Time Mag. asks: "Does Biden Have a Catholic Problem?"

The short answer is, of course - yes, he does.

{update: forgetful me - here's the article link.}

There's so many little quibbles I have with this piece, I've decided to go point-by-point first:

• Abp. Chaput did not get "marginalized in the bishops conference — losing key leadership elections — in part because of his extreme views about denying communion to politicians."
• "[the recent actions of the bishops] has Catholics Democrats worriedly asking themselves: Can one of their own ever again win national office?" The answer is: yes, if they stop allowing/promoting abortion.
• "[Kerry] was utterly unprepared for the attacks that came his way." No, he had his entire public career to prepare himself, if he had even bothered to understand his Church's teaching.
• "[Kerry] left unchallenged the idea that he was a bad or insincere Catholic." Actually, he tried to act like he was a Catholic in good standing - that's what got him in the biggest trouble.
• "Biden also benefits from the work of progressive groups like ... Catholics United." An organization that I exposed as a liberal front-group some time ago. Seriously - who are they fooling? (Besides writers for Time?)
• "And some conservative Catholics are speaking out as well, venting their disappointment with Bush policies that have not reflected Catholic social teaching and with the Republican Party's focus on overturning Roe v. Wade as the only way to address the abortion issue." Ah, finally, a meaty argument tucked-in an innocuous paragraph. But disappointment in one party does not mean one will vote for the other, or that - overall - it is the more palatable choice. The GOP is certainly far from perfect, but is the DNC better?

Okay, now that we've the little things off the table, let's jump into the last two paragraphs. Reading them, I'm once again amazed how unobjective journalists can be on this topic (and how their editors can let them get away with it). Let me explain what I mean:

The second-to-last paragraph tries to make the claim that there is an "inconsistency" in the bishops' public stance on moral issues. The only proof for this claim is an interview given by Abp. Chaput about the topic of McCain's support (background) for embryonic stem cell research.

But wait a minute, the same author (Amy Sullivan) began her article by dismissing Abp. Chaput's views as extreme and isolated. Now which is it? Are we to listen to Chaput or not? Apparently we can dismiss his pro-life advocacy because he is, well, isolated, but we must take note of his lack-of-extreme criticism of McCain on the topic of embryonic stem cell research. Moreover, Chaput's supposed-waffling (I have not reviewed the tape to corroborate Sullivan's charecterization), is somehow supposed to undermine the combined teaching of the 27/13 bishops who have spoken-out against Pelosi/Biden.

The last paragraph then blithely goes on to claim that the entire proceeding discussion is irreleveant because "[the democrats] are already poised to improve on Kerry's support from Catholic voters, whose top issues this year have been the economy and national security instead of hot-button moral issues."

So why did the author feel she had to ask if Biden has a Catholic problem in the first place? Evidently, the future is already secure. So her answer, I guess, is "no he doesn't". But just in case he does:

"Even so, Catholic Democrats can't afford to look like the kids in the corner who don't know their Catechism. In the future, they might want to resist the temptation to wade into theology and stay firmly in the world of policy."

That's right, don't engage your faith, don't have that faith inform your policy. Ask fellow Catholics to follow you not because of how you've acted, but because of who you just "are."

Yep, no problem here.

update: This has been edited-down and cross-posted to the CatholicVote.com blog.