Althouse: "There has never been a Catholic Republican nominee for the White House (the Mormons, interestingly, got there first), although there may be one this year..."

February 2, 2015

"There has never been a Catholic Republican nominee for the White House (the Mormons, interestingly, got there first), although there may be one this year..."

"... with a field that includes Rick Santorum, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush, who converted to Catholicism, his wife’s faith, some twenty years ago. For them, the issue is not one of religious bigotry, such as John F. Kennedy faced in his 1960 campaign, with insinuations of adherence to secret Papist instructions. In a way, it’s the opposite: the very public agenda of the all too authentic Pope Francis. Early signs of trouble came in the summer of 2013, when the new Pope, speaking with reporters about gays in the Church, asked, 'Who am I to judge?' The conservative wing of the Party had relied on his predecessors to do just that...."

From "God and the G.O.P." by Amy Davidson in The New Yorker.

40 comments:

Lewis Wetzel said...: Well, if it's a New Yorker story about the GOP, it has to be fair!; 2/2/15, 11:05 AM
Big Mike said...: None of those three will be the nominee, and it won't be because of Pope Francis.; 2/2/15, 11:11 AM
Michael K said...: The writer is a member of the far left and doesn't make any attempt to conceal it.

" “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” This is a Republican dilemma, not a Mormon one."

Yes, telling people they should take care for their own lives is a Republican dilemma.

No surprises in that article.; 2/2/15, 11:13 AM
dreams said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/2/15, 11:15 AM
Brando said...: Catholicism has been normalized since the days when people were afraid that papists took orders from the Vatican. Santorum ran well last time among very religious protestants, as did Gingrich (another Catholic). It's just a non-issue.

2012 has the distinction of being the year that one of the major parties for the first time nominated a ticket that did not have a protestant on it--Romney (a Mormon, and Mormons were a genuinely persecuted group in this country) and Ryan (Catholic). The fact that this generated very little news says how little religioius affiliation of the candidates matters these days.; 2/2/15, 11:16 AM
BarrySanders20 said...: Interesting line from the story:

"The corollary should be that nothing is as inauthentic as faith that is only opportunistically professed . . ."

Should have been in a story about Obama.; 2/2/15, 11:18 AM
traditionalguy said...: But the world hasn't seen a politically active Pope ruling from the Nation State of Vatican City since the 1700s.

Francis is a player. He wants to be Obama's socialist comrade. He arranged to free Cuba for Castro, not from Castro. He plans to get UN Governance of Trillions of dollars to stop the climate change despite the fact that the climate is not changing except to get better and better.

The perfect duo is the pretend Christian Obama and the pretend Christian Francis of Argentina, the most corrupt society in the hemisphere.; 2/2/15, 11:21 AM
robinintn said...: "The conservative wing of the Party had relied on his predecessors to do just that.." Unlike yesterday's anti-Catholic propaganda, today's doesn't have to choose between prejudices - It can mischaracterize both Catholics and Conservatives. It's a twofer!; 2/2/15, 11:21 AM
cubanbob said...: Terry said...
Well, if it's a New Yorker story about the GOP, it has to be fair!
2/2/15, 11:05 AM"

You forgot to throw accurate in. If the New Yorker ever actually became fair and accurate, it wouldn't be the New Yorker.; 2/2/15, 11:27 AM
cubanbob said...: Blogger BarrySanders20 said...
Interesting line from the story:

"The corollary should be that nothing is as inauthentic as faith that is only opportunistically professed . . ."

Should have been in a story about Obama.

2/2/15, 11:18 AM

In a way it's sad that the author and publisher of said piece suffer from a neural defect that renders them incapable of seeing themselves in the mirror.
Or they are just members of the party's house propaganda organ.; 2/2/15, 11:30 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "Well, if it's a New Yorker story about the GOP, it has to be fair!"

Exactly. Didn't need to read the entire post to dismiss it as drivel. I don't know if that means Althouse is a gifted blogger or I'm a close-minded reader.; 2/2/15, 11:35 AM
Chris N said...: Forget it, Jake, it's Amy Davidson.; 2/2/15, 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...: The author, and I suspect Ann Althouse, wants the Pope to be on the record saying that homosex isn't sinful.

Not that I care about what the pope says, but somehow I doubt he said that, or believes that.; 2/2/15, 11:52 AM
James Pawlak said...: Pope Francis-I is as authentic as Pope Alexander-VI.; 2/2/15, 11:53 AM
n.n said...: Davidson must be from the established pseudo-secular Church.

The new Pope evinces his displeasure with God and God's religion. If it's not his quiet tolerance for premeditated murder of wholly innocent human lives, then it is corruption of marriage between a man and woman, and a belief that God's law does not direct the natural order. More womb banks and sperm depositors to elevate humanity's standing.

So, there is the universal faith in human life as a commodity or the fairytale of spontaneous conception; selective exclusion rather than principled tolerance; and "scientists" convenient adoption of principles of independence and uniformity practiced in universal and even extra-universal domains.; 2/2/15, 12:01 PM
Ambrose said...: It's not like the GOP is the home of anti-papists. There have only been a grand total of two Democrat Catholic nominees - and the Democrat party has been around a lot longer than the Republicans; 2/2/15, 12:01 PM
bbkingfish said...: It's going to get tough for Republican Catholics as the right wing ramps up the rhetoric against Francis. Catholics like Ryan and Toomey have tried to dismiss him as a simple-minded loon, but they didn't get away with it and have crawled back in their holes.

This recent piece in the Federalist stops just short of calling Francis a bloodthirsty Stalinist and points the way to where the Republicans are heading.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/26/pope-francis-is-a-leftist-and-must-be-called-out/; 2/2/15, 12:05 PM
YoungHegelian said...: Politicians having problems with Popes & Popes having problems with politicians goes all the way back to St. Peter getting martyred by the Romans. There's nothing new here.

Nor is there anything new with Catholic doctrine fitting uneasily with both sides of the American political divide. Who the hell (so as to speak) wants a faith that says to the political power du jour "Morally, you guys have hit the bull's eye. We'll just go along with whatever you say from now on?"

God's Kingdom is not the kingdom of men, and it never will be.; 2/2/15, 12:08 PM
Mark Caplan said...: Jeb Bush might be the first true believing Catholic president.

Six Catholics sit on the Supreme Court, of which at least four are true believers.

In Congress you can group together Catholics, Baptists, Mormons and Evangelical Christians, creating a potent power bloc with a Medieval metality, just as 99 percent of the population is being slowly ground down to serfdom.; 2/2/15, 12:15 PM
Michael K said...: "but they didn't get away with it and have crawled back in their holes. "

Says the open minded lefty who never heard of Liberation Theology.; 2/2/15, 12:18 PM
SteveR said...: I guess Catholicism is just a problem. Or perhaps just any religion.

Oh its just Republicans and religion.

Just Republicans.

That was easy.; 2/2/15, 12:19 PM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: Someone should ask the nominees where they stand on cannibalism.; 2/2/15, 12:44 PM
Farmer said...: "when the new Pope, speaking with reporters about gays in the Church, asked, 'Who am I to judge?' The conservative wing of the Party had relied on his predecessors to do just that...."

Bullshit.; 2/2/15, 12:50 PM
Farmer said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/2/15, 12:51 PM
Scott said...: Fuck that content-of-their-character shit, what's their religion?; 2/2/15, 12:54 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "The author, and I suspect Ann Althouse, wants the Pope to be on the record saying that homosex isn't sinful."

The more interesting suspicion is that the Pope wants to say it.

Don't you think he does?; 2/2/15, 1:26 PM
Michael K said...: "Don't you think he does?"

Oh, I think he does. He is a modernist like Paul VI, who was called by some in the Church staff "The Mafia Pope."; 2/2/15, 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Ann Althouse wrote;

The more interesting suspicion is that the Pope wants to say it.

Don't you think he does?

I don't know what the pope wants.

But I know what you want him to want.; 2/2/15, 2:08 PM
Lydia said...: In 2010, when he was still Cardinal Bergoglio and working hard to defeat same-sex-marriage legislation in Argentina, Pope Francis wrote this:

“In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family...At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”...

"Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

A sign of Satan yet. That all doesn't sound to me like a man who wants to say that homosex isn't sinful.; 2/2/15, 3:01 PM
Lydia said...: Here's the correct link to the above Cardinal Bergoglio quote.; 2/2/15, 3:05 PM
Michael K said...: "That all doesn't sound to me like a man who wants to say that homosex isn't sinful."

He's grown in office. Those pink cardinals and the bureaucracy have gotten to him.; 2/2/15, 3:07 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @Michael K,

He's grown in office. Those pink cardinals and the bureaucracy have gotten to him.

To quote The Onion, from a slightly different context:

"All those candles, incense, & frilly lace. It just kinds of sets a mood."; 2/2/15, 3:26 PM
Anonymous said...: A sign of Satan yet. That all doesn't sound to me like a man who wants to say that homosex isn't sinful.

I think there is some confusion here thanks to our ignorant media.

The media likes to portray Christianity and Catholicism as evil and wrong and self righteous, etc. They don't understand he concept of hate the sin, love the sinner. It makes no sense to them. They can't understand it.

Therefore, they conclude we all secretly hate the sinner, in this case, the homosexual.

So if a Christian comes out and preaches compassion towards homosexuals, they think, "OMG! They finally support our lifestyle!"

Because they have believed their own spin.

But the Church hasn't changed for at least 3 decades on this. We've always been taught to reject sinful behaviors, but not to reject the sinners, because we too are sinners.; 2/2/15, 3:27 PM
Lydia said...: He's grown in office.

Well, he's still firmly focused on Satan -- from a Washington Post article last May:

"Largely under the radar, theologians and Vatican insiders say, Francis has not only dwelled far more on Satan in sermons and speeches than his recent predecessors have, but also sought to rekindle the Devil’s image as a supernatural entity with the forces of evil at his beck and call."...

“Pope Francis never stops talking about the Devil; it’s constant,” said one senior bishop in Vatican City who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak freely. “Had Pope Benedict done this, the media would have clobbered him.”...

"But by focusing on old-school interpretations of the Devil, some progressive theologians complain, the pope is undermining his reputation as a leader who in so many other ways appears to be more in step with modern society than his predecessor."

undermining his reputation as a leader who in so many other ways appears to be more in step with modern society than his predecessor -- so, of course, let's keep it "largely under the radar".; 2/2/15, 3:44 PM
Chris N said...: I've still got a title but need a Dan Brown-eque writer to get on board:

'The Bergoglio Imbroglio-Papal Fire'

Available at airport bookstands shortly.; 2/2/15, 3:57 PM
YoungHegelian said...: “Pope Francis never stops talking about the Devil; it’s constant,” said one senior bishop in Vatican City who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak freely. “Had Pope Benedict done this, the media would have clobbered him.”...

Which is weird, because Benedict was scholar of Martin Luther, and nobody in western Church history thought that the Devil was a busier fellow in the affairs of men than ol' Marty.

Maybe, Pope Francis, like some other folks, feels he's seen the works of Beezlebub up close & personal.; 2/2/15, 4:10 PM
The Godfather said...: What a non-story! Pope Francis will be as irrelevant to any Roman Catholic Republican presidential nominee as previous Popes were to all the Roman Catholic Democrat politicians who support/ed "abotion rights" (ALL the Kennedys, so far as I know).; 2/2/15, 4:20 PM
The Godfather said...: I'm sure Francis is a good man, and he may make some positive changes in the Roman Catholic Church, but he is hopelessly ill-informed about law and economics, as evidenced by his "verdict on capitalism":

"In an apostolic exhortation issued at the end of 2013, he labelled trickle-down economic theories [sic] 'crude and naïve.' The problems of the poor, he said, had to be 'radically [sic] resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets [sic] and financial speculation [sic] and by attacking the structural causes of inequality.'"

When he causes the Church to admit women to the priesthood, and makes priestly celibacy optional, I'll pay attention when he critiques capitalism.; 2/2/15, 4:32 PM
kzookitty said...: Eh, the popes they come, the popes they go.

As for a candidate's religion, I'd never know except the media keep jamming it down my gullet.

kzookitty; 2/2/15, 6:52 PM
JamesB.BKK said...: Excerpted from above: ". . . by attacking the structural causes of inequality." The structural cause of inequality being the uniqueness of each human, this can only be interpreted as a desire to attack God himself, the Creator of the uniqueness, and resulting inequality. Some pope!; 2/3/15, 12:29 AM