speech, which harps more prolongedly upon the years of no real goal by the administration and, more importantly, the complete and gross incompetence in execution of the war by the administration up until General P’s fuller takeover.
Thanks, Mark!
S.B.,
I am genuinely sorry. And you are very welcome!
Mark DeFrancisus: “Many of his [Clarence Thomas] judicial opinions have simply been outrageous, after he finally emerged from under the robe hemmings of Scalia to actualy say something on his own.”
Mark, could you please name 2 of the “many” “judicial opinions” that are “outrageous”?
1 is his dissenting opinion in Miller-El v. Cockrell.
I danced a mass at St. Elizabeth’s in Wilmington back in the late 70′s. Senator Biden was there, and seemed very friendly and quite captivated by my performance. Yeah, he may be pro-abortion, but he is Catholic and does seem amiable to alternative forms of worship.
In looking back at the transcript of the John Roberts hearings, I recall why I found Biden so annoying: More than any other Senator, Biden tried to monopolize all of the airtime for himself. Biden spoke 1116 words before finally getting to his first question. He also asked several other long and meandering questions-in-the-form-of-lectures. As well, Biden interrupted Roberts at least five times during the questioning, forcing Arlen Specter to state on each occasion that Roberts should be allowed to answer. Biden’s reactions included the following statements: “I don’t have much time,” or “He’s filibustering” [this was said after a 15-word response from Roberts], or “But I have no time left.”
He can be a windbag, no doubt….
For the sake of most of the ethnic groups in Iraq, and FOR THE SAKE OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES, Iraq should have been allowed to partition itself. A unified Iraq–the Iraq we have now, for a while, at least–serves only the interests of the corrupt politicians who lead the majority Shiah population. Once America leaves, they seem to have every intention of slipping into Iran’s orbit of influence, and it seems that that is what the MAJORITY of the Shiah population want. It’s not what the Kurds want, and it’s not what the Sunni Arabs want. The inevitable Iraqi civil war is only delayed by Petraeus’s “surge.” It is not prevented. Biden was right to call for Iraqi devolution. Devolution is, in many places in the world (Sri Lanka comes to mind), the alternative to civil wars and ethnic cleansing.
“I danced a mass at St. Elizabeth’s in Wilmington back in the late 70’s. ”
Just curious, can you tell where in the GIRM liturgical dance is directed?
Oh, yes. dear “little gal,” “liturgical dance” is some “pagan abomination”–Astarte or Isis-worship, that has been devilishly slipped into the Catholic mass by those ungodly “liberals” you hate and fear so much!
Never mind that David “danced before the Lord in His Tabernacle,” or that “mystery plays” were part of the liturgies of medieval (i.e. Catholic) Europe. “Licentious” stuff like that sort so ill, doesn’t it, with your dour American, Protestantized version of Catholicism?
I think you need to read some Chesterton. You would make his hero, St. Francis of Assisi, gag.
Oh, and another thing, “little gal”:
You might be interested in knowing that, while living in Sri Lanka, I SAW John Paul II beatify Joseph Vaz on the beach in Colombo, using a Buddhist dhannaya ceremony as the form for the “offering of the gifts” in his mass. When I expressed some surprise at this, a Lankan Jesuit standing nearby chortled and told me that not too many years before he’d watched John Paul II canonize an African saint in a ceremony that included choirs of bare-breasted native women DANCING and singing in front of his pulpit.
Your Church is so much more liberal and less puritanical than you ridiculous American Catholics! It’s one of its saving graces.
My point here is simple: are there any other countries where Catholics loudly try to use the eucharist as a partisan bludgeon? Why is the US different? I remember poor old Cardinal Maradiaga getting hectored by the US right for saying he was not going to turn polictians away from the Eucharist.
While it’s easy to think this way in a US culture which tends to ignore any history more than 100 years ago, excommunicating rulers and even putting whole countries under interdict is fairly common in the history of the Church. Indeed, if anything, these tactics were sadly over-used, even to enforce strictly secular political preferences of the popes.
Still, it has been made clear not by “partisans” but by the bishops themselves that publicly repudiating the Church’s stance on the legal protection of unborn human life is a matter that should cause politicians to refrain from coming forward for communion — since they have intentionally separated themselves from the Catholic Church’s teaching. Biden’s own bishop has made this clear, and I’m sure MM would not want a politician to flaunt the express guidance of his spiritual shepherd — especially in an important matter of Catholic social teaching.
I agree that much of the “Thomas is stupid” stems from racism. I believe Thomas is highly intelligent. It’s his arrogant disdain for the legislative arm and his huge chip on his shoulder that make him problematic as a judge.
Goodness. What would we do if we didn’t have the likes of MM to protect us from a black judge with a “huge chip on his shoulder”! Shall we next be warned that he’s dangerously “uppity”?
For the sake of most of the ethnic groups in Iraq, and FOR THE SAKE OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES, Iraq should have been allowed to partition itself.
I’m sure the Arab world would be even happier with the US if, acting emphatically for the sake of its own national interests, it would proceed to break up Iraq into statelets, absent any Iraqi consensus on the matter. And it’s not as if carving up the Middle East into nation states at the whim of the Western powers hasn’t worked wonders for everyone in the past and kept that whole region peaceful and orderly in the post-Ottoman era.
Granted, the Kurds would be willing to make a go of it, especially since they’re well positioned to carve that particular slice in their favor, but I also suspect Turkey and Iran might have their own opinions regarding the birth of an independent Kurdistan — the first of a promised three-parter! — as a neighbor. (Or as digby might put it: FIRST of a PROMISED THREE-PARTER!!!)
Yeah, no one (not even conservatives) ever makes the same dismissive charge about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Hypothetically: “Look at her impassioned dissent in the partial birth abortion case. She’s just got a chip on her shoulder about all the years of supposed discrimination that she faced.”
Dig,
You mention several egregious examples of aspects of inculturated liturgies; they are not examples of Vatican liberality (but of local misjudgment, perhaps). These things happen; they aren’t norms.
Liturgical dancing is not and never was a licit part of the Mass, any more than clown Masses.
The Church – both universal and local – has been clear about preaching/publically acting against Church teaching and the act of taking Communion.
The local Bishop has asked people who do that to not uncharitably put ministers of Communion in the position of evaluaters.
Yet a public person keeps coming forward, giving scandal, undermining Church teaching, showing he can “get away” with it, daring someone to stop him.
I don’t think this is the mark of fidelity, humility or even courtesy. He knows better than the Pope and the Bishops and he’ll do what he wants as long as it benefits him. It reminds me of Gene Robinson who pushed for ordination (he’s divorced and an active homosexual) because it benefitted his agenda – even if it destroyed the Episcopal Church. How a man who says he is called could be ok with destroying his church, I don’t know; how a senator who says he is devout & faithful could cheerfully undermine belief is another puzzle.
“HA,” I wonder if you even understand the difference between “devolution” and “partition.” Hint: “devolution” is what the U.S. has. It doesn’t mean three “countries”; it means three “autonomous states.” Of course, in 3rd world countries, it’s always opposed by corrupt business and governmental elites who want to continue to plunder. It’s real nice that the American government has sided (as usual) with the fatcats who, in this case, are promising oil concessions (but probably not intending to keep those promises, which doubtless conflict with what they’ve probably promised the Iranians). Whereas the Kurds, an oppressed people, have always been loyal to America–and so see what they get, in return, as Biden has regularly pointed out.
Excuse me, “DE Dem,” but CAN YOU READ? I just told you that I WATCHED the POPE do, in Sri Lanka, what you and “little gal” are condemning.
“More Catholic than the Pope”–very typical at Vox Nova!
Digby:
It is my understanding that the individual in the Vatican office for liturgical celebrations is responsible for these details. The former (Piero )Marini was very liberal, in contrast to the current (Guido) Marini. I am sure local imput also hinders or helps in what happens in liturgical celebrations. One only has to compare the stadium Masses in Washington, D.C. with New York during B16′s recent visit for stark examples of this.
I think we should be careful with pulling things out of the Bible without context…there are statements about maiming oneself that are not to be taken literally for example.
“HA,” I wonder if you even understand the difference between “devolution” and “partition.”
Thank you for the semantics lesson, digby, but since you are the one who used the word partition in your post, and I myself did not, it’s sort of changing the subject, wouldn’t you say? But if you insist, feel free to substitute my usage of “break up” and “carve” with “devolve”, if you feel any of those choices is something Joe Biden or the United States should be dictating.
Yes, I can read. I didn’t “condemn” anything, nor did little gal, as far as I can tell.
If what you saw took place between 1987-2007, the Master of Pontifical Liturgical Ceremonies was Piero Marini. He was replaced as soon as practicable by Guido Marini.
Piero Marini was influenced by Bugnini.
Apparently you are not familiar with the controversies that swirled about things that were approved by Masters of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations. Once appointed for 5 years, the Masters – not the Pope – make the plans.
Nevertheless, my point, which maybe you didn’t see, was that publically undermining the teaching authority of the Church and publically disregarding an instruction by your Bishop is more Protestant than Catholic and can’t be said to be “faithful”, “devout” or even “courteously considerate” of Catholics you parade yourself before. {Not “you” personally, Dig}.
The issue of Archbishop Chaput’s position on abortion was discussed elsewhere on the blog. Father referenced this piece in First Things by Chaput today at Mass. Chaput makes it very clear that abortion is the key issue. Here is the link:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1151
I think certain American ‘conservative’ Catholics (the thow-quotes are to differentiate certain liturgical wingnut-loons–who are not really conservative and just barely Catholic–from real conserative Catholics, whom I happen to respect dearly (e.g. , Blackadder and jonathanjonesII here) , despite their differences from my personal sensibilities)) would have a coronary if they were, say, forced to celebrate a Mass with my ex-semininary friends from Nigeria, or, even, at Saint Benedict the Moor Church , the most VIBRANT CATHOLIC Church in Pitsburgh, which happens to be predominantly African-American.
“Little Gal” –
“Liturgical Dancer” is an ongoing joke that I thought died out over at Gerald’s now defunct blog The Cafeteria Is Closed. L. Dancer shows up at random with comments like that with no relevance to the discussion, only to show how much he/she hates “liberals.” Kind of like yourself but with a sense of humor.
I’m not generally a fan of liturgical dance, especially when it is simply thrown into middle class North American liturgies. I do think the inculturation described above is valid and valuable. And considering the power the Pope has in the Church, to simply blame the liturgist at the time and claim that “the Pope would never approve of such a thing” is absurd. I actually read a story once where the JPII was celebrating a liturgy somewhere in Africa and the liturgists were wanting to cut back on “inculturation,” and JPII said no, he wanted it. So DE Dem, it appears that the reality is exactly opposite to what you are claiming.
MarK:
In my experience, I have found that the priests from Africa, whom are placed in parishes in my diocese, are very traditional in their celebration of the Mass.
So you are an ex-seminarian? Is that what you mean when you refer to your conservative past?
Mark,
As there are no “liturgical wingnut-loons” posting here, and virtually none anywhere, you have introduced a straw man, pointlessly, except as a distraction.
How maliciously clever of you, “HA,” to insinuate that Biden is “dictating” the future of Iraq more than Bush and the “surge-supporters” are.
The fact of the matter is that every reliable poll of the Iraqi people has them voting in LARGE numbers for our IMMEDIATE withdrawal from their country. It is a FACT that Ayatollah al-Sistani, the religious leader of the majority of the Shiah people, has issued fatwahs ordering his devotees to refuse even to sell FOODSTUFFS to the “American occupier.” It is a FACT that al-Sistani has said that he will DIE before he allows the Shiah-majority government to agree to the concessions (mainly regarding oil) that the Bush Regime tried to dictate to it.
Biden (and Obama) have been consistently right about their estimations of the true situation in Iraq–that it is a quagmire for the American military and a civil war in the making–and the so-called “surge” is only a “cover” for the withdrawal that is necessary and that even Bush is now arranging, even though it undermines “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” Mad John McCain’s advocacy of “one hundred years” of occupation.
I believe that Biden knows more about geo-politics and diplomacy than all of the members of the Bush Administration, plus “Mad John” McCain put together, and I predict that he will DEMOLISH his Republican debating opponents whenever the topic turns to foreign affairs.
But that’s the last I’m speaking to you, after learning on the other thread that you are a homophobic fascist.
The issue of Archbishop Chaput’s position on abortion was discussed elsewhere on the blog. Father referenced this piece in First Things by Chaput today at Mass. Chaput makes it very clear that abortion is the key issue. Here is the link:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1151
What he “makes clear” is that 1) the right to life is the foundation of all issues, 2) that Catholics cannot be pro-choice, 3) Catholics should not fall for rhetoric of “change,” which is rhetoric used by every political candidate, and 4) no matter which party we are drawn to as Catholics, we must hold politicians accountable and demand that they respect human life. He still does not say, however, that a Catholic cannot vote for Obama.
In my experience, I have found that the priests from Africa, whom are placed in parishes in my diocese, are very traditional in their celebration of the Mass.
I have found this to be true in my experience as well. Many African priests in North America are indeed “traditional” in that they help their parishioners to become better acquainted with the true catholicity of the Church by appealing to the Church’s great tradition of inculturation. The white North American liturgies that you seem to favor are ONE tradition among many in World Catholicism.
Michael:
Today is Sunday and I would think that at least on this day that comments such as,”only to show how much he/she hates “liberals.” Kind of like yourself but with a sense of humor,” would not be made. I hope at some point that you begin to focus less on making personal comments on people and focus more on the topic. In charity, you really have a mean streak in how you speak to others in your posts.
Michael: “So DE Dem, it appears that the reality is exactly opposite to what you are claiming”.
Because you “read a story once”?
liturgical dunce and my beloved little gal (I am still impressed by your Clinton comeback above),
1. Who was the arbiter of the legitimacy of Cardinal Marini, his appointer JPII or the loons Neuhaus, Fr. Z and Amy W?
2. I wonder if you go into similar convulsions whenever, say, our etiher nationalist or grossly uneducated parish priests allow a lone American flag a permanent fixture in the sanctuary,–especially, if it is somewhere near the altar.
I ask this because, unlike liturgical dance, there are specific canonical directives against this activity.
Because you “read a story once”?
Supposing the story is true, yes. It would be a concrete example of JPII encouraging just the sort of inculturation that you think he would have opposed. In other words, a concrete example of just the opposite of your claim, a claim that you are basing on nothing at all, save your own liturgical preferences and a feeling you have about the relationship between Vatican and local liturgists and the Pope.
I hope at some point that you begin to focus less on making personal comments on people and focus more on the topic.
I did focus on the topic. I’m guessing you will ignore what I’ve said, though.
I wonder if you go into similar convulsions whenever, say, our etiher nationalist or grossly uneducated parish priests allow a lone American flag a permanent fixture in the sanctuary,–especially, if it is somewhere near the altar.
Good point.
Mark:
I’ve never seen an American flag without a Vatican flag. Never. Even on Memorial Day.
“I ask this because, unlike liturgical dance, there are specific canonical directives against this activity”
Please cite them.
Mark:
I have said nothing re: the Clintons in this thread; you attributed something to me by mistake in one of your posts–see above.
I meant the Amerian flag without the flag of other nations.
Could my friends more trained in liturgical directives please help me here with a citation for DE Dem, as I know I read it in many places during my seminary training, and, whenever I had to save my own sanity, in working for a certain pastor who has unfortanately made a habit of attempting to resolve a late midlife crisis by becoming a neo-con ideologue.
Michael,
Up to now, I gave you the benefit of assuming you are a serious, sincere person. But you are arguing on the level of “a bird told me something once so you’re all wrong”. And you think “I read a story once” (where, by whom, when,etc.) is a “concrete” example that overturns an argument I never made.
Have you read “The Spirit of the liturgy”? Have you read Marini’s book? I’d guess not but I won’t assume as much, as you wrongly assume so much that is wrong about me.
little gal,
How quickly you forget:
“No. That honor belongs to Clinton who is responsible for the bloodiest most unjust war since Vietnam. His sanctions against Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of non combatants.”
DE Dem,
Are you youself serious? I think just about every blogger here has read those two books, amomgst many, many others on the liturgy? I know Henry, Michael I, Policraticus, Katerina and MM has written about Ratzinger’s publications on liturgy
Do you think the “Spirit of the Liturgy’ now is the only voice that Ratzinger allows as Pope, in his dealing with symphony of approaches to the Reality that the Liturgy enacts?
Mark:
I haven’t said anything about the Clintons in this thread. See the post from Love the Girls on 8/23/08…
The fact of the matter is that every reliable poll of the Iraqi people has them voting in LARGE numbers for our IMMEDIATE withdrawal from their country.
Again, claiming that “every reliable poll” of the Iraqi people has them voting for immediate withdrawal (a point you keep raising without any substantiation — what, no wikipedia or youtube link on that?) doesn’t really square well with your other claim that America needs to take it upon itself to “partition” or “devolve” them before leaving. I suggest sticking with one position or the other — or else, maybe stick to topics you are more intimately and passionately up to speed on, whatever those might happen be. However you want to swing it, it’s your call.
little gal.
Well take some credit for it anyway. You could have said it, coundn’t you have?
…..
BTW, I genearlly agree with Michael I about the undesirability of throwing liturgical dance into the suburban mix, as it is somewhat frequently still done, at least from what I hear.
I think it is related to the ubiquitous commodification and flattening of all ‘de-aura-zied’ art-forms, which greatly epitomizes what is essential to modern/post-modern–and particulary, American–experience.
USCCB Committee on Divine Worship on the display of the flag in a Catholic Church
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/flag.shtml
USCCB Committee on Divine Worship
The Display of Flags in Roman Catholic Churches in the United States of America
Surprisingly to many, there are no regulations of any kind governing the display of flags in Roman Catholic Churches. Neither the Code of Canon law, nor the liturgical books of the Roman rite comment on this practice. As a result, the question of whether and how to display the American flag in a Catholic Church is left up to the judgment of the diocesan bishop, who in turn often delegates this to the discretion of the pastor.
The origin of the display of the American flag in many parishes in the United States appears have its origins in the offering of prayers for those who served during the Second World War (1941-1945). At that time, many bishops and pastors provided a book of remembrance near the American flag, requesting prayers for loved ones – especially those serving their country in the armed forces – as a way of keeping before the attention of the faithful the needs of military families. This practice has since been confirmed in many places during the Korean, Viet Nam and Iraqi conflicts.
The Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy has in the past encouraged pastors not to place the flag within the sanctuary itself, in order to reserve that space for the altar, the ambo, the presidential chair and the tabernacle. Instead, the suggestion has been made that the American flag be placed outside the sanctuary, or in the vestibule of the Church together with a book of prayer requests. It remains, however, for the diocesan bishop to determine regulations in this matter.
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/flag.shtml
The past statement that this notice refers to is the US Bishops Committee on the Liturgy 1978 document Environment and Art in Catholic Worship, #101:
“Although the art and decoration of the liturgical space will be that of the local culture, identifying symbols of particular cultures, groups, or nations are not appropriate as permanent parts of the liturgical environment. While such symbols might be used for a particular occasion or holiday, they should not regularly constitute a part of the environment of common prayer.”
The only “reliable polls” of Iraqis that I’m aware of are done by the BBC. Here’s one from March of this year:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_03_08iraqpollmarch2008.pdf
According to that poll, 38% of Iraqis say that US foces should leave immediately. 59% say that US forces should remain until “security is restored” or “the government is stronger” or “Iraqi security forces can opperate independantly.
38% of the population is “large number”, but it’s very much not a majority.
Up to now, I gave you the benefit of assuming you are a serious, sincere person. But you are arguing on the level of “a bird told me something once so you’re all wrong”. And you think “I read a story once” (where, by whom, when,etc.) is a “concrete” example that overturns an argument I never made.
I don’t remember where I read it. (A “little bird” didn’t tell me.) But if you combine this incident (I’ll assume you aren’t calling me a liar, and that you trust my memory of this occurrence) with the countless examples of JPII participating in liturgies with vibrant inculturation, your statement that these cases are “egregious,” “local misjudgment[s]” amount to nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.
Have you read “The Spirit of the liturgy”?
Yes. So what?
Have you read Marini’s book?
No. So what?
The obvious response to the choice of Biden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8 Ouch.
I’ve been to quite a few churches and I don’t think I’ve ever seen the U.S. flag in a Catholic Church (except at funerals).
The answer to that ad is straightfoward: yes, Biden was proud of the old McCain, but that McCain is dead and buried, replaced by a clone of Bush that has sold out every principle that he once had. I should be a political consultant!!
God, you Right-wingers can spin and spin, can’t you, “Darwin Catholic”! Here’s the truth, distorted by you:
The U.S. has long maintained its involvement there is with the support of the Iraqi people, but in 2005 when asked directly, 82–87% of the Iraqi populace was opposed to U.S. occupation and wanted U.S. troops to leave. 47% of Iraqis supported attacking U.S. troops.
A March 7, 2007 survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis commissioned by the BBC and three other news organisations found that 78% of the population opposes “the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq,” that 69% believe the presence of U.S. forces is making things worse, and that 51% of the population consider attacks on coalition forces “acceptable”, up from 17% in 2004 and 35% in 2006. However, only 35% want them to leave “now”. 64% described their family’s economic situation as being somewhat or very bad, up from 30% in 2005. 58% described reconstruction efforts in the area in which they live as either somewhat or very ineffective, and 9% described them as being totally nonexistent.
An NGO-sponsored survey for the first time asked ordinary Iraqis their view on the highly contentious draft oil law. According to the poll, 76 percent of Iraqis feel “inadequately” informed about the contents of the proposed law. Nonetheless, 63 percent responded that they would prefer Iraqi state-owned companies – and not foreign corporations – to develop Iraq’s extensive oil fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Iraqi_opinion
Mark,
You were certain that there are Canon Laws prohibiting the display of an American flag; you have been shown to be dead wrong even though you said you read it “in many places” during your “seminary training”.
This puts everything else you are certain about in a certain perspective.
I mentioned Ratzinger & Marini only because Michael said I was asserting mere “personal preferences” because of a “feeling” rather than as any information & study.
Michael: “countless examples of JPII participating in liturgies with vibrant inculturation, your statement that these cases are “egregious,” “local misjudgment[s]” amount to nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.”
Not at all.
Maybe you should read Marini’s book and the Neuhaus review of it
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1056
and the Rutler review (portions here: http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/2008/02/excerpts-from-rutlers-review-of-marini.html)
not that you will or should agree but to illustrate the controversies that many have been following more closely than you and your little bird, evidentally.
I’ve been to quite a few churches and I don’t think I’ve ever seen the U.S. flag in a Catholic Church (except at funerals).
Thankfully, the practice is less common these days. But you still see it from time to time.
I mentioned Ratzinger & Marini only because Michael said I was asserting mere “personal preferences” because of a “feeling” rather than as any information & study.
Your personal preference can certainly be rooted in study. Benedict’s liturgical preferences are certainly based on study. That fact alone does not make such preferences normative, nor does the fact that other people share your liturgical preferences.
DE Dem,
I don’t want to play ad hominem games with you. The citations given are what I in gact had in mind.
If my use of canonical directives loose and implied to you “Canon Law,” I am sorry.
Frankly, I try to stay out of the liturgy wars and regret even entering the fray.
To me, it is ltoo often like hosts who get so caught in in the details of the celebration that they turn away from a genuine welcoming of the guest for whom everything is supposedly taking place.
Frank Rich: “Does a bellicose Vietnam veteran who rushed to hitch his star to the self-immolating overreaches of Ahmad Chalabi, Pervez Musharraf and Mikheil Saakashvili have the judgment to keep America safe?”
Hey Mark:
Forget the “bellicose Vietnam vet”…what about a presidential candidate who says he’s against gay marriage and who posts the following on his website in the section targeted to LGBT Rights?
‘Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.’
You were certain that there are Canon Laws prohibiting the display of an American flag; you have been shown to be dead wrong even though you said you read it “in many places” during your “seminary training”.
I don’t want to speak for Mark, but he clearly didn’t use the term “canon law.” I pointed out a USCCB liturgy document that indeed specified that flags should not be placed in the sanctuary. The revised version of that document does not discuss flags in the sanctuary (probably because by that time it was less of a problem). Nevertheless, it’s quite possible that he read that guideline in many places, for example, in publications that explained or referred to the art and architecture document I cited.
Michael,
Thank you. You are indeed right. But, as I said, the whole liturgy war that certain quarters of the American Church want to wage is something in which I desire to take no sides.
As a personal note, however, I did used attend only New Order Latin Masses for almost two full years ,whenever I lived in Toronto in the late 80s-early 90s,–at Holy Family Church, on King Street West, celebrated by the Oratorian Fathers.
Nancy Pelosi, on Meet the Press this morning.
Brokaw: …“I if [Obama] were to come to you and say ‘help me out here, Madam Speaker, when does life begin,’ what would you tell him?
Pelosi: “I would say that as an ardent practicing Catholic this is an issue that I have studied for a long time, and what I know is over the centuries the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said three months. We don’t know. The point is it that it shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to chose.”
God, you Right-wingers can spin and spin, can’t you, “Darwin Catholic”! Here’s the truth, distorted by you:
and then digby proceeds to cite an article that in no way contradicts what Darwin said. Indeed, Darwin’s latest poll is from the BBC taken in March of 2008 while the latest one digby cites is a BBC poll taken a year earlier. (It doesn’t take a lot of guesswork to figure out why Darwin’s poll didn’t make it into the Wikipedia article.)
In any case, which poll should we consider more relevant? Hmm…. On second thought, according to digby’s logic, we could just skip the 2008 presidential vote and assume the numbers from 2004 are more representative, right?
God, you Right-wingers can spin and spin, can’t you, “Darwin Catholic”! Here’s the truth, distorted by you
Chill out, digby. DC didn’t distort anything… he simply referred to a poll of Iraqis, one more recent than those you cited, incidentally.
Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
little gal,
I don’t see the problem. There are two issues there, (1) defining marriage as between a man and a woman and (2) preventing judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples. Obama is not in favor of gay marriage, but he is in favor of civil unions. Therefore, he has to vote against the Amendment because it has (2) in it.
Where does McCain stand on the issue of civil unions? Hard to know for sure.
Frankly, Chris, I don’t think that polling of the people of an occupied country by their occupiers can be relied upon, even if the polling reflects my impressions of their public sentiment.
However, I DO think that the hostility to the occupation by the religious leader of the majority of the Shiah people IS extremely significant:
http://www.juancole.com/2008/05/sistani-forbids-feeding-americans-warns.html
Al-Sistani’s fatwahs against supplying basic foodstuffs to the occupying troops means a great deal, when you consider that Iraq’s is a “guest culture” wherein the “guest” has extraordinary prerogatives to depend upon the hospitality of his hosts. I often encountered such hospitality during my years of living in South Asia, and I can tell you that this premium put on hospitality by many in the undeveloped world amounts practically to a religious observance, and that, when it’s held to be in abeyance, it marks an extremely grave re-calibration of the “guest’s” status.
The Iraqi majority, represented, in this case, by their premier religious leader, want us OUT of their country as fast as Barack Obama wants to get us out–as Prime Minister al-Maliki (a follower of al-Sistani) said when Obama was in his country.
davidSays,
Thanks for the heads up on Pelosi’s comments on Meet the Press this am. She is totally repugnant and in need of our prayers. Check out the Ignatius Press blog citing the recent wise warning of the bishop of the Baker, Oregon diocese…words we should all heed in the upcoming election. So many of us are being duped. St. Michael pray for us.
But, as I said, the whole liturgy war that certain quarters of the American Church want to wage is something in which I desire to take no sides.
Oh me neither really. Both sides make valid points and represent worthwhile aspects of the tradition. Both sides have been capable of bad liturgy.
As a personal note, however, I did used attend only New Order Latin Masses for almost two full years ,whenever I lived in Toronto in the late 80s-early 90s,–at Holy Family Church, on King Street West, celebrated by the Oratorian Fathers.
I know some folks who go there, and I’ve been meaning to check it out. I also have not been taking advantage of the offering of the Eastern liturgy at various parishes. My wife and I have been attending Our Lady of Lourdes on Sherbourne lately, as well as the monthly house Mass at the Dominican House on Huron St.
Pelosi: “I would say that as an ardent practicing Catholic this is an issue that I have studied for a long time, and what I know is over the centuries the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said three months. We don’t know. The point is it that it shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to chose.”
Pelosi should stop posing as a theological authority on this matter. The question of “when life begins” is clear: conception. It is the question of when that life becomes a person that has been debated. Precisely because “we don’t know” we must assume that that human life becomes a person at conception. Her claim that “it” “shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to choose” is dreadfully wrong, a scandal.
After describing herself as “an ardent practicing Catholic”, Pelosi said that people opposed to abortion should be in favor of birth control!
Biden went to Mass Sunday, accompanied by the press. The pastor said he & Biden are “in dialogue” about Biden’s positions on abortion.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080824/NEWS/80824007
What is there to be “in dialogue” about? The constant teaching of the Church is something he apparently rejects.
What is there to be “in dialogue” about? The constant teaching of the Church is something he apparently rejects.
And that’s precisely why it is good that they are discussing it.
He’s old, and he’s on a Democratic presidential ticket, which is the one thing that always makes Democratic pro-lifers suddenly become pro-choice. The odds that Biden would have a meaningful “dialogue” at this stage is zero.
They are “in dialogue” as though they have equal authority in the matter (when Biden interrogates Supreme Court nominees, he presumes he has an equal if not superior level of legal/judicial expertise) and that Joe can do as he pleases until he has been “convinced” that God wants him to yield to the Magisterium rather than NARAL and the abortion lobby.
Michael writes “And that’s precisely why it is good that they are discussing it.”
The parish priest and no doubt the Bishop have made sure that Joe knows the teaching of the Church on the matter; so we know for certain that he knows he isn’t to present himself for Holy Communion. So what does Joe do? He persists in presenting himself for Holy Communion.
Being concerned about the Church’s view on his immortal soul is one thing; causing scandal by having it his way is another. Either way, religion becomes a prop; Joe is the Obamma campaign’s “designated Catholic” to win the votes of the Catholic ethnics who voted for Hilary and the pro-lifers who are uncomfortable with McCain.
This is an opportunity for the Church to teach about informed consciences, if nothing else.
Precisely because “we don’t know” we must assume that that human life becomes a person at conception.
Michael,
There is one situation in which this principle doesn’t seem to hold up, and that’s in the admittedly rare case of a woman whose life is threatened by a pregnancy. In that case, we know beyond any doubt that the pregnant woman is a fully human person with a right to life. When you weigh a “we know” against a “we don’t know” in a case like this, how is it possible to argue that the “we know” should not tip the balance?
How morally culpable would a woman be who obtained an abortion on the grounds that she might very well die without it?
Having said that, it seems to me Pelosi is quite wrong to use the teachings of the Catholic Church to justify abortion. She could have said something along the lines of the following: “Even my Church, which is unalterably opposed to abortion, doesn’t claim to know at what point a person, with a soul, comes into being. Nevertheless, I am personally bound by the teaching that we must act as if a person is present from the moment of conception. Where I differ with some in the Church is in the interpretation of my role as Speaker of the House. Am I bound as a Catholic in the legislature of a pluralistic democracy elected by people of many religions to see that the laws the House pass reflect my own views or the views of my Church? That is the concept I have difficulty with.”
They are “in dialogue” as though they have equal authority in the matter
You don’t know that.
Yes, I do.
Even if I didn’t – although I do – it’s a simple matter of accepting or rejecting the constant teaching; there is nothing to “dialogue” about for 30 years. It isn’t a prudential judgment, as Pelosi wickedly asserts.
“Wicked” because she knows better (she’s been spoken to, surely), as does Biden (who is still being spoken to, according to the article).
It isn’t a prudential judgment, as Pelosi wickedly asserts.
I agree.
Even if I didn’t – although I do – it’s a simple matter of accepting or rejecting the constant teaching; there is nothing to “dialogue” about for 30 years.
Surely you don’t presume to know what they are “dialoguing” about. I would give the benefit of the doubt to the priest and assume that he is not going to shrug and say, “You know, Biden, you might have a point. Maybe the Church has been wrong all this time.”
“I would give the benefit of the doubt to the priest and assume that he is not going to shrug and say, “You know, Biden, you might have a point. Maybe the Church has been wrong all this time.””
If the priest who has been “in dialogue” with him gives Biden Holy Communion, that’s what the priest is saying.
Does the “M” in “MB” stand for Magisterium by any chance?