"Catholic League declares end to Rev. Hagee controversy"

Proof that, yes, apologies can put some things to rest.

Or at least should.

Not like we'll see any apologies on this one, however.

Video: Colbert on anti-Catholic John Hagee

Stephen Colbert interviews Bill Donohue:



I previously reported this story at-length here.

Related: "McCain “categorically rejects” Hagee’s anti-Catholic statements" (CNA)

John McCain accepts endorsement of undisputed anti-Catholic John Hagee

A conscientious reader brought this to my attention earlier in the week, but I didn't get a chance to look into it more closely until today.

Associated Press gives us the gist:

Endorsed by an influential Texas televangelist, Republican John McCain endeared himself to one group of voters but risked alienating another with the pastor's anti-Catholic views.

...The televangelist, San Antonio megachurch leader John Hagee, has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and called it a "false cult system" and "the apostate church"; the word "apostate" means someone who has forsaken his religion.

He also has linked Adolf Hitler to the Catholic church, suggesting it helped shape his anti-Semitism.

McCain said he does not agree with some of Hagee's past comments. "It's simply not accurate to say that because someone endorses me that I therefore embrace their views," McCain told reporters at a news conference Monday in Phoenix.

After additional pressure from Catholic groups, including the Catholic League, McCain clarified:

"... in no way did I intend for his [Hagee’s] endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not."

McCain also said he appreciated Hagee's support for the state of Israel and admired his spiritual leadership:

"And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel."

Before we look at the fallout, this video of Hagee in action speaks a thousand words:


... this is what we are dealing with: flagrant anti-Catholicism.

It's interesting to watch the outrage from such inveterate liberal critics of the Catholic Church such as Daily Kos and the Huffington Post. Somehow, I don't see in their response so much concern for respecting the Catholic Church, as interest in seeing Catholics leave McCain over this spat.

A secondary, but important discussion is being generated which asks whether McCain/Hagee is being treated differently in the public forum than a related case with Obama/Farrakhan. More on that here.

Stephen Bainbridge gets the last word: "... this is even worse than McCain’s about face on Bob Jones University. It’s extremely disappointing."

Reactions?

update: John Hagee writes a most unconvincing defense.

Joe Feuerherd gets himself into hot water

Two quick updates:

• Catholic News Agency presents again the argument published at the In the Light of the Law blog, and then takes a second opinion by J. D. Flynn, a canon lawyer for the Archdiocese of Denver.
• More importantly, Sister Mary Ann Walsh of the USCCB has replied in the WaPo.

This story was first mentioned indirectly here and then at more length and directly here.

It will be interesting to see if Feuerherd tries to mount a response to the wave of criticism he's received.

Follow-up: Feuerherd runs foul of Canon Law, and Common Sense

Yesterday I noted, as part of a general commentary, Joe Feuerherd's slimy op-ed for the WaPo.

Today, my father Canonist Ed Peters tells us what can be done about this studied form of offensiveness:

To wish damnation on an individual or a group is to wish on them the absolutely worst fate conceivable: separation from God forever. CCC 1035. Catholics possessed of even a rudimentary catechesis know that one cannot invoke upon a human being any greater calamity than damnation, and that it is never licit, for any reason, to wish that another person be damned.

On February 24, National Catholic Reporter correspondent Joe Feuerherd, writing in the Washington Post, expressed his desire to see the bishops (of the United States) literally damned before he would fail to vote Democratic this Fall.

[Read what can be done about it here.]

There's really no excuse.

"Anti-Catholicism: the last acceptable prejudice."

update: Carl Olson also takes notice (and issue), and Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO does as well:

Feuerherd doesn’t take the tack that it is wrong in principle for the bishops to suggest that some types of political behavior can endanger people’s souls. It is hard to see how he could take that tack, given that he appears to believe, first, that there is such a thing as an eternal soul that can be damned or saved, and second, that moral choices can affect the outcome. Nor does Feuerherd argue, exactly, that the bishops are wrong to regard abortion as a grave injustice. He says that he is himself pro-life. Evidently, then, he believes that abortion is the unjust killing of innocent human beings, and the “right” to abortion therefore amounts to a license to commit an injustice of the gravest kind.

In other words, either Feuerherd is incapable of writing proper english grammar, or his claim to be "pro-life" is sarcastic in the worst sense, or he's utterly illogical. Again, what a fine argument he presents.

Commentary: A sadly common collusion of bigotry and idiocy

One of the first rules of debate is that the person you are debating should be able to recognize their own opinions when you try to characterize them. Otherwise, all you've managed to do is construct a charicature of the other person's position.

With that little tip in mind, see if you can recognize your beliefs as an orthodox Catholic about a current sensitive issue well represented (or not) in the cartoon below, which I found on the Feministe blog:

Yeah, I didn't think you would.

In fact, the rest of the short post only confirms my suspicion that the author Jill couldn't identify the "Catholic" position if her life depended on it, which is ironic considering her choice to categorize the post under "Crazy Conservatives."

Maybe it's me, but I didn't realize you could call someone crazy unless you understood what they were suffering from, or had proven you weren't yourself suffering from a severe case of altered perception.

Consider her argument:

Democrats may be against wars that kill millions, in favor poverty alleviation, and supportive of international policies that save millions more, but so long as they don’t think women should be forced into continuing pregnancies, they’re going to Hell. And you’re going with them if you vote for Obama or Clinton:

Well, let's think about this a moment. Yep, Catholics are against wars that kill millions, are in favor of relieving poverty, and - oh wait, I think the "international policies" that would "save millions more" which she is referring to actually constitute forced abortion, sterilization and contraception. On that topic, we do indeed disagree. But these tactics which she claims save millions of lives, actually take more, and hurt the survivers.

Regarding forcing women to continue pregnances, I can't think of a single pro-life individual who would describe their goal that way. More like,"Allowing human beings to live." That's what we're trying to do, and it doesn't sound so bad.

As for sending people to hell, we don't have that authority on our own. But from what I hear, it's sure not a place I'd like to see my friends visit. And if I were doing things that put me in danger of going there, I'd hope that my friends would have the kindness to tell me.

Now, all this that I've just gone through constitutes nothing new to folks used to debating ignorant, anti-Catholic individuals. There's something tediously predictable about their arguments, which sound all the more shallow each time they more vocally proclaim them.

Which is why it should also come come as no surprise that the source Jill used for her flawed and hackneyed script was none other than ... a National Catholic Reporter journalist writing an op-ed for the Washington Post. This journalist (Joe Feuerherd) , we are told, "covered the U.S. bishops and the 2004 presidential race as Washington correspondent [for the Reporter.]"

If you wonder how fair and accurate that coverage probably was, you have only to read his piece.

But since I don't like distressing my readers unduly, I'll reprint his summary paragraph:

"So what's a pro-life, pro-family, antiwar, pro-immigrant, pro-economic-justice Catholic like me supposed to do in November? That's an easy one. True to my faith, I'll vote for the candidate who offers the best hope of ending an unjust war, who promotes human dignity through universal health care and immigration reform, and whose policies strengthen families and provide alternatives to those in desperate situations. Sounds like I'll be voting for the Democrat -- and the bishops be damned."

Quite an argument, there. Is it me, or is there an elephant in the room he's ignoring?

I thought so.

To conclude, it is fascinating to watch how desparately Mr. Feuerherd sees his Catholic faith in this election as a political issue, nay, as the validation for his ultimate pick. And here, I thought all the folks telling me I didn't have to vote my faith were doing so on the premise that voting is not a religious issue.

I hope Mr. Feuerherd has quite an effect with his line of reasoning, just not the effect he intends.

"There must be something they’re not telling us."

The Religion News Blog, in its round-up today placed this story in the category of "Headlines that have us worried":

"Catholic Church looking for actor to play Jesus"

Along with the comment "There must be something they’re not telling us."

Actually, I think they are telling you everything. The question is, did you bother to read it?

A clearing house of the challenges facing Catholic public witness

... is handily provided by this article in the UK Times, both in what it says, and in how it says it:

"Italian bishops condemned for urging actors to shun sex scenes"

Point 1: Let's just pause at the title.

The bishops themselves are the ones being "condemned" for urging actors to shun sex scenes. The news subject is actually the bishops being criticized for speaking out.

Point 2: A misappropriation of the facts:

Father Nicolò Anselmi, head of the youth section of the Italian Bishops Conference, said that Moretti was normally noted for his “idealistic and sensitive” films. But the “gratuitous” sex scene with Isabella Ferrari, his co-star, would have an undesirable effect on the “impressionable young” since it was shown without any context involving love or tenderness.

I doubt this quite captures the essence of the Italian Bishops' criticism. Sex scenes in movies are not problematic only when they are "shown without any context involving love or tenderness." Sure, that's a part of the problem. But more fundamentally, sex scenes involve ... people engaging in sexual activity(!), and doing so outside of marriage b) publically c) for profit and publicity, etc., etc.

In other words, sex scenes depicted even in a "context involving love or tenderness" would still be wrong.

Point 3: Anti-Catholicism.

Franco Zeffirelli, the film and opera director, said: “The Church is full of pedants who have lost all sense of proportion.” It was a “fourth-rate” film that did not merit the publicity generated by the bishops' intervention.

A condescending generalization. It's like saying "America is full of nitwits who have lost all sense of honor." What organization besides the Church can routinely be treated in this way with such tolerance? This comment from the man who has previously offered to help Pope Benedict with his style, saying on the one hand "The papal robes are too opulent and flashy" but then claiming "I am in continual contact with his inner circle. The Holy Father honours me with his esteem." He sure isn't sounding like a reliable opinion source to me.

Point 4: Anti-Catholicism (again):

"The row comes amid charges that the Centre Right, led by Silvio Berlusconi, is playing the Catholic card by making abortion an issue in the run-up to the general election in April. Mr Berlusconi has asked the United Nations to pass a moratorium on abortion and the death penalty."

Bringing up the issue of abortion, in a county with one of the lowest birth rates in a continent already experiencing population implosion, is ... "playing the Catholic card." I'm sorry, I don't get it.

Point 5: Anti-Catholicism (surprise):

The comments posted in response to the article follow certain numbing, universal patterns of argument on this topic. Most of them hold that because the Church allowed the sex abuse scandal to happen, for it to speak out on any issue of human sexuality ever again is nothing but hypocrisy. Well, try to defend that conclusion logically.

The later comments do, however, contribute a little glimmering of hope in their use of reason and practice of civility. But honestly, those voices are generally marginalized.

Just like the Italian bishops.

L’Osservatore Romano nails La Sapienza profs for Wikipedia misuse

How. Embarassing.

The Vatican daily L’Osservatore Romano is reporting that 67 professors from La Sapienza University in Rome who wrote a letter opposing a visit by Pope Benedict XVI based their opposition on a quote taken out of context from Wikipedia.org.

The professors portrayed themselves as defenders “of freedom of research and of knowledge.” “In the name of ‘freedom of research and of knowledge,’ they have taken false information to be true, accepting an assertion without checking whether it is factual,” the Vatican newspaper reported. - CWNews

Icing on the proverbial cake:

“That Wikipedia in all likelihood is the source of the quote is evident by the fact that the letter from the 67 professors makes reference to a speech by Cardinal Ratzinger on March 15, 1990 in Parma. The speech was given, but it took place in Rome, at La Sapienza University on exactly that day,” L’ Osservatore continued. “The surprising thing is that whoever took the quote from Feyerabend could not have read the rest of the entry in Wikipedia, as he would have realized that the meaning of Ratzinger’s statement is exactly the opposite of what the 67 claimed the Pope was saying.”

“Each person is free to judge if this way of using reason is correct or if it is an act of disloyalty. The risk of reason folding to the pressure of interests and to the attractiveness of utility is exactly the risk which the Pope would have warned the staff of La Sapienza about had he been able to speak there,” the Vatican newspaper stated in conclusion.

I don't think this discovery can be overplayed as it brings out several important points: 1) This is a scandal to the protesting La Sapienza professors. 2) This ellucidates the anti-catholic and anti-papal bigotry in play here. 3) L'Osservatore Romano should be praised for its original journalism and forthright presentation of the facts.

Public reading of Pope's lecture at La Sapienza results in standing ovation

Zenit reports:

The rector of Rome's Sapienza University announced that he will re-invite Benedict XVI to visit the institution.

Renato Guarini affirmed this after the inauguration ceremony today that was supposed to have included a lecture given by the Pope. The Vatican announced Tuesday that the visit would be postponed, due to what the Pope's secretary of state called a lack of the "prerequisites for a dignified and tranquil welcome."

A small protest that eventually reached the point of several students occupying the rector's offices motivated the Holy See to cancel the visit. The protestors called the Pope "hostile" to science and took issue with a 1990 speech by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the Galileo case.

The 1990 speech in its entirety showed the protestors to have taken Cardinal Ratzinger's words out of context.

Guarini said, "I will offer a new invitation to the Pope, Benedict XVI." He said the invitation would "be in accord with the desire of the majority of Sapienza's academic community."

During the inauguration ceremony, a professor read the discourse the Holy Father had prepared for the occasion. A standing ovation and students' shouts of "Long live the Pope" followed the reading.

Bertone explains Pope's cancellation of appearance (+ full text of address)

CNA fills us in:

Due to this planned disturbance, the Secretary of State wrote to the rector that “the prerequisites for a dignified and tranquil welcome were not present” and that “it was judged opportune to postpone the scheduled visit in order to remove any pretext for demonstrations which would have been unfortunate for everyone concerned".

Cardinal Bertone also explained why the Pope decided to send his address to the university’s rector. In the letter, the cardinal relates that since the majority of professors and students wished to hear "a culturally meaningful word, whence to draw stimuli for their own journey in search of truth, the Holy Father has instructed that the text he prepared for the occasion be sent to you".

CWNews provides us with a copy of the full text.

The Associated Press has decent coverage of this story.

Meanwhile, in related news, the UK has decided to treat anti-Pope Benedict posters as a hate crime.

Finally, a brief letter to the editor published in the NYT notes: "How ironic that those in opposition should resort to threats of violence to suppress, in the putative interest of science, a discussion of religion. Viva Galileo! Viva Benedict XVI!"

At least we're not the only ones who are making the connections.

update 2: LifeSiteNews offers coverage.

Recap: Black eye for La Sapienza, good day for Catholic free speech

The day-after reactions to the news that Pope Benedict would not, after all, attend the inauguration of the academic year at La Sapienza university because of protests have been, on the whole, critical of those in the University who attempted to curtail the Pope's right to free speech.

Zadok, who has been ground zero on this story from the start, has this to report:

The Italian press is reporting that that Cardinal Ruini, the Pope's vicar for the Diocese of Rome, is encouraging the faithful to give a large show of support for the Pope by attending the Papal Angelus at noon on Sunday. Needless to say, there's no way I'm missing that.

Mainstream political opinion in Italy is almost entirely in support of the Pope with reference to the whole Sapienza debacle. Even those who do not agree with him see this as a defeat for the principle of free speech. Amongst ordinary Italians there tends to be an attitude of great embarrassment that the Pope seems to be more welcome in Turkey than he is in the country's largest university. Some of the signatories of the notorious letter which opposed the Pope's attendance are also trying to nuance their position. They claim that the letter should have been private and that it was 'used' by the protesters in a way that was not intended. The rector of the university is speaking of a 'defeat for reason and secularism.'

Catholic students from the Sapienza university were also prominent at today's Papal audience. They were showing that if the Pope couldn't come to them, then they were going to go to the Pope.

They appeared both at his general audience today in the Paul VI hall, as well as the outdoor segment.

AsiaNews reports:

"Freedom, Freedom!": the shout raised by a group of university students of the Communion and Liberation movement, at the beginning of today's general audience, met with warm applause from the six thousand persons present in the Paul VI audience hall, and was an echo of the decision Benedict XVI took yesterday not to go to the La Sapienza university of Rome. The decision was due to opposition from a small group of teachers and students, against the invitation that had been extended to him to participate in the inauguration of the academic year. "So there are three places where the pope cannot go: Moscow, Beijing, and the university of Rome", commented one of the young people present at the audience. "If Benedict does not go to La Sapienza, La Sapienza comes to Benedict", read one of the banners that the young people raised.

The pope did not mention the affair, not even in the greeting that he addressed to the students.

Here are images of the supporters:

Even a Moroccan women's group has voiced public support of the Holy Father's freedom of speech.

Of course, there's still plenty of jerks weighing-in on the situation, such as "infoshop news" which touts itself as an "indipendent news service." They titled their report "Pope Scared off by Threat of Loud Music" and continue:

Students had threatened to blast dance music at the pontiff, and also to dress up as nuns. Pretty scary stuff.

But then as a cardinal, Benedict once attacked rock and pop music as the "work of the devil."

And nuns, well, what Pontiff wouldn't be afraid?

They can have their laugh, from today's events it is clear that this tale is far from finished.

Here's how the LA Times tried to hype it:

It's a big deal when the pope agrees to speak at an event that isn't church-related.

It's an even bigger deal when public protest forces him to cancel.

Veteran Vatican-watchers said they'd never seen anything quite like it. Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday abruptly called off plans to speak at Rome's prestigious La Sapienza university, after students and professors rallied to proclaim him pontiff non grata.

... Italy lives in the shadow of the Vatican, and mainstream politicians rarely challenge or criticize the pope.

But still reports:

Officials in both the government and the opposition were quick to lament the protests that waylaid Benedict.

Prime Minister Romano Prodi expressed "solidarity" with the pope and condemned the "unacceptable attitudes of intolerance."

The left-wing minister for family policy, Rosy Bindi, who has clashed with the church on reproductive health and similar issues, said she was "very saddened" by the episode. "This is not a pretty day for our democratic republic," she said.

"You don't have to agree with what he says, but the right to speak must not be denied to anyone," Universities Minister Fabio Mussi said, according to the Italian news agency Ansa.

Pier Ferdinando Casini, head of a main Christian Democratic party, said that with professors like this, "we must fear for the future of our children."

One of the (many) staggering ironies of this whole thing?

La Sapienza was founded 700 years ago by ... Pope Boniface VIII.

I guess this just reveals how far back the tradition of Papal anti-intellectualism can be found.

Uh-huh, sure.

[photo credits: AP Photo/L'Osservatore Romano, Handout]

update: CNA on Cardinal Ruini's rally cry in support of Pope Benedict this Sunday:

"Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the Pope’s Vicar for the Diocese of Rome, has called on the faithful to gather this Sunday in St. Peter’s Square during the recitation of the Angelus to show their support for Pope Benedict XVI after his visit to La Sapienza University in Rome was cancelled amid protests from students and faculty."

update 2: CNA reports:

"I don't come to impose the faith, but to ask of you the courage for the truth," these were the opening words of Pope Benedict's speech that he was supposed to deliver tomorrow at La Sapienza University in Rome.

Other follow-ups:

• ABC News: Students show support for Pope after protests
• LifeSiteNews: Students Flock to Pope's Wednesday Audience After Speech Cancelled over Protests
• CathNews: Chanting students support Pope after canned visit

Photo: "The Pope is Against the University."

The poster, I believe, reads "The Pope is Against the University."

So against the Univesity, in fact, that he has spent most of his life studying and teaching in them.

[photo credit: AFP/Filippo Monteforte]

Breaking: Pope's visit to Sapienza U. cancelled due to protests!

Zadok in Rome reports:

It seems that as part of the protests, the Rector's offices were occupied by students today.One has to imagine that security concerns and the dignity of the Holy Father were the primary concern here. One suspects that many at the Sapienza University are ashamed what the actions of their colleagues have brought about.The Pope will, however, be sending the text of his proposed address to the Sapienza.

The report comes from Ansa.it (in Italian).

update: the AP has confirmed:

Pope Benedict XVI has canceled his visit to a Rome university following protests by professors and students, the Vatican said Tuesday.

"It was considered opportune to skip the event," the Vatican said in a statement about Benedict's planned visit and speech Thursday at La Sapienza, a public university.

Instead, the pope will send his speech to the university, the Vatican said.

AP full coverage here. Notable: "He said 63 instructors – out of a total of 4,500 – had signed the letter. He had said students would have been allowed to gather in a designated area Thursday during the pope's visit."

I'm guessing this visit was nixed due to security concerns. This AGI report quotes the Rector of the University saying that "Should there be tension, that will be due to infiltrations." Apparently there was some concern that non-students would show up and cause trouble. Earlier today, "About 100 students ... occupied a building at Rome's La Sapienza university", CWNews reported. Yahoo! News has a slideshow of related images.

Reuters reports that instead, the Pope will send the text of his address to the University.

I hope it opens with something along the lines of "Dear beloved blockheads..."

When this story broke, I had just finished writing this previous post on the same topic: "The ugly, ignorant face of anti-papism on display".

It's dissapointing to see these protesters "get their way" and prevent the Pope from visiting. They should really be ashamed of themselves, but I'm not holding my breath to see their actions condemned by tonight's media recounting of the situation. At any rate, if the Pope's safety was in jeopardy, that's another thing entirely.

But really, what does it say about the academic community in Italy if they can't even provide for the safety of one of the most staunch defenders of the free exercise of reason. Doesn't anyone remember Regensburg?!

Picture/Report: The ugly, ignorant face of anti-papism on display

It's not only the intolerance and double-standards that outrages me, it's the laughable and pathetic ignorance of history and what the Church actually teaches and is that these people are demonstrating.

Just give this EuroNews report a read (also features video):

"A planned visit by Pope Benedict to Rome's most prestigious university has unleashed a wave of protest. The Pontiff is due to speak at La Sapienza on Thursday at a ceremony launching the 2008 academic year. But defending science as secular, some students and members of staff want his invitation withdrawn. More than 60 professors have written to the university rector, saying they are offended and humiliated by the Pope's views.

At the forefront of the protest, Professor Marcello Cini said: "As teachers of this university, we all have different backgrounds and cultures and we cannot accept an outside authority coming here to tell us what is right and wrong."

[AmP: This statement sounds like the plaintive whinings of a 2-yr-old. And I'd really like to see Prof. Cini explain what he means by the Pope telling folks what is right and wrong. Does that means he forces them? (He can't) Does that mean he claims unique scientific knowledge (He doesn't) ... really, what a sloppy nonsensical statement from this brave defender of human reason and academic pursuit!]

A speech made by the Pope nearly two decades ago has sparked anger among academics. They say it shows the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger favoured the Church's heresy trial against Galileo in the seventeenth century, for teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun."

[AmP: Let's pause for a moment here. Are these folks actually protesting the Pope's visit because they believe Pope Benedict ... is a modern geocentrist?! Is that the most sophisticated objection the entire posse can latch upon? A 20-yr-old lecture where the Pope could be construed as supporting .... my goodness, it's not even worth completing the sentence. I'm sure it's not so simple.]

Anyway, the mind boggles at this type of public farce.

And to return briefly to the Galileo charge, I find it recurrently illuminating about the nature of the anti-Catholic project that they always must go back hundreds of years and exhume the ghost of Galileo's trial controversy whenever they try to caste the Church as "anti-reason." Really, is that the best they have?

I think it's revealing that the ultimate answer to my question is - yes, that's really the best they have.

[photo: AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia]

Report: "Pope set to face 'sonic siege' during visit to Rome university"

Anti-Catholic proponents of tolerance act ... not just intolerantly, but positively bestially:

Students at Rome's main La Sapienza university plan to disrupt Pope Benedict XVI's planned visit to their campus later this week with blasts of loud rock music.

The group of left-wing physics students on Monday launched an 'Anti-Clerical Week' of events ahead of Benedict's scheduled arrival on campus on Thursday.

'In a university which should be ... a place of cultural growth, research and conscientious and secular criticism, La Sapienza Rector Renato Guarini has instead decided to invite Pope Joseph Ratzinger to inaugurate the academic year,' the students said on their website, referring to Benedict's name before his 2005 election.

Benedict as pontiff 'condemns centuries of scientific and cultural growth by affirming anachronistic dogmas such as Creationism, while attacking scientific free-thought and promoting mandatory heterosexuality', the students, who use the name, Physics Collective, said.

Featured events included screenings of a film on the life of Galileo Galilei - the Italian Renaissance scientist whose theories on astronomy provoked the ire of the Catholic Church - as well as debates on topics such as evolution and homosexuality.

The protests are set to culminate with a 'sonic siege' involving music played from loudspeakers mounted on a truck in the campus' main square during Benedict's main address, students said.

[Read the whole story.]

Update: And sadly, you can't even count on the academic "adults" to set a good example:

• TimesOnline: "Scientists protest against Pope"
• John Allen: "The pope, modern science, and a canary in the coal mine"
• Commentary from Jeff Miller.

Melanie McDonagh on "How Catholic-bashing became respectable"

Writing for the NewStatesmen:

"...it is worth asking in passing whether Jews could now be depicted with the same idiom as is now being deployed against Catholics. You don't have to think particularly hard to conjure up the Semitic equivalent of the crazed popish assassin, the Jesuit plotter, the Vatican conspiracy against the nation state, do you? But while the stereotype of the Jew is dead, that of the Catholic Church as a force for evil has been given a new, and rather disagreeable, lease on life."

A small example of negative blog reaction to the Pope's pharmacist comments

Over at the Daily Irrelevant, starting with the same AP article that I did, the author comments:

"B*******. Pharmacists have an educational role toward patients so that drugs are used in a medically correct way, and the only reason they could possibly have to not dispense the drugs a doctor ordered is when they know the drug may have an adverse effect on the patient - for example when another medication, one the prescribing doctor wasn’t aware of, has a contra-indication.

If they can’t do that job properly because their shaman tells them something else, they should get a job they can do, like goat herding."

Vulgarity, shamans and goat herding.

We've got alot of work ahead of us.