Salon: Rubio’s disqualified because of his “bizarre religious faith” … Catholicism

posted at 10:41 am on January 19, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

Yes, I know that Salon’s gotta Salon, but this is a remarkable example of progressive foaming-at-the-mouth Know-Nothingism. Marco Rubio released an ad in Iowa discussing his Christian faith in the context of politics, the kind of soft, personal spot that aims to attract voters through shared values. As usual with these efforts, the idea is to emphasize commonalities, so Rubio’s explanation of Christian faith is at the most basic level, intended to appeal to all denominations:

Compare the mild, gentle presentation of Christianity’s most basic concepts to the strident, hysterical THEOCRACY’S A-COMING FER US screed by Jeffrey Tayler. It includes the usual anti-Catholic tropes and offers a few others, such as Tayler’s rage over Antonin Scalia’s giving thanks to God for our country and liberty, which Tayler describes as stealing the credit from our ancestors. It includes a juvenile and derisive opening argument about the “frocked and beanied” Pope Francis. (Gee, I thought progressives liked Francis?) This is Tayler’s view of Christianity:

One of the most annoying things about religious folks is that they just cannot keep their “good news” to themselves.

Not two weeks into the new year, the frocked and beanied capo dei capi of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis, chose to impose upon humanity a book of his own authorship, “The Name of God Is Mercy.” The title alone should have given reviewers cause to dispatch the tome, unopened, straight into the waste bin. “Mercy?” From a purportedly omnipotent Lord who chose to sire a kid whom He subjected to ghastly tortures culminating in execution? Who battered and abused poor Job on a whim? Who ordered a patriarch to knife his own long-awaited son? The name of God, were God to exist, would be anything but mercy.

Golly, we Christians have never heard those arguments before! Ironically, Tayler — who is also “a contributing editor at The Atlantic,” according to his bio — then accuses Rubio of having “faith-derangement syndrome”:

Moreover, faith-derangement syndrome afflicts the undeniably young and intelligent, and most notably, among the Republican contenders for the White House, Senator Marco Rubio. Rubio once converted to Mormonism but currently two-times with both the Catholic Church and the extremist, anti-gay, pro-exorcist Christ Fellowship. He has just put out a television campaign ad entitled “Marco Rubio on His Christian Faith.”

Derangement, indeed. One of the most annoying aspects of rabid atheists is that they just cannot keep their irrational hatred to themselves.

And one of the most annoying aspects of Salon is that they keep at it. Tayler fumes at the “crushing banality” of Rubio’s faith, but the crushing banality of so many regurgitated anti-Catholic and anti-Christian tropes pulses throughout this essay. On top of that, it’s practically a recapitulation of every complaint Tayler already offered in April 2015 for Salon, too, except for the bizarre plea to fringe presidential candidate Mark Everson to become the atheists’ savior in the 2016 cycle.

So yes, Salon’s gotta Salon. Salon’s also gotta rerun, too. Meanwhile, the rest of the rational world will see Rubio’s ad and wonder how anyone could work themselves into a shrieking lather over it, but such is the world of Salon, it seems.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

There’s a big difference between ex cathedra “infallibility” and “authoritative”. …

JetBoy on January 19, 2016 at 1:56 PM

Maybe so, but as a practical matter, there is not.

Fenris on January 19, 2016 at 2:01 PM

If the pope rambles on about global warming, he’s not adopting it as official Church doctrine or claiming all Catholics (or all Christians) must adopt his views as canon.

JetBoy on January 19, 2016 at 1:56 PM

I think Fenris’ point is that very many Roman Catholics won’t make a distinction between the two. Because it came from the Pope, it has the imprimatur of church authority – regardless of its legal authority within the church.

As to Protestants (and Reformed Catholics) not accepting “ex cathedra” pronouncements from the Pope: it goes way beyond not accepting. We view them as appropriation of the authority of God – especially when in contradiction to Scripture. There is no “Apostolic Succession” inherent in the church or its leader. That is one of the major divisions between Roman Catholicism and the rest of Christianity.

(BTW, not whetting my blade or anything, just making clear just how much of a divide it is.)

GWB on January 19, 2016 at 2:08 PM

Yes, the entire encyclical is not designated infallible. But any moral pronouncements in it are authoritative. Whatever the difference between infallible and authoritative are, for what it’s worth. And the Pope claims authority over all Christendom, not just Catholics.

But, as I said, I don’t expect to convince you, and I feel we’ll just be going around in circles here.

Fenris on January 19, 2016 at 1:44 PM

Yes, the encyclical is authoritative, but this is a salient difference. It affects whether or not it can be questioned or disputed. If the point you’re trying to make is that it is a complication for Catholics, then yes it is a complication. It may force them to be disobedient if it’s got problems. It’s not something that will make them guilty of heresy however, or end up in ex-communication.

Hopefully, we look upon our own Pastors as having authority. I don’t really see a difference then when they endorse positions that we disagree with. If they can say it without having to contradict Scripture, it’s a second-order issue for me.

LancerDL on January 19, 2016 at 2:20 PM

LancerDL on January 19, 2016 at 2:20 PM

I look to the pastor as being better educated on theology than me, but for authority I look to Mark 10:

42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[d] 44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave[e] of all. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Fenris on January 19, 2016 at 2:29 PM

I think Fenris’ point is that very many Roman Catholics won’t make a distinction between the two. Because it came from the Pope, it has the imprimatur of church authority – regardless of its legal authority within the church.

GWB on January 19, 2016 at 2:08 PM

If that is Fenris’ point, there a big difference between the way something may or may not be taken, and whether or not something has actual and binding Church authority.

JetBoy on January 19, 2016 at 2:41 PM

JetBoy on January 19, 2016 at 2:41 PM

Close enough, and I don’t have any more time to go on and on about it.

Fenris on January 19, 2016 at 2:43 PM

I look to the pastor as being better educated on theology than me, but for authority I look to Mark 10:

42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[d] 44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave[e] of all. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Fenris on January 19, 2016 at 2:29 PM

I think Jesus is talking about their attitude, not undermining their authority to Disciple others. Eg:

Hebrews 13:17
Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.

LancerDL on January 19, 2016 at 4:03 PM

Wow. That is creepy. Papa Cruz is a whole ball of extra special crazy.

Illinidiva on January 19, 2016 at 11:22 AM

NWConservative is a special kind of idiot who thinks he knows constitutional law and history, but really just blows hot air. Don’t try to explain “natural born” to him. He thinks himself a scholar, but shows how much he isn’t.

Indefatigable on January 19, 2016 at 4:20 PM

As a Catholic the Pope’s writing on global warming and economic theory is nothing more than an opinion piece. He is welcome to say whatever he wants and attempt to sway people. I wish he would not say these things that are incorrect but in reality I can’t find where it changed anyone’s mind on the subject.

It does interfere with his comments on why never being satisfied with enough money is dangerous – I would argue many of the largest public corporations are struggling with that very notion – if the number in excel box 1:2 isn’t big enough we have a problem. There is an argument that capitalism is eating itself. But it doesn’t follow that capitalism is bad. And that is where I believe Francis is missing the boat. It annoys me that his teaching there actually is hurting those he would love to help. But unlike most leftists, I think he wants to help his flock.

I do appreciate the Pope’s teachings on mercy and welcoming and loving your neighbor. His straight theology where he has standing is pretty solid. His willingness to live more plainly and modestly strikes me as the right tone. And it is here where I enjoy the leftists, thinking he is a fellow traveler, and then realizing he has all the regular theological hangups with the left’s social agenda. He still believes in the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, abortion, priests, Jesus, and all that stuff they hate to hear.

Zomcon JEM on January 19, 2016 at 4:42 PM

Salon– where it”S OK to be a pedophile, but being a Catholic is creepy.

Nethicus on January 19, 2016 at 11:30 AM
Zing…

Jetboy I never hear the pope being too concerned with the subject of sin and repentance. He just seems to go from place to place saying “bless you my son” etc. He wastes a lot o time.
garydt on January 19, 2016 at 12:01 PM

I would argue that you aren’t paying close attention. I will grant you that he doesn’t bombard people at every meeting with, “Repent or you will go to Hell!” Of course, he would soon turn off everyone, and no one, even those who believe him, would listen to anything he had to say. I also admit that he says and does some things that make me a little nervous and I was highly disappointed that he didn’t use the opportunity at Congress to publicly excommunicate Pelosi, Biden, et al pro-abort ‘catholics’. Still, this Pope speaks more on Satan and demons, sin, and the need for confession than the last several, and I say that as one who dearly loves beloved Benedict. The problem is that you will only see those things in Catholic blogs and news sites. He also leads by example. There is a wonderful picture of the Pope at confession. Fr. Z. has it on his blog. And there is a reason Pope Francis dedicated the Vatican City to St. Michael The Archangel and Saint Joseph, Protector of the Universal Church in a public ceremony with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. That is just a small sampling. You only hear about the stuff the left wing media can trumpet or spin. Surely you know that.

I can’t help but laugh at what the raving anti-Christ bigoted Tayler would say to all that if he thinks Rubio is some sort of radical. Bless his heart.

pannw on January 19, 2016 at 4:54 PM

I will assume the writer has used comparable words about muslims.

CWforFreedom on January 19, 2016 at 7:21 PM

Salon– where it’s OK to be a pedophile, but being a Catholic is creepy.

Nethicus on January 19, 2016 at 11:30 AM

Which is curious considering the way the Left attacked the Church for its enabling of pedophiles – it’s the same kind of conflict they have when Muslims attack women, I suppose.
One horn of the dilemma or the other has to be chosen.

AesopFan on January 19, 2016 at 7:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2