Back in March, I took issue with the media furore over Jeremiah Wright, and argued that two Protestant “pastors” who endorsed McCain, John Hagee and Rod Parsley, were far more insidious and dangerous in light of some of their extremist views: holding that America is involved in a divinely-ordained war against Islam, that the Palestinians have no right to territory and should be fought be force, and that Iran should be bombed pre-emptively. When you hold this up against McCain’s uneven and bellicose temperament, the implications could be quite scary. But at least McCain did not attend these churches, and gave every indication of mere pandering for votes.
Not let’s talk about Sarah Palin. Unfortunately, she seems to be a true believer in the same really atrocious theology. Worse, she seems to have been baptized Catholic. Nobody seems to know why she drifted away or apostatized. This site claims the following: “Palin, born a Catholic, left a denomination that denied pastoral authority to women in order to join one that embraced women as leaders — while still holding to traditional social views on issues like “life” and sexuality.” It also notes that her Assemblies of God denomination believes in loony end-times nonsense, including the rapture.
But let’s stop speculating and look at Palin’s own words as she addressed her church merely a few months ago:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
This is absolutely terrifying, given that this woman will be a heartbeat away from the presidency, and a weak heartbeat at that. She is saying that the actions of the United States in the Iraq war have the mandate of heaven. But what she says pales in comparison to the utterances of her pastor, Ed Kalnins. This is a man who claimed that critics of George Bush and supporters of John Kerry were destined for hell, that the war in Iraq was part of a war “contending for your faith” and that Jesus “operated from that position of war mode.” He also thinks we are in the end times, and that Alaska will become a refuge from the ongoing tribulation. Palin was also in attendance when her Church was addressed by the “Jews for Jesus” people, who said that terrorist attacks in Israel were God’s “judgment of unbelief” of Jews who refused to embrace their own peculiar form of “Christianity”.
For me, this is far worse than the plethora of mini-scandals that seem to be constantly erupting around Palin. This theology is not only deeply misguided, it is frighteningly dangerous.
September 3, 2008 at 11:05 am
Palin and McCain are more open about their theologically justified war making than Bush ever was. Should the american people select these monsters in November, the united states deserves whatever nightmare it brings upon itself.
September 3, 2008 at 11:08 am
“insidious”, “dangerous”, “extremist”, “atrocious”, “loony”, “abosolutely terrifying”, “deeply misguided”, “frighteningly dangerous”…
Did you just pick up the latest edition of the “Huffington Post’s Thesaurus of Alarmist Hyperbole” or something?
“You know what you do? You go buy yourself a tape recorder and record yourself for a whole day. You might be surprised at some of your phrasing.” – Michael Bluth
September 3, 2008 at 11:13 am
Dreher’s take: http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/09/run-sarah-palins-a-scary-relig.html
I agree with Rod. This is clearly a prayer that our leaders do God’s will, not a blessing on a “divine mandate”.
September 3, 2008 at 11:20 am
Some site on the Internet claims she used to be Catholic? You question if she apostatized? You are dishonest. She plainly states that her family started attending an Assembly of God Church when she was a child. She had no choice in the matter. That’s how she was raised. You are sad.
September 3, 2008 at 11:21 am
MM, Obama supports the Freedom of Choice Act. It will be his first act of office. Is this not *dangerous” “insidious” “extremist” “atrocious” “looney”, etc. etc.? Blind.
September 3, 2008 at 11:21 am
Thank you for linking to that, Brother Matthew! As is usually the case, we could do with a little more of Dreher’s saner head prevailing.
September 3, 2008 at 11:22 am
Tizzidale:
http://westcoastcatholic.blogspot.com/2008/08/sarah-palin-interview-i-was-baptized.html
September 3, 2008 at 11:25 am
Brother Matthew
Did you watch the video of her presentation? I did. As governor, she went to an Assembly’s of God Church (her former one, I think), and addressed people who were being sent out for missionary work (for one year). She claimed God gave a word to her which she decided to share to them (claiming to be a prophet); she made sure she said it was her own blessing which led her and directed her. It is within that context, of someone claiming prophetic ability, she told the people that God’s will is in Iraq. She was doing this speaking as governor and as prophet (priest-king anyone?). To me, that is indeed dangerous and far more messianic in tone than anything I’ve seen for a long time in politics. Not just a popularity which gets people moved, but an actual claim of prophetic ability leading her in her political work.
September 3, 2008 at 11:25 am
I think the reason everyone is so concerned is because we have just had 8 years of Evangelicalism.
September 3, 2008 at 11:25 am
[...] the line Morning’s Minion, an outright and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama is now calling Sarah Palin an apostate from the Catholic faith. He doesn’t care about truth. He cares about destroying the Republican ticket. So what is [...]
September 3, 2008 at 11:27 am
She was baptized and as a child was taken to other churches. She had no choice! You guys are sad.
September 3, 2008 at 11:29 am
Tizzidale
So now you reject infant baptism?
September 3, 2008 at 11:29 am
Good to see that MM is focusing on the ISSUES instead of taking the standard Rovian tactic: take a candidate’s perceived strong point (Christian, pro-life) and attack.
This is beyond self-parody–but it’s really funny to watch!
Anyone have popcorn?
September 3, 2008 at 11:30 am
I’m with Brother Matthew and Rod Dreher on my reading of what she said.
Henry, the interview featured on the blog you site supports tizzidale’s statement – though baptized catholic, she started attending non-denominational churches as a child. Tizzidale is objecting to the charge of apostasy, which certainly seems not to be the case (if her family left the Church before she reached the age of reason).
September 3, 2008 at 11:30 am
Henry, you’re an idiot. A child, baptized Catholic, raised Protestant – CANNOT be an apostate. That’s a fact.
September 3, 2008 at 11:31 am
Oh, now I reject infant baptism because I utterly REJECT the mistaken notion that a baptized child, raised by her parents as a Protestant, can be labeled and apostate. Good job, Henry.
September 3, 2008 at 11:32 am
Henry,
I didn’t know the Catholic Church put the onus on children to make sure that their parents remained in the Faith. I guess Palin is now going to hell for a not fighting that when she was a wee lass.
What page is that in the Catechism?
September 3, 2008 at 11:32 am
Zak
So baptism only counts if you have reached the age of reason?!
September 3, 2008 at 11:33 am
It also notes that her Assemblies of God denomination believes in loony end-times nonsense, including the rapture.
I don’t think this is relevant. Obama’s church seemed pretty “crazy” from the outside. In all honesty I didn’t care too much about the whole Wright controversy and his church was not a factor in deciding to vote for him. That being said, I do believe that theology is very important but only when it affects the person’s perception of how to run the country. Her quote on the troops having a mission from God is, then, worrisome, but that’s about it.
September 3, 2008 at 11:34 am
John: who is talking about anyone going to hell? On the other hand, when one is baptized a Catholic, and they leave the faith, that is going outside (apostasy) — being sent away — from the faith. Whether or not she did it as a kid or not (again, the argument I am hearing is getting close to not understanding what baptism is and how it puts one into the Church). Now, obviously culpability is a different question. Nonetheless, now that she is an adult, nothing is stopping her from returning.
September 3, 2008 at 11:35 am
I’d have to say as someone who thinks Palin is a bad choice for the job that the quoted passage doesn’t sound at all to me like she is claiming the Iraq war is the will of God. As others have noted, she seems to be asking people to pray that we have a plan and that it is God’s plan. There’s no reason that I see to pounce on this one. Now, Bush has been quite explicit that, post-9//11, he believes he has a mission from God.
This is a little stranger, in my opinion, although not frightening:
And this quote from the current Business Week interview is very, very interesting:
Does the Bush administration claim we are at war fighting for oil? I don’t think so!
September 3, 2008 at 11:35 am
If Palin’s parents did leave the Catholic Church when she was a baby I don’t see how it is necessary to bring up the issue that she is no longer a Catholic.
September 3, 2008 at 11:35 am
Henry, as a canon lawyer. I am certain I am right about this. A charge of apostasy is absolutely wrong in this case. This post should be edited to reflect this. You should apologize as well.
September 3, 2008 at 11:36 am
“as” should be “ask” – I’m *not* a canon lawyer
September 3, 2008 at 11:36 am
Katerina
The reason why I think it is important is if one things doomsday is about to come, and the great final war is just around the corner (and you have to make sure you are on the right side of the war), it will encourage war-mongering (for the sake of Israel).
September 3, 2008 at 11:37 am
it will encourage war-mongering (for the sake of Israel).
I understand that, that’s why I said that the statement about the war being part of God’s plan is worrisome, but the whole issue about her not being Catholic anymore is not relevant in my opinoon.
September 3, 2008 at 11:38 am
It bears repeating: there is only ONE Christian baptism (provided you do it right, of course), not separate baptisms for each denomination. If she was baptised in a Catholic Church (in dispute) but never was confirmed Catholic, I don’t think she could in any way be labelled an apostate (or as we used to call them, lapsed).
Besides: better, any day, an honest “apostate” Evangelical (not that the apostate label can in any way be applied to Palin, just making a point here) than a dishonest Catholic (ahem-Biden! Cough, cough… Pelosi!).
The “apostate” label is a little funny, too, applied by folks on a blog which promotes Hauerwas.
September 3, 2008 at 11:39 am
Tizzidale
Apostasy is also a sociological term. It’s being used here as such, which should be obvious.
But 1) she was baptized Catholic. 2) that baptism does have an effect and 3) one who leaves the Church after it, while they might not be culpable, nonetheless I wouldn’t believe as a 4) prophet with words from God using such words to 5) lead her state.
September 3, 2008 at 11:40 am
Henry, you guys are really something. Of course it would be great if Palin returned to the Catholic Church, but holding her responsible for her parents’ apostasy is ludicrous and unfair. And, dare I say it, rather Rovian.
Of course, Obama attended Catholic school when he was seven years old. WHY DIDN’T HE CONVERT? I’m holding him accountable.
September 3, 2008 at 11:42 am
That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
She’s not saying that the plan to date already is God’s plan. She says to pray (i.e., for the future) that our plans align with God’s. People familiar with American history might be reminded of Lincoln’s admonition to pray that we are on God’s side.
She claimed God gave a word to her which she decided to share to them (claiming to be a prophet); she made sure she said it was her own blessing which led her and directed her.
Henry, you’re wrong. The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k At 6:00 she say, “I have a word, but really I’m cheating because it’s a word that was given to me today . . . and this word was given to me, bless his heart, by Pastor [can't tell what she says] . . . Ephesians 1:17.” She then quotes Ephesians 1:17 and amplifies upon it. She wasn’t claiming to be a prophet; she was just reading a scripture and trying to encourage some folks. It’s rather pathetic that a professed Christian would try to find fault with this.
September 3, 2008 at 11:42 am
Lunchtime
What’s funny about the term? It is used in sociology. And Catholics can look at non-Catholics, even heretics (like Martin Luther) and even learn from them. That doesn’t make one non-Catholic.
September 3, 2008 at 11:43 am
JohnH
Can you read? Look above. Read.
September 3, 2008 at 11:47 am
According to canon law, apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. The most you could charge Palin with is being a material heretic (which you could also apply to Obama and McCain).
September 3, 2008 at 11:47 am
No, Henry, you’re being a jerk. You know no one here is denying infant baptism. Rather, we are arguing that apostasy like schism and heresy, must be voluntary. Her being raised protestant was not an act of her will. As such, her condition seems to be similar to those born into protestant churches, as described in the Catechism (818):
“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
Furthermore, apostasy (a fide) only applies to those who abandon Christianity, not to those who leave the Church as heretics or schismatics. According to the catechism (2089) “apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith.” Is she guilty of that Henry?
The term apostate is clearly inaccurate and ought to be recanted by both you and MM.
September 3, 2008 at 11:48 am
[Message deleted]
September 3, 2008 at 11:50 am
Zak
Notice – the term has many uses; you are saying “it doesn’t fit the canonical definition” which is a different question from, say, a sociological definition. It is a word with many meanings. You are equivocating.
September 3, 2008 at 11:50 am
Here is a canon lawyers take on her apostasy (and on what it takes to actually apostatize these days): http://www.canonlaw.info/blog.html
September 3, 2008 at 11:51 am
BTW — MM’s article could be answered from the video; she was baptized again.
September 3, 2008 at 11:53 am
Henry, on a intellectual catholic blog, I would expect the term Apostate to match the canonical definition.
September 3, 2008 at 11:53 am
That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
She’s not saying that the plan to date already is God’s plan. She says to pray (i.e., for the future) that our plans align with God’s. People familiar with American history might be reminded of Lincoln’s admonition to pray that we are on God’s side.
She claimed God gave a word to her which she decided to share to them (claiming to be a prophet); she made sure she said it was her own blessing which led her and directed her.
Henry, you’re wrong. At 6:00 in the video, she says, “I have a word, but really I’m cheating because it’s a word that was given to me today . . . and this word was given to me, bless his heart, by Pastor [can't tell what she says] . . . Ephesians 1:17.” She then quotes Ephesians 1:17 and amplifies upon it. She wasn’t claiming to be a prophet; she was just reading a scripture and trying to encourage some folks. It’s rather disturbing that a professed Christian would try to find fault with this.
September 3, 2008 at 11:55 am
Even if we say it is apostasy (for the sake of argument), Palin’s culpability in the matter is pretty slim considering her age.
I’d also note that there seems to be a very limited view of what membership in the Mystical Body of Christ amounts to: visible unity only.
As for her claiming to be a prophet, this is pretty standard fare in Evangelical churches and they’d cite the necessary scripture verse indicating that *all* the baptized share in the roles of priest, prophet and king (and I’d note there isn’t anything un-Catholic about this claim as the Charismatic Catholicism movement would attest to). It is also certainly true that God wills *something* in Iraq, so saying that God’s will is in Iraq can’t be false. Now, if the word she received was that it was God’s will to do something more specific in Iraq, then there might be grounds for doubting it, but as the statement Henry has relayed stands, I don’t see much problem with it.
Regards,
Mike J.
September 3, 2008 at 11:55 am
“Palin’s Dangerously Distorted Christianity”
“Stanley Hauerwas on Obama (he’s “probably” voting for him)”
“New Obama Ad Slams McCain on Abortion”
“Obama’s bounce puts him at 50% or higher in some polls”
“Palin with Child”
“Thank you, Mr. Obama”
At what point did Vox Nova become a blog about American politics? I think my RSS feed needs a break from this for a while.
September 3, 2008 at 11:55 am
Jeremy: a term can be used according to different meanings, within the different contexts. MM didn’t use canon law. It was clear he was not looking within the canonical definitions. So one must look further, and see; sociological does work.
Beyond that, if Sarah was re-baptized at the age of 12, that could be a formal act at the age of reason, done by her own choice, and so it could be a culpable renunciation of her original (Catholic) baptism. But that is a detail which is more complex to assertain and it is not needed for this conversation.
September 3, 2008 at 11:56 am
[Deleted again]
September 3, 2008 at 11:57 am
Mike
It’s not common in all evanglical churches; it’s common in a charismatic setting. But it does become, through it, messianic in character, especially when one uses it to justify one’s leadership role.
September 3, 2008 at 11:58 am
Who cares whether MM was speaking in “sociological” terms or canon law terms. The crucial point is that only full-fledged practicing Catholics in full communion with the Church can be President or Vice-President, according to the standard MM has now promulgated. Of course, this contradicts MM’s support of Obama, and is even unconstitutional (the Constitution prescribes that no religious test can be demanded of any office-holder), but then MM doesn’t give a “rat’s a**” about our Constitution anyway.
September 3, 2008 at 12:00 pm
S.B.
Typical distortion of what MM has said. He hasn’t said one has to be a Catholic. However, I think his wisely wants someone humble, not someone who thinks they are on a mission from God, a mission which looks war-like, supportive of wars which are unjust!
September 3, 2008 at 12:01 pm
It was clear he was not looking within the canonical definitions. So one must look further,
uh…
Sarah was re-baptized at the age of 12, that could be a formal act at the age of reason, done by her own choice
um…
From this point on, I put down the keyboard, and step away from the conversation….
September 3, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I think the reason everyone is so concerned is because we have just had 8 years of Evangelicalism.
Evangelicalism of a particular type, of course. Not all Evangelicals are like Sarah Palin and George W. Bush.
At what point did Vox Nova become a blog about American politics? I think my RSS feed needs a break from this for a while.
Catch ya later!
September 3, 2008 at 12:07 pm
You are unbelievable. You accuse of denying infant baptism, but when we say that by the Church’s definition, she’s not an apostate, you say we’re equivocating because the word has other meanings. By bringing up the issue of infant baptism, you yourself went about addressing the issue from a Catholic, rather than sociologic perspective. Oh please. MM was smearing her, and the charge didn’t stick.
September 3, 2008 at 12:08 pm
From this point on, I put down the keyboard, and step away from the conversation….
My thoughts exactly.
September 3, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Zak
There are many issues going on in one.
First, the talk about “she wasn’t of the age of reason” as if that made something different out of her baptism — reminds me exactly what those who reject infant baptism say. “How can they be baptized, they didn’t choose?” Etc.
But sociologically, it is what joined her to a faith community, from that community’s standards. She left that community. She joined another (and was re-baptized, it appears, around 12 or so — which brings up interesting questions). So she repudiated the old faith community to become a part of the new one. While one could say she was nominally apart of the first, that still means — she was part. And she left. Went out. Stand out.
September 3, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I don’t really know enough about Palin’s thought to know whether I consider her religious outlook as dangerous as Bush’s. There is a lot I don’t know about Palin. I expect there are plenty of dangerous things about her, though probably nothing more obviously dangerous than things I definitely know about the other three people in the race.
Henry and MM are looking really desperate with the attempt to label her an ‘apostate’. Line her up next to the egomaniacal medical cannibal madman, the baby-killing heretic, and Mr. my-kind-of-change-means-infanticide, and she look positively adult by comparison.
At least this race now has entertainment value it was lacking before. Dark comedy, of course.
(Henry, MZ, and MM: how’r the ol’ consciences holding up when you hear Obama’s latest radio advertisements, fellas?)
September 3, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Typical distortion of what MM has said. He hasn’t said one has to be a Catholic.
Then why include a sentence criticizing Palin for the sole reason that she’s no longer Catholic?
I left a comment that seems to be in moderation; you misrepresented Palin’s video from her church.
September 3, 2008 at 12:27 pm
So pre-conciliar, that MM. No love for the separated sisters and brothers.
Btw, maybe someone whose church believes that a woman can stay a literal virgin throughout child birth ought to think twice before deriding others’ beliefs. As the old saying goes, myth is always the religion of other people.
September 3, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Another loser for you Obama supporters. No merit. False accusations. Bravo. Next post.
September 3, 2008 at 12:38 pm
MM declaring Palin apostate?
Considering this bit from Wall Street Journal, it’s no wonder why the likes of MM is doing his bit for the Obaman ticket!
The Beltway Boys
LINK:
The Beltway Boys
EXCERPT:
“Even as the Obama camp ponders how best to handle John McCain’s veep pick of Sarah Palin, the high priests and priestesses of the media have marked her as an apostate. The Beltway class is in full-throated rebellion against a nondomesticated conservative who might pose a threat to their coronation of Barack Obama and the return of Camelot-on-the-Potomac.”
After all, this is what Obama stands for:
Roe v. Wade makes campaign comeback’
The message echoed and re-echoed:
“Gov. Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton in a statement issued before McCain had stepped out on the stage in Dayton, Ohio, with Palin.
“She shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade,” agreed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi two hours later.
“Gov. Palin and John McCain are a good match because they both want to overturn Roe v. Wade,” chimed in Ellen Malcolm, a Hillary Clinton adviser and president of the Democratic group Emily’s List, which backs women abortion rights candidates.
“The last thing women need is a president — and vice president — who are prepared to turn back the clock on women’s rights and repeal the protections of Roe v. Wade,” said Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which backs mostly Democratic candidates.
If McCain were to win the election but not serve out his term, it would be Palin nominating justices for any Supreme Court vacancies.
SOURCE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26460555/
September 3, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Have you ever been in attendance when your church was addressed by a visiting preacher who said some weird stuff?
September 3, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Then why include a sentence criticizing Palin for the sole reason that she’s no longer Catholic?
That’s not what MM’s sentence meant at all. What he said was:
Unfortunately, she seems to be a true believer in the same really atrocious theology. Worse, she seems to have been baptized Catholic. Nobody seems to know why she drifted away or apostatized.
Which obviously means that it’s too bad she ended up with her horrible theology, considering she was baptized a Catholic. MM didn’t even say she “apostacized.” He said that nobody knows why she “drifted away” OR “apostacized.” Palin does not make it clear when she would have solidified her identity as a former Catholic. If she embraced her perverse form of Christianity at an age when she was conscious of what she was doing, then apostasy would be a fitting term. But as MM said, no one knows.
September 3, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Time to start her talking about Catholicism. A of G’ers have some pretty interesting theologies about Papists. These are the folks who ate up the Left Behind series by LaHaye. A series which failed to get William Donahue’s notice (wait, we’re supposed to call him “Dr.” now kind of like we had tocall Starr “Judge Starr”), but which featured the Pope as an eager and willing servant of the Anti-Christ.
September 3, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Time to start her talking about Catholicism.
YES.
September 3, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Tizzidale
False accusation, like people constantly telling me I am an Obama supporter when I have made it clear I am not?
September 3, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Henry, keep up the hand-waving. How about calling out MM for his misinformation. And how about educating yourself over the meaning of ‘apostasy’. I don’t remember calling you an Obama supporter. But honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised. There’s a least more ‘truth’ to it than Palin’s ‘apostasy’.
September 3, 2008 at 12:58 pm
She joined another (and was re-baptized, it appears, around 12 or so — which brings up interesting questions). So she repudiated the old faith community to become a part of the new one.
My situation is exactly the same as Mrs. Palins: I was baptized as an infant, my parents began attending an evangelical church when I was three, and I was ‘baptized’ in that church when I was twelve. Does that mean I repudiated my old faith community? Nope. It is hard to repudiate what you do not even know. I’m not bothered by people having problems with Sara Palin, but please find a non-lame reason [supposed apostasy] for doing so.
September 3, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Please, one religious person really has no right to ridicule another religious person’s beliefs. So what if she believes in the rapture ? You believe that a woman gave birth and remained a literal virgin through it all. Pot. Kettle.
September 3, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I think he doth protest too much.
September 3, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Brother Matthew
Notice the discussion you are quoting from is from a sociological perspective. Sociologically, a transfer like that, when one’s new faith is, among other things, a repudiation of the other (as Protestantism is to Catholicism), is indeed an apostasy. That’s the only point of what I said.
September 3, 2008 at 1:11 pm
What heck is a ’sociological perspective’ on apostasy? Which part of your nether regions did you pull this definition out of? And how the heck, if it’s legitimately a ’sociological term’ do you know that that’s what MM meant by it – when his audience is made up of mostly Catholics. We *know* what the term means. Well, by ‘we’ I mean not you. On my blog you specifically stated it was apostasy. You didn’t qualify it by being some sort of ’sociological’ apostasy.
September 3, 2008 at 1:12 pm
“Apostasy (IPA: /əˈpɒstəsi/) is the formal religious disaffiliation or abandonment or renunciation of one’s religion, especially if the motive is deemed unworthy. In a technical sense, as used sometimes by sociologists without the pejorative connotations of the word, the term refers to renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to ones former religion.”
Where, may I ask is Palin’s renunciation of a faith she wasn’t raised in? Or her criticism of Catholicism? Or her opposition to Catholicism? Huh? Huh?
September 3, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I immediately thought of Dreher’s comments on the prayer, and I’m glad Bro. Matthew linked them… to pray *that* God’s will is being done with regard to x is much different than saying that God’s will is that x be done.
Incidentally, in order to get out in front of the claim that the Obama supporters here are reflexively anti-Republican, I’m curious as to which national GOP politicians *are* at least somewhat palatable to the VN Obama supporters, or — if there is no GOP pol that meets the minimum standard — what contemporary conservative pundit or writer is palatable.
Thanks in advance.
September 3, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Tizzidale
Are you now saying there is no specific criticism and opposition towards Catholicism by AoGers? Really? The whole nature of re-baptism is itself a repudiation of her original baptism. It says it was invalid. That is a repudiation. So, sociologically, she was entered into one faith tradition; then, at an older age, she followed a different faith tradition’s initiation, one which required the repudiation of the earlier faith tradition’s initation.
September 3, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Chris
There really are two parts to the prayer.
“Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God.”
That is part one. It’s an pre-affirmation that it has been a task of and from God.
Then comes part two. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” Now, that seems o be 1) God has a plan which includes sending our soldiers into Iraq. But we could lose our way, so we need to pray that our leaders continue to follow God’s plan while we are there.
The first is an assesment of the past, the second is a hope that what made the past valid continues. But again, to me, this is not as bad as her actions as if she were a prophet later in the video.
September 3, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Henry, what I’m saying is that as a child raised in the Assembly of God, formerly baptized Catholic, there is in now way she can be called an apostate in WHATEVER sense – I don’t care if she stood up in the pulpit and called the Pope the Anti-Christ.
former assembly of god,
rusty
September 3, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Chris,
I’m a (hesitant) Obama supporter. I’ll write in detail why I am one. But to answer your question, there is nothing in the Republican platform that appeals to me as a Catholic and that has nothing to do with Obama nor McCain but rather as a result of my reading of Catholic Social Teaching. I don’t believe in supply-side economics as means to work for the common good. I don’t believe in making increase in taxes evil without explaining the good things that can be reached through them. I don’t hear anything about how to fix healthcare in this country on the side of Republicans. They’re not “pro-family”, because talk of universal healthcare or extended vacations or family leave is a scandal. My bottom line is that I feel that abortion is just the carrot they’re holding for us Christians, because there’s really nothing else that makes their party appealing to us.
I like our Mayor Bill White A LOT. I thought he was a Republican, but I just read he was a democrat when he ran. It doesn’t matter to me. I like him because of the job he does for our city.
September 3, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Rusty
Once again, your words indicate you don’t see baptism as entrance into a religious community. I do. That is where our difference lies. If you do see it as such an entrance, then you would see a later entrance into a different religious tradition (around 12? Ed Peters thinks it is around that age, maybe) is indeed a repudiation of the other; especially when the AoG repudiates Catholic baptism.
September 3, 2008 at 1:37 pm
But again, to me, this is not as bad as her actions as if she were a prophet later in the video.
Again, you’re wrong. At 6:00 in the video, she says, “I have a word, but really I’m cheating because it’s a word that was given to me today . . . and this word was given to me, bless his heart, by Pastor [can't tell what she says] . . . Ephesians 1:17.” She then quotes Ephesians 1:17 and amplifies upon it. She wasn’t claiming to be a prophet; she was just reading a scripture and trying to encourage some folks. I’m not sure why a professed Christian would try to find fault with this.
September 3, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Henry, here’s my exegesis (this is how it struck me when I read it, not a latter eisegesis or interpolation):
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
Pray for…
1. our military men & women..
2. for this country, *that* our leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God.
Focusing on two a bit more, and omitting the opening clause, we have “pray… *that* our leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God.”
The “that” is crucial… without it, your reading would be accurate. But with it, the nature of the prayer changes considerably, essentially being “I pray that what we are doing is from God.”
September 3, 2008 at 1:48 pm
As I said above, it is obvious what MM meant.
September 3, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Notice, she is praying over them for a spirit of revelation, of prophecy. She is indeed playing the role of prophet. “God is going to tell you what is going on and what is going to go you. And you guys are going to have that in you.” Etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k84m2orSOaM
And it’s also being said here to be prophetic.
September 3, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Chris
Here’s a question — if that is indeed the interpretation, why do you pray to discern that AFTER you send your son to that task? Don’t you think that would be done before?
September 3, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Yes. It is obvious what he meant.
Henry, you are a boob, sir. I most definitely believe that baptism is the entrance into the Christian life. But as a child raised in the Protestant church, Palin most certainly *never* had that understanding. She never repudiated what she never held to be true. Her ’second baptism’ is nothing more than her getting wet, and it certainly doesn’t constitute apostasy in any sense.
September 3, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Michael
My point is in his”either or” I don’t think he even meant canonical apostasy.
September 3, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Notice, she is praying over them for a spirit of revelation, of prophecy. She is indeed playing the role of prophet. “God is going to tell you what is going on and what is going to go you. And you guys are going to have that in you.” Etc.
I should start a blog called Sarahmessiah.blogspot.com. I wonder if Feddie and Mark Shea will contribute, since they are so good at identifying Obama’s messianic pretensions?
September 3, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Rusty,
A re-baptism is never merely “just getting wet.” By doing it, it said the first baptism was just that, and she needed baptism.
September 3, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Oooh no, how about Messarah.blogspot.com?
September 3, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Henry, you are a boob, sir. I most definitely believe that baptism is the entrance into the Christian life. But as a child raised in the Protestant church, Palin most certainly *never* had that understanding. She never repudiated what she never held to be true. Her ’second baptism’ is nothing more than her getting wet, and it certainly doesn’t constitute apostasy in any sense.
Tizzidale, I think Henry is right. You can’t have it both ways. You are concerned that Palin “never had that understanding” of her first baptism, but you overlook what her understanding of her second baptism is. She didn’t think her 2nd baptism was “just getting wet.” On the one hand you are giving priority to her *personal* understanding of sacramental actions, and on the other you are overlooking it.
September 3, 2008 at 1:59 pm
“Sociologically, a transfer like that, when one’s new faith is, among other things, a repudiation of the other (as Protestantism is to Catholicism), is indeed an apostasy.”
So when I was ‘baptized’ at 12 I repudiated and apostasized [sociologically speaking]the Catholic faith? Gosh, and here I thought I was publicly witnessing to the lordship of Christ in my life. I guess I also ipso facto repudiated Episcopalianism, Judaism, Islam, Scientology, Objectivism, Vampirism, Vedic Brahmanism, ad infinitum
September 3, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Katerina,
Thanks for your thoughts. Here are some comments…
there is nothing in the Republican platform that appeals to me as a Catholic and that has nothing to do with Obama nor McCain but rather as a result of my reading of Catholic Social Teaching.
I accept that. My concern is that in many of the discussions at VN the impression is created that there is only one legitimate reading of CST, or rather, only a fairly narrow way to concretize it in terms of public policy. As I’ve noted before, I fully acknowledge that all of the contributors and most of the commenters here are orthodox Catholics, whatever our political disagreements. But it seems to me that — in at least a few cases — there is an impression that CST and conservatism or incompatible, which leads to the conclusion that whatever one’s intentions, support for conservatism is somehow opposed to Catholicism. Hence my question.
I don’t believe in supply-side economics as means to work for the common good.
Understood. But my sense is that you recognize that others can come to a different conclusion.
I don’t believe in making increase in taxes evil without explaining the good things that can be reached through them.
Agreed, broadly… certainly there’s an element of the GOP for whom “cut taxes” has become a kind of mantra, but I think it’s important to acknowledge that this element is by no means universal (again, I refer to Grand New Party).
I don’t hear anything about how to fix healthcare in this country on the side of Republicans.
I’d urge you to look again, then. Believe me, as a father of 3 with one on the way, my wife at home, and me working for the Church, I’d *love* to see healthcare reform, and as it turns out, there are Republicans who understand that and are proposing things. McCain actually has an interesting proposal himself.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, and apart from the obvious issue of abortion, the reason I’m not politically liberal has to do with subsidiarity… the modern Democrat party strikes me as statist, focusing an inordinate amount of attention on the power of the federal government to address problems. We always hear about how all politics is local, but why don’t we look for solutions in the same place?
September 3, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Brother Matthew
Were you a part of those other faith communities? And did the new faith community consider itself in opposition to those? That’s the point. Some faith communities do allow dual-adherence. But, to follow through with the sociological level, you have to be a member of one community to repudiate it in apostasy. And if the new community’s action is in part done to repudiate the earlier tradition, then it does become apostasy. Protestants which reject Catholic baptism and require rebaptism do just that. Which is why rebaptism is always a major issue (as long as it is a willed rebaptism).
September 3, 2008 at 2:03 pm
“A re-baptism is never merely “just getting wet.” By doing it, it said the first baptism was just that, and she needed baptism.”
That’s exactly what it is. Let’s go over this slowly. Sarah Palin, though baptized Catholic, was never raised in the Catholic Faith. She never understood nor was taught the Catholic faith. Her subsequent baptism in a Protestant Church is *neither* a sociological nor an ecclesiological apostasy. How can you repudiate that which you never believed?
September 3, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Its posts and comments like these that remind me why I stopped reading Vox Nova. Back to reading books!
Pax Christi,
September 3, 2008 at 2:06 pm
It doesn’t matter what she thinks about her first baptism. As a Catholic, I believe she only experienced one valid baptism. But her culpability in her subsequent acceptance of Protestantism is nil. She was raised away from the faith, and though she truly believed her “second baptism” is some import for her, it in no way that we are privy to consisted of a repudiation of that which she never believed in the first place. It’s an attack on her, meant to be so by MM, and defended by his cronies.
September 3, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Rusty
You still do not get the issue. The second baptism IS a repudiation of her first baptism. That means it is a repudiation of her Catholicism. That is why it matters. She knew she was baptized before, but she had to say it meant nothing to be re-baptized. That is repudiation.
September 3, 2008 at 2:08 pm
X-Cathedra
I hope you don’t read St Jerome ;)
September 3, 2008 at 2:12 pm
It never ceases to amaze me how Catholics will go out of their way to defend the worst excesses of American Protestant warped theology — what her “pastor” said is far worse than anything Jeremiah Wright said, and akin to the Hagee-Parsley wing. The principal point I am trying to make is that the type of war theology both she and her pastor espouse make her very dangerous, especially in an alliance with a man who is known for making impetuous judgments and for bellicose statements. And please, Rod Dreher’s take does not make any sense– she is clearly invoking God’s support for the Iraq war.
September 3, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Firstly, you *don’t* know she knew she was baptized before. I’ve seen people go through RCIA who didn’t know for sure. She could have learned that later in life. Secondly, as someone who didn’t learn the faith, didn’t learn what Catholics mean by baptism, and wasn’t catechized – how in the world can you say she was repudiating that which she never believed? It simply fails to meet any ’standard’ of Apostasy. And I reiterate what I’ve said from the beginning- MM’s audience are majority Catholics who definitely associate the word ‘apostasy’ with the firm ecclesiological term – not some airy ’sociological’ term. It’s a ploy used by MM to attach Palin – a common theme here lately.
Let me ask one more time: MM, are you proud that Obama’s first act as president will be to sign the Freedom of Choice act?
September 3, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Chris,
I have to write quickly, but yes, I agree that there is room for prudential judgment in “executing” the principles of CST. The goals of the different fields of thought should be the same as outlined by CST, but there is room for disagreement or agreement on how to achieve them. I think there are better approaches than others. Good arguments can be made to prove that empirically supply-side economics is not the answer for achieving the common good. That is my opinion and experience, which is of course, much more limited than many people’s. But objections can be brought forward to that theory. I think there can be healthy disagreement and discussion. What I think is intolerable and completely unacceptable is to bring one’s orthodoxy and faith into question because of one’s approach to achieving the goals outlined by CST as you have pointed out. That being said, I would love to see Republicans who talk more about health care in this convention, because I don’t like issues that affect the entire American people to be isolated to one party only, because then a monopoly is created around that issue. I’ll be watching and hope the Republicans surprise me.
September 3, 2008 at 2:30 pm
At the risk of not adding anything useful to the conversation, I have to express my sincere appreciation for the yeomans work being done here and elsewhere on this blog by Tizzidale. Nicely put!
September 3, 2008 at 2:37 pm
X-Cathedra,
Yes. I too no longer see myself spending my time here, or at least during the election season. Adios.
September 3, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I accept that she technically “apostacized,” but I don’t think it means anything unless she has a negative attitude toward the Roman Catholic Church. That, I think, WOULD be important, so does anybody have any information that suggests that? If not, I think it’d be more productive and politically constructive to go back to talking about her qualifications or lack thereof.
September 3, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Brother Matthew
I do have a point of question. Some people, like you, seem upset at some of the political issues brought up on VN. Fine. But why do I see no such interaction or discussion in the non-political posts? Or to put it another way, it seems that it is the political posts which most interest you (since you post on them, and rarely in others), so it seems to be a bit odd to complain about the same posts you are interested in.
September 3, 2008 at 2:56 pm
And please, Rod Dreher’s take does not make any sense– she is clearly invoking God’s support for the Iraq war.
It’s not so clear to everyone, MM. Unless we’re all of bad faith, or are all unreasonable.
September 3, 2008 at 2:57 pm
“But why do I see no such interaction or discussion in the non-political posts?”
The main reason I believe is that there is less disagreement about the non-political posts. Another reason could be that people have less expertise or knowledge about the topics of some of the non-political posts; nearly everyone has an opinion about politics they can easily share. It seems to me that the level of disagreement is the main reason. In particular, highly controversial (or as i see it, laughably partisan and unfair in this case) posts are likely to generate higher traffic.
It should be noted that this strategy eventually yields diminishing returns, both because it attracts less desirable commentators and repels others.
September 3, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Winston
On the other hand, the non-political posts are an important context for the whole. As an example: one of the constant bits of gossip said about Vox Nova, sometimes in the comments here, often elsewhere, is we are “Catholic in name only.” But if the only reason is some people’s prudential decisions in politics are different, then it is, as you can understand, an improper thing to suggest (but we are mindful of it). Thus even more important is the Catholic portion. Especially for me. I try to focus on other topics because I think the Catholic sensibility is far more important because it helps mold one’s Catholic thinking.
September 3, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I think it is great that you post on non-political topics. I am admittedly hit-and-miss as far as whether a particular topic interests me, but it performs a valuable function educational function for those of us who have less time to read theology than we would like. It is good for the blog, and you often have many interesting things to say. My opinion on the CINO accusations are that they are generally unfair, although I must confess a combination of disappointment and astonishment at some of the more enthusiastic Obama cheerleading. This is a difficult medium to address something as complex and nuanced as Catholic theology as applied to politics, and the non-political posts are a useful breath of fresh air for the web-site.
September 3, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I’m a contributor here and sometimes I just need to take a break from them if I don’t want to go to confession ;)
September 3, 2008 at 3:35 pm
‘technical apostasy’ would be a complete denial of faith in Christ. She isn’t an apostate in any sense. Period.
September 3, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I believe I remember from Catholic grade school that if you are baptized a Catholic, there is a giant mark, sort of like a tattoo, on your soul for all eternity.
Now, I think we can reasonably assume that Sarah Palin will go to heaven. She’s a Republican, after all, and besides she has had three baptisms: Catholic baptism, Protestant baptism, and (currently) baptism by fire.
BUT those who were both baptized and raised Catholics will have additional marks on their souls (very attractive ones, of course, said by Aquinas to resemble Art Deco, which he miraculously foresaw in a vision of the future that included an episode of “Antiques Road Show”) and will instantly recognize all those who were only baptized Catholics.
I seem to remember reading recently that the baptized-only Catholics will have to explain (with proportionate reasons) to the baptized-and-raised Catholics why they were not raised Catholics. It’s not as if they don’t enjoy eternal happiness. It’s just that they are kind of like heaven’s freshman class or perhaps a little like illegal immigrants.
Next lesson: How the soul resembles a milk bottle, and what sin looks like.
September 3, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Next lesson: How the soul resembles a milk bottle, and what sin looks like.
Hahahhaah!
Third lesson: How virginity is like bubble gum.
September 3, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Two weeks ago, a “Jews for Jesus” pastor spoke at Ms. Palin’s Church, with her in attendance.
In 2004, her pastor said that those who voted for Kerry risk their Christian salvation.
September 3, 2008 at 3:57 pm
X-Cathedra
I hope you don’t read St Jerome ;)
Yeah, ’cause reading MM’s and Henry’s drivel is just like reading St. Jerome.
September 3, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Mark – The questions raised by Palin’s and Obama’s churches have been interesting. Of course, McCain backers denounced Obama’s connection with his church but will give Palin a pass by delinking her from the views of her church.
September 3, 2008 at 4:06 pm
And the founder of AIP, whose conventions Palin attended twice and whose party Todd Palin was a member of from 1994-2002 and Sarah addressed by videotape just this year, has an ‘anti-American’ virtriol that makes Rev. Wright look like the Pillsbury Dough Boy.
Where is the outrage from the wingers who caused such a stink here this past March.
September 3, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Where is the outrage from the wingers who caused such a stink here this past March.
Mark I was just wondering if you consider yourself a sort of “winger”?
September 3, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Mark,
Doesn’t it strike you as odd for the McCain campaign to say, in effect, “How dare you smear Sarah Palin by saying she was a member of AIP! She was never a member. It was her husband.”
September 3, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Well, Zippy, Henry’s “drivel” in these comboxes contains more theology than you could ever hope to learn. And the fact that you clearly didn’t get the St. Jerome reference kind of proves the point.
September 3, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Tizzidale:
http://westcoastcatholic.blogspot.com/2008/08/sarah-palin-interview-i-was-baptized.html
Henry, do you read these links before you post them? I could find the word “Catholic” nowhere in her interview.
And even if she was baptized Catholic, exactly what point are you trying to make?
September 3, 2008 at 4:51 pm
David Nichol,
Yeah. I thought they were the family values party.
Zach,
The prevailing complacency in Catholic cyberspace is definitely with those who have comfortably made their beds with the Bush/McCain administration, particularly in their rationalizing the Iraq war and its neo-con imperialist bellicosity.
This I choose to attack most strongly, as more innocent lives are directly at stake.
September 3, 2008 at 5:00 pm
From Tony’s link:
“Her strong moral life views make her more Catholic than her Democrat V.P. opponent. What I didn’t know is she was actually baptized Catholic. She is not practicing now, however it is an interesting fact.”
Let’s think this thorugh. A woman who attends an Assemblies of God church that holds a twisted end-times theology, a belief that God supports the Iraq war and that even criticizing Bush can damn one to hell….and that is supposed to be more Catholic than Joe Biden? Disgusting, in so many ways.
In this new blend of American right-wing “Christian” indifferentism, the creed must some second place to one’s position on abortion. Forget the submission of intellect and will to the God who reveals, forgete the obedience of faith, forget the single sacred deposit of the Word of God relealed in scripture and tradition, forget the teaching authority of the Church… no, this is America, faith is individual– all that matters is that you are opposed to abortion (even if you think God directs America’s wars) and that you vote Republican. Want to leave the Church and join some wack-a-doodle cult? Be my guest, as long as you are pro-life in name…
September 3, 2008 at 5:08 pm
A morning at Sarah Palin’s Church (2 weeks ago, with her present):
September 3, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Mark,
Has nobody ever spoken at your chuch with whom you disagree?
September 3, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Henry,
I have commented many times on non-political posts (i.e., my comments on De Lubac and Mormon baptism). I comment on posts I find comment-worthy. A post can be worthy of comment in several ways, for instance by being insightful and thought provoking, by containing falsehoods or injustices, or simply by being amusing. Does this answer your question?
September 3, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Chuck Todd, Mike Murphey, and Peggy Noonan discuss the Palin choice unaware there is an open microphone:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/212920.php
Two favorite lines (censorship by me)
Peggy Noonan: It’s over.
Peggy Noonan: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this — excuse me– political b*llsh*t about narratives –
September 3, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Brother Matthew
Not really, but I won’t press more, since I don’t know if I will ever understand.
September 3, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Okey Dokey. Adieu.
September 3, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I can’t resist posting this for MM’s edification.
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGUxZDg0ZGZkNzY0NjcxNWMyMjhiYzFmOTcxYjJiNTU
September 3, 2008 at 7:20 pm
And the fact that you clearly didn’t get the St. Jerome reference kind of proves the point.
Oh, I definitely got it that Henry was comparing himself and you to St. Jerome.
September 3, 2008 at 8:50 pm
So let me get this straight. McCain tricked around twice on two previous wifes to settle for his third, while preaching moral character?
His VP is the grandmother of an illigetimate child who too want so lead us?
I think anyone of any party who thinks this is sane is totally brainwashed.
September 3, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Go back to DKos… we’re trying to have honest & sincere discussions here.
September 3, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Burg my misguided misled patriot with blinders. Think for yourself without hoopla and Rush.
September 3, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Mark,
Was that supposed to be an answer to my question? I’ll ask again: are you a “winger” or not? Answer honestly.
A further question, just as a thought experiment for you, don’t answer in this forum:
Could you reconstruct arguments in favor of the Iraq war with intellectual sympathy? Or do you honestly think supporters of the Iraq war just have a bloodlust problem and like to see people die? I hope the former is the case.
September 3, 2008 at 10:53 pm
No, Zippy, you didn’t.
September 3, 2008 at 10:56 pm
You know nothing about me, soexcuse… nothing. You’ve managed to come in and reveal *plenty* about yourself in a mere three sentences… impressive. If you want to have a contest to see who thinks for himself more, just say the word.
September 3, 2008 at 11:56 pm
You know, the Church needs a Sarah Palin as Pope. Why? Any woman who can field dress a moose has the moral testosterone to confront the pervasive corruption within the hierarchy. I, for one, am tired of sophisticated academics (including a former Pope contantly being called “the Great” and mentioned as a possible saint) saying great things and doing little, if not nothing.
Don’t believe me? Then go to this site: http://www.podles.org/dialogue/
September 4, 2008 at 12:05 am
http://westcoastcatholic.blogspot.com/2008/08/sarah-palin-interview-i-was-baptized.html
Henry, do you read these links before you post them? I could find the word “Catholic” nowhere in her interview.
And even if she was baptized Catholic, exactly what point are you trying to make?
The link above DID contain the quote from Palin about being baptized Catholic earlier today. The page appears to have been modified. The quote can be found here:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837536-3,00.html
What’s your religion?
Christian.
Any particular…?
No. Bible-believing Christian.
What church do you attend?
A non-denominational Bible church. I was baptized Catholic as a newborn and then my family started going to non-denominational churches throughout our life.
September 4, 2008 at 12:20 am
You know, Michael, there are Catholics and there are Christians (and, of course, there are Catholic Christians). What am I talking about? Simple.
Christians, Catholic and otherwise, realize that their redemption has nothing to do with church membership, per se, but with appropritating Christ’s atoning work on the cross for themselves.
Then again, there are Catholics who are so proud of being Catholic that they will view non-Catholic Christians as second-class citizens, spiritually speaking (of course Protestants and Orthodox can have similar views of Christians who aren’t like them).
That’s what Morning’s Minion’s criticism (and yours) ultimately is about.
September 4, 2008 at 1:03 am
Then again, there are Catholics who are so proud of being Catholic that they will view non-Catholic Christians as second-class citizens, spiritually speaking (of course Protestants and Orthodox can have similar views of Christians who aren’t like them).
That’s what Morning’s Minion’s criticism (and yours) ultimately is about.
You’ve got to be kidding. You know nothing about my views on ecumenism, other Christian churches (and yes, they are churches), etc. Perhaps you could ask my Mennonite, Anglican, Pentecostal, Evangelical, Orthodox, Reformed, etc. etc. etc. colleagues in my doctoral program if they think I consider them “second class citizens.”
I encourage you to read again my “criticism.” I criticized the inconsistencies in Tizzidale’s comments about Palin’s baptisms. I criticized those who claim MM called Palin an apostate, which I don’t think he really did.
I didn’t criticize Palin for leaving the Catholic Church. What I said about Palin is that she may or may not be an apostate, but we don’t know the details of her story. Even if she were an “apostate,” I don’t much care. Based on the quotes I have seen, Palin seems to embrace a form of Christianity that I consider perverse, but this has nothing to do with being Catholic or non-Catholic. I am generously ecumenical, but yes, I do think there are forms of Christianity that are so completely out of bounds that they deserve no respect whatsoever. White supremacist “Christianity” is one example. Explicitly pro-war forms of “Christianity” are another. Palin seems to embrace the latter.
If her god really is Mars, as it appears is the case, then I prefer that she stay far away from the Catholic communion because we have enough Mars worshipers as it is.
September 4, 2008 at 1:13 am
Michael, you claim to be “generously ecumenical” yet you find Palin’s form of Christianity “perverse” and “so completely out of bounds” as to be unworthy of respect. Beyond the obvious inconsistency in those statements, how and why do you find Palin’s “form” of Christianity “perverse” and beyond respect?
If you are a pacifist, then say so. Don’t hide behind phrases such as “worshipping Mars” and other drivel. What, do you think all Christians who serve in the armed forces worship Mars? I have a good friend who is a chief petty officer on an aircraft carrier and a devout Catholic. If you told him he “worshipped Mars,” he would kick your ass, and with plenty of justification.
BTW, I have read your comments, Michael It appears that you and MM are nothing but anti-American bigots who hide behind a Catholic facade.
September 4, 2008 at 1:25 am
Beyond the obvious inconsistency in those statements, how and why do you find Palin’s “form” of Christianity “perverse” and beyond respect?
I believe I have been clear. Once again, though — and try to listen this time, read slowly — I am generously ecumenical, but yes, I do think there are forms of Christianity that are so completely out of bounds that they deserve no respect whatsoever. White supremacist “Christianity” is one example. Explicitly pro-war forms of “Christianity” are another. Palin seems to embrace the latter.
I also do not consider gnostic Christianity worthy of respect. Does that make me un-ecumenical? Are you seriously suggesting that in order to be “ecumenical” I need to be “respectful” of white supremacist “Christians”?
If you are a pacifist, then say so. Don’t hide behind phrases such as “worshipping Mars” and other drivel.
You must be new here so I’ll try to be patient with you. I am quite openly pacifist and do not hide behind anything.
What, do you think all Christians who serve in the armed forces worship Mars?
Of course not.
I have a good friend who is a chief petty officer on an aircraft carrier and a devout Catholic. If you told him he “worshipped Mars,” he would kick your ass, and with plenty of justification.
That’s nice. And he would prove my point then, wouldn’t he?
BTW, I have read your comments, Michael It appears that you and MM are nothing but anti-American bigots who hide behind a Catholic facade.
I suppose you’re welcome to that stupid, baseless opinion.
September 4, 2008 at 8:14 am
Shhh… everybody. Pope Henry Karlson is making a serious annoncement. Palin is an apostate. He knows, he’s the Pope. Don’t doubt him. He’s also declared that it’s just dandy to vote for a man who’s number one priority, if he wins the election, is to build gigantic ramparts around the ensrined satanic sacrament of abortion, to increase public funding for it, to increase education spending on abortion and contraception in schools, and to eliminate the current laws that don’t allow public tax dollars to be spent on internation abortion movements.
Stay tuned for his next Angelus when he speaks on how the objective evil of war compares to the subjective evil of abortion.
September 4, 2008 at 9:19 am
Joseph D’Hippolito:
“Christians, Catholic and otherwise, realize that their redemption has nothing to do with church membership, per se, but with appropritating Christ’s atoning work on the cross for themselves.”
Sorry, but that is Protestant, not Catholic. So closely is the alliance between right-wing Catholics and evangelicals that they have glided into outright heresy. Here aer some of the errors of indifferentism condemned by Pius IX:
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. — Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
September 4, 2008 at 1:11 pm
MM, your own answer to my accusations merely confirms them: You are indeed a bigot. Did you not realize that Christ Himself said that He had “sheep that were not of this fold”? If Christianity were merely the matter of joining the right denomination, then it would have no more moral influence than joining the right country club. O.J. Simpson would have a lot to say about the latter.
No, MM, the heresy is with Pius X (and with you), and with all those who place the institutionalized Church over Christ’s redemption, which is open to all who accept it. People like you and all too many “orthodox” Catholics have turned the Church into God.
Besides, given Catholic history over the centuries, it could well be said that the Church has taken converts and made them twice the devils they were before they converted. Sound familiar? Read Christ’s warnings about the religious leaders of his own day.
Your and Michael’s objections to Palin are based on where she worships, nothing else.
Michael, you’ve said that you have found “white supremacist” Christianity and “pro-war” Christianity beyond the pale, yet you have not explicitly explained how Palin’s views reflect either. As far as “Gnostic” Christianity goes, Gnsotics do not recognize the universal nature of Christ’s atonement: Available to all, regardless of any “special knowledge.” In that sense, Gnosticism really isn’t Christianity.
BTW, Michael, if you are a pacifist, then you automatically disqualify yourself from commenting on any American military activity and policy, since you would find none that would suit your elevated sense of pseudo-morality.
September 4, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Apostate means rejecting one’s Christian faith. She is not an apostate.
In the Gregorian Decretals, another minor, historical definition of apostasy is given–rebaptism. Palin did that at 12. So only in that sense could she be called an apostate.
But good luck with that…going around calling rebaptized Christians apostates…I’m sure it will help you build up a readership, attract converts to the church, and contribute to ecumenical understanding. pfft
September 4, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Your and Michael’s objections to Palin are based on where she worships, nothing else.
No, it really doesn’t. It has to do with her understanding of Christianity which does not always map onto the boundaries of denominations and churches. Many Catholics share her perverse views, and many non-denominational Christians do not share Palin’s views of what Christianity is about.
Michael, you’ve said that you have found “white supremacist” Christianity and “pro-war” Christianity beyond the pale, yet you have not explicitly explained how Palin’s views reflect either.
I never said Palin was a white supremacist. She is certainly a pro-war Christian who believes that the wars america engages in are part of “God’s plan.”
BTW, Michael, if you are a pacifist, then you automatically disqualify yourself from commenting on any American military activity and policy, since you would find none that would suit your elevated sense of pseudo-morality.
Ha! That’s a good one.
September 4, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“the heresy is with Pius X (and with you” Actually, I quoted Pius IX, but either way, I standly proudly with these popes againts your Americanist nonsense.
September 4, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Michael, when I ask you for specific examples concerning Palin, all you offer are rhetorical shadows and dust. I expect more from someone who behaves as if he has the courage of those convictions.
Speaking of those convictions, I find pacifism to be inherently immoral. Pacifists would rather let the innocent die at the hands of the evil than defend them; the best example is Gandhi and his remarks concerning the Jews and the Nazis. Now, you could well say that negotiation is the best course but what if negotiation doesn’t work? The great European powers tried that in Munich in 1938.
This why I say that, as a pacifist, you automatically disqualify yourself from commenting on military policy.
MM, not only are you a heretic in the light of Christ’s mission to all men but you also are a heretic in the light of the encyclical Nostra Aetate. To wit:
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)
The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.
5. We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man’s relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: “He who does not love does not know God” (1 John 4:8).
No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.
Now, the encyclial focuses on non-Christian religions, Yet does it make any moral sense to apply such principles to non-Christian religions and reject them when it comes to Protestants, as you do?
September 4, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Joseph, the examples are in this very post. Did you even read it?
This why I say that, as a pacifist, you automatically disqualify yourself from commenting on military policy.
It doesn’t really matter what you have to say about it, though, does it?
Speaking of those convictions, I find pacifism to be inherently immoral. Pacifists would rather let the innocent die at the hands of the evil than defend them…
As someone who intentionally distorts what most pacifists believe, you automatically disqualify yourself from being taken seriously by me.
September 4, 2008 at 8:56 pm
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.
Let’s assume for a second that this text can be appropriately applied to other Christian churches. I believe many of the principles can, but there are of course issues pertaining to Christian division that apply to ecumenical dialogue which do not apply in inter-religious dialogue. They are similar, but also very different.
But on a basic level, what the text says is that, insofar as the beliefs of other religious groups are holy and true, Catholics do not reject them. Beliefs that are NOT holy and true are to be rejected, whether they are held by non-Christians, non-Catholic Christians, or Catholics.
Belief in a God who blesses war — the concrete belief that Palin has expressed — is not “true and holy.” It is contrary to orthodox Christianity.
September 4, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Palin was also in attendance when her Church was addressed by the “Jews for Jesus” people, who said that terrorist attacks in Israel were God’s “judgment of unbelief” of Jews who refused to embrace their own peculiar form of “Christianity”.
The relevance of MM’s point here was never explained. In any event, if MM is trying to hint at the ugly and unsubstantiated charge of anti-Semitism, here’s some contrary evidence:
September 4, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Well, Michael, if you have trouble with a God who “blesses war,” then you have trouble with a God that 1)essentially made war against the Egyptians to end their slavery over the Israelites 2)inspired St. Paul to talk about “spiritual warfare” in the Letter to the Ephesians 3)inspired St. John with “warlike” visions of the end of the world — visions that imply that God favors such techniques — before the coming final judgement in Revelation.
Now, you can claim that the passages are metaphorical or poetic or figures of speech and that’s fine. But you can’t deny that such imagery exists in the prime set of documents that defines divine revelation for Christians.
Besides, let’s look at what Palin actually said:
Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.
She is not saying that American policy equals divine revelation or divine will. She is saying that she wants the United States to do God’s will, not God to do the United States’ will. Big difference. She’s also asking God to guide soliders as they perform their duties and that they discern His will; she is not saying that they are automatically, by their mere presence in Iraq, performing that will.
What Palin’s pastor, Hagee or Parsley say or believe is a separate issue for which Palin is not responsible.
Then again, what else should I expect from you? I give you all this time to explain yourself, and you do nothing but refer to generalities and personal insults.
If this is how you defend your convictions, then I guess you think your own convictions aren’t worth defending. They deserve support merely because you state them!
September 4, 2008 at 11:33 pm
One more thing…
MM, I noticed that in your list of encyclicals and apostolic letters on the right-hand column, you don’t list Nostra Aetate, do you? After all, it was one of the highlights of Vatican II, promulgated by Paul VI after John XXIII’s death.
I wonder why? Hmmmm….
September 5, 2008 at 2:25 am
Joseph
It wasn’t a social encyclical.
On the other hand, Nostra Aetate is one of most important encyclicals for my line of work. Read some of the discussiosn on inter-religious dialogue here.
BTW, you do realize with ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue, you don’t blur distinctions, right?
September 5, 2008 at 2:28 am
Michael I:
Right, the Catholic Church recognizes truth wherever it is found, and it doesn’t entirely dismiss what is found in other faiths because they are other faiths. But that doesn’t mean it accepts all that is found in other faiths, either. Indeed, Catholicism is constantly reforming itself as well, pointing out that it doesn’t accept all that is found within its own boundaries, either.
September 5, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Henry, it’s one thing to establish sound borders. It’s quite another to 1)dismiss non-Catholic Christians as being unredeemed, as MM essentially has done 2)distort what Palin was saying by equating it to far more radical statements made by others, as Iafrate has done and 3)place membership in any church over and above the atonement and redemption that Christ offers through His blood.
September 5, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Well, Michael, if you have trouble with a God who “blesses war,” then you have trouble with a God that 1)essentially made war against the Egyptians to end their slavery over the Israelites 2)inspired St. Paul to talk about “spiritual warfare” in the Letter to the Ephesians 3)inspired St. John with “warlike” visions of the end of the world — visions that imply that God favors such techniques — before the coming final judgement in Revelation.
Now, you can claim that the passages are metaphorical or poetic or figures of speech and that’s fine. But you can’t deny that such imagery exists in the prime set of documents that defines divine revelation for Christians.
Of course I “can’t deny it,” nor would I wish to. The texts containing the metaphor of spiritual warfare both in the Bible and in the Church Fathers are precisely meant to subvert the connection between religion and actual warfare. “I am a solider of Christ; I cannot fight,” for example. You’re absolutely nuts if you think the metaphor of “spiritual warfare” is meant to support the warmaking of nation-states.
What Palin’s pastor, Hagee or Parsley say or believe is a separate issue for which Palin is not responsible.
Would you say the same thing with regard to Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright?
Henry, it’s one thing to establish sound borders. It’s quite another to 1)dismiss non-Catholic Christians as being unredeemed, as MM essentially has done 2)distort what Palin was saying by equating it to far more radical statements made by others, as Iafrate has done and 3)place membership in any church over and above the atonement and redemption that Christ offers through His blood.
You still don’t seem to get it. Neither MM or myself is suggesting that non-Catholics cannot be saved. No where do either of us say that.
I also find it humorous that you are so generous and accepting when it comes to Palin’s brand of war-making “Christianity,” but call Catholic pacifists immoral. The position that Palin seems to agree with has been condemned by the Church, while pacifism is approved by the Church.
September 6, 2008 at 12:56 am
First, Michael, I would say the same thing regarding Rev. Jeremiah Wright — even though I will not vote for Obama and I think Wright is a complete loon, Obama is not responsible for what his pastor, present or former, says or thinks. The connection between Obama and William Ayers, Obama and Alinsky, and Obama and the Chicago machine is much more of a problem.
Second, you and MM have basically written Palin out of Christianity merely because of her political views. Don’t deny it; that’s the tone the two of you have been taking ever since McCain chose her.
Third, I am more “generous and accepting” of Palin’s “war-making ‘Christianity’” because you and MM have deliberately distorted her position. As I said in one of my previous posts, I don’t believe — and the evidence does not show — that Palin is asking God to do America’s will. Re-read it, for you obviously don’t know how to read.
You and MM basically don’t like Palin because she goes to the “wrong” church, she holds the “wrong” theology and she’s not Catholic. Why don’t you just say so instead of hiding behind all these hi-fallutin facades?
Or is it because neither you nor MM have the guts to say that?
September 6, 2008 at 1:04 am
BTW, before you talk about anybody’s distorted Christianity, you and MM should have the guts to look at your own. You are perfectly willing to distort facts to serve your respective agendas. You’d rather call names and hide behind fancy facades than defend your respective positions thoroughly. And you’re perfectly willing to bully somebody (Palin) to serve your own ends.
If this is Christianity, then I’m Buddha, Lao Tze, Zoroaster and Mohammed combined.
With Catholics like you and Mark Shea, who needs atheists?
September 6, 2008 at 3:37 am
Just got done watching the video on YouTube, all 14 minutes of it.
Doesn’t anyone practice discernment anymore? Or are we just so intent on the politics of destruction that we will take anything out of context to justify our favored positions?
Sarah Palin was acitng as a leader in her church, asking for God’s will to be done for the ministry of the youth in that church. Along with that she asked for prayers of protection for her son and all those serving in Iraq. She asked the congregation to pray that God’s will would be done in that church, in that mission and in the state of Alaska.
She never claimed to be a prophet and her life long Pastor gave her the scripture to read.
As Govenor, Sarah Palin has done nothing more than ask for everyone to pray, just as George Washington, Lincoln, FDR and JFK have done. In this, she is clearly following longstanding tradition.
One more point– Does God automatically check your heretical or apostate standing before listening to your prayers? Does he want a perfect pedigree within the church from you or does he want your love, prayer and service?
September 6, 2008 at 5:22 am
Kerri
She did more than ask for people to pray. If the narrative is, she wasn’t sure if the task is from God, so she said let’s pray and see — why, oh why, did she allow her son (with pride) go to Iraq before finding out if it is indeed a task from God? The whole point is she saw it as such a task, but the problem is that we might not follow through with it the way God wants us to do so. So it was for continued guidance so we can continue God’s will in the task which is in Iraq.
The discussion of her pastor giving her an annointing which has led her to get into a position of power is messianic; and if you don’t see how she has God talks to us as a part of her Christian narrative (making those who get such talk prophets), that’s not my problem.
September 6, 2008 at 5:25 am
“It was called Ephesians 1:17, and this is what I want to pray over you guys too: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory, may give to you a spirit wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, and that spirit of revelation also including a spirit of prophecy, that God’s going to tell you what is going on and what is going to go on, and you guys are going to have that within you, and it’s just going to bubble up and bubble over and, and it’s going to pour out over the state of Alaska.”
Let’s look — spirit of prophecy. Prophets. Nuff said.
September 6, 2008 at 9:09 am
Yeah, Christians don’t believe in that kind of crap. Where’d she get that Ephesians stuff? Some ancient heretical text, no doubt. Never heard of it.
September 6, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Second, you and MM have basically written Palin out of Christianity merely because of her political views. Don’t deny it; that’s the tone the two of you have been taking ever since McCain chose her.
You and MM basically don’t like Palin because she goes to the “wrong” church, she holds the “wrong” theology and she’s not Catholic. Why don’t you just say so instead of hiding behind all these hi-fallutin facades?
Joseph, you are clearly a muddled thinker. Which is it? Do we “not like” Palin because of her political views, her theology, or because she’s not Catholic? I have repeatedly and clearly stated that I find her politics and her theology dangerous and un-Christian. They are inseparable. What IS separable is the church she attends and whether or not she is Catholic. The fact that she is not Catholic has nothing to do with my opposition to her theology. Many Catholics hold the same theology as Palin.
Start being more generous in your understanding of my position, which has been stated clearly about four times now, or we cannot continue the conversation. I cannot have a conversation with you if all you do is misrepresent my position.
September 7, 2008 at 10:08 am
Palin or anyone else must be judged by what they say and not what someone else says to them. Looking at the comments most of you seem to be more concerned about labels than substance of what a person says or does. I think many of you are going to be shocked when God judges you on your Actions and not the label you have given yourself.
Palin’s beliefs sound familiar, oh yeah isn’t it similar to that of Osama Bin Laden his beliefs are similar except we are the bad guys. We can only hope that we have advanced from 12th Century thinking in the 21st Century
September 8, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Michael, how can I be more generous in the understanding of your position when you express it so vaguely? I’m not the muddled thinker in this debate, and I’m not the only one on this and other threads on this blog who has criticized your reasoning and conclusions about Palin’s words.
Besides, it’s possible to dislike Palin for all three reasons I mentioned.
Lots of Catholics complain about anti-Catholic prejudice but those same Catholics refuse to look at their own predjudice against conservative, evangelical Protestants.
Frankly, I find it humorous that you would want me to be generous to you when you don’t extend that generosity to people who disagree with you. I guess even liberal pacifists aren’t immune from sinful human nature.
Now, Henry, your turn.
If you are quoting Palin correctly, it seems that she’s asking for a discerning spirit not for herself but for her son and his fellow soliders. What, pray tell, is wrong with that?
Do you not believe that the Holy Spirit accompanies all Christians, regardless of denomination? After all, when Christ promised the arrival of a “comforter” and “advocate,” he wasn’t necessarily talking about that entity coming only to certain types of believers, did he?
Every Catholic has the Holy Spirit through the Sacrament of Confirmation. The fact that most Catholics don’t recognize that, by and large, (and, therefore, foist their decision-making on many theological issues to a corrupt hierarchy) does not diminish that truth.
As far as her son going to Iraq goes, he is an adult who made his own decision about the matter! Would you be criticizing him if he weren’t going to Iraq? I seriously doubt it.
Besides, Palin’s desire to pray for her son and his fellow soldiers is normal and natural for any mother. Ascribing more complex theological and political motivations to it is disingenuous.