Hear, hear, Mr. Shea.  I especially like your line about people considering you a lefty, just because you don’t like The Thing That Used To Be Conservatism:  that no, you consider yourself a Catholic.  Even when I wasn’t as much of a practicing Catholic, I always felt that both the left and right in this country rubbed me the wrong way.  I guess somehow, deep down, a lot of that Catholic teaching still stuck.

While I agree with you in general about American politics, I would advise you as a fellow pilgrim to display more charity for a sinner (like you and me) who has shown every indication of sincere repentance and conversion, Mr. Gingrich. While I do not want him to be president, I welcome him as a brother in Christ, not as “grotesque.” (I’ve seen similar uncharitable statements toward Mr. Gingrich on another NCR blogger’s personal blog.)
First, the video you link has a headline which does not at all reflect what Gingrich said, and which headline you parrot yourself. Not using the word “love” at all, Gingrich *in passing* cites his passion for America as the reason he worked too hard, thus neglecting his family and personal life. This is not an “excuse,” but rather an analysis of the occasion of sin involved. He immediately follows with the heart of his point: “when I did things that were wrong, I wasn’t trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them. I found that I felt compelled to seek God’s forgiveness. Not God’s understanding, but God’s forgiveness.” This is a clear statement of personal guilt and repentance.
Second, some of the stories about Gingrich’s sins are falsehoods:
http://www.creators.com/conservative/jackie-gingrich-cushman/setting-the-record-straight.html
Third, let’s not take it upon ourselves to reject the power of God’s grace and of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, or to reject the Church’s process of adjudicating marriage questions (his case may have been an open-and-shut nullity case, if he married his second wife before the first died). Jesus and his Holy Church welcomed Mark Shea and me, tax collectors and sinners that we are—shall we dismiss another repentant sinner as “grotesque”?

I agree with John.  Too much has been made of Gingrich’s off-the-cuff “I love my country” comment.  He has acknowledged the wrongness of his doings and his need for forgiveness.  So let’s cut the guy some slack.

I see a parallel between the period of the Judges in the O.T. and our current situation. The People then were forever (i)rejecting God’s love (ii)opting for idolatry and after (iii)experiencing some oppression, (iv)prayed for forgiveness and (v)a leader (Judge) was “raised up” who defeated their oppressors.The difference to-day is that stage (iv) seems to be absent. Not only that but I am horrified at how much abuse and lies re. Chrisitan belief -esp. Catholics- we accept from others without so much as a murmur in opposition. The line “pigs is pigs” applied to our day suggests that this pattern will continue, possibly escalate until ‘Christians is Christians’ becomes a reality.

Mark - I respect your commentary but in the interest of Christian charity I would refrain from name calling; “creeps and swine”. It really is a distraction. Chris Matthews blaming Weiner’s wife is so insulting to women everywhere that there is no adequate response to his sexist comment.

I love this post.  I was worried at first that you were lobbying for Republicans but I was pleasantly surprised that you called yourself Catholic and identify with that more than any political garbage.

I try to vote for the candidate that is the closest to my Catholic beliefs, and I vote for initiatives from a Catholic standpoint.  I refuse to join republicans or democrats.  Why join a party I am continually saddened by?  Sure—they have some core values that I agree are truly important, but the expense of giving up other values doesn’t suffice for my allegiance.

Mark, no one will ever accuse you of sugar-coating. Unfortunately, I get the feeling while the extreme right and left are throwing bombs at one another and encourageing everyone to see things their way, those remaining “independents” who are really “decline to state” voters are taken for a ride…...does that make sense? Keep your eye on the ball.

To Mary Rose:

We must realize that calling names simply as insults is not a good thing.

However, if someone really, demonstrably is a creep and behaving in a swinish manner, you are not name calling, you are simply stating a fact.

I was literally on the edge of my seat with horror!

But then it is hard to beat the demagogues at the Council for Secular Humanism, who in their hateful mailings whined that unbelivers are “literally bombarded with customs, denials and situations.” I wish some of these people would LITERALLY open a dictionary.

“If the poor be like to die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population”

There’s nothing in the spirit of Ayn Rand about that statement. Mark Shea, read up or shut up. Or, keep embarrassing yourself.

Thank you Mark, this article just made my day. LOL, Big Time LOL! And you couldn’t have topped it off with a better example of narcissism than that wonderfully scowling pic of America’s hUUUUge Granddaddy of all Narcissists: The Donald. Geesh, just looking over the past sentence, it sure looks like I dropped in a hUUUUge pun using the word “topping.” Intended or otherwise, he deserves it. Of course, if he decided to cut it all off in favor of a military style “flat-top” he’d still be Manhattan’s top show-quality dog for America’s King of the Narcissists.
  Even (real) politicians—on both sides of the proverbial (albeit normal partisan) aisle, which has turned into an ideological version of a DMZ in both Houses, and certainly on cable newsertainment shows, they just can’t beat The Donald when it comes to such overwhelming confidence in one’s political and business acumen, notwithstanding the fact he’s the only casino operator to run for the White House who proved that with enough incompetent people you and your brass have picked to work these places, it’s possible for the House to actually lose. Once upon a time that was unthinkable; perhaps that once upon a time began with the first instance of reported gambling till The Donald’s entrance in one of the oldest rackets for folks who think they can “succeed” by dumping x number of dollars’ worth of quarters for hours at a time into machines that until The Donald got into it, were sure winners.
  Imagine his infallible judgment at work when it comes time for picking an OMB chief and Treasury Secretary and other top economic bosses and gurus. Heck, he might even have tapped into Tom Friedman’s brain. Even Trump would have a hard time pulling Friedman away from his favorite home-away-from-home, Bangalore; perhaps where he hangs out with his fellow confederate in the outsourcing is good for us scam, Jack Welch. (You must’ve been in a hurry to get your piece out because how could you leave him off any mention of Friedman. Two pee-ers in a pod, and we know who they love peeing on: American workers, whom they believe are too highly paid and over-benefitted. With apologies to Waylon Jennings, Messrs. Friedman and Welch firmly believe American workers have to be made lean, mean and so-what-if-ornery, and kept in constant fear of outsourcing, AND in-house-ing, (as in jailhouse or privately-for-profit-operated poorhouse, where products made by union or non-sweatshop minimum-wage non-union workers, can now be made even cheaper by much cheaper semi-slave incarcerated laborers.)
  Granted, Anthony Weiner lost a ton of respect and credibility, even among his once solid ideological and partisan base. But, as I wrote yesterday in comment thread below the story about Allyson Schwartz (what a sweetie, eh? Even Dems and Debbie Wasserman-Schwartz should develop what my mom said she had, “eyes in the back of her head” to be on the safe side.) ... Weiner should not go. Granted, redistricting and Gerrymandering might do him in, but Weiner’s wannabe successors shouldn’t even count, even in one of The Donald’s casinos where they might win some of their campaign losses back. Incumbents with over a year left on their terms have a lot of tools and clout at their disposal to let time heal all wounds. (Even Democratic Massachusetts tried Gerrymandering Barney Frank out of office, in the early 80s. Guess who’s still in Congress?)
  Compared to at least one other incumbent miscreant’s cover-up water carriers and liars, and that slimer of all political sleazeballs who orchestrated the whole schmere, Andrew Breitbart, Weiner deserves a pass. What he did was incredibly and undeniably childish, not to mention DUMB. Who knows, maybe the next time Judge Judy sees him, she’s likely to snap, “Hey, Brooklyn, looks like you’re gonna be wearing that ‘Stupid’ on your forehead as far as your constituents’ eyes are concerned for a while.”
  I’m not all that up on how he wiggled, wormed and lied and counter-lied, etc. to get out from under the mess he created. He’s paying the price and the lefty talk show hosts haven’t been all that kind to him either. I understand even Ed Schultz wants him out. C’mon.
  Outside of abortion and other issues where he’s differed with Catholics on, what’s Anthony Weiner done to really mess things up? Didn’t he expose the hypocrisy of the Right when it came to how the GOP deliberately dragged its feet last year on “procedural” grounds to deny New York’s Bravest’s first responders to the WTC on 9/11 for more health care funding to cover debilitating conditions that continued to linger for almost a decade later? Nobody can say with a straight face that this wasn’t a case of regional—as well as short-sighted and cheap—“thinking” on the part of the GOP and Blue Dog Democrats. These professional misers who’d stiff their own mothers to win votes happen to come from mostly Sunbelt/Bible Belt congressional districts and despite all the outpouring of the emotionally charged and patriotically inspired spirit of unity with New Yorkers immediately following 9/11; as the months and years passed, old regional animosities, some even going back to ante-bellum days, had no problem overtaking good old patriotic unity.
  Yes, Jim Crow IS making a comeback. Hate to bear the bad news folks, but he is indeed. Anybody remember SC’s junior Senator Jim DeMint saying he was going to “break” President Obama on health care? That’s code folks, for “slave-breaking” or more crudely put “n….r-breaking.” Maybe DeMint actually didn’t mean it that way, but Freudian slips sure have a way of escaping our heads when good ol’ prejudices can come in hand when you need ‘em to “make a point.”
  There used to be a very crude Southern expression used for a long time before our relatively recent matured and PC era of politics. It’s called “out-n…....g the opposition” when Southern white pols actually courted African American voters to (expediently, temporarily—of course, and very shrewdly) suit their end of just getting and staying elected. This, of course, wasn’t a uniform practice during Jim Crow’s “heyday,” since voting rights were not exactly high on the white political establishment’s list of priorities in every state, county, and municipality throughout the old Deep Solid (Democratic) South. (Unlike the GOP, at least when the Democrats got around to cleaning up the messes they caused, they kept them clean; whereas the GOP is always looking for new ways to invent more ways to divide and conquer. If that old tried and tested method failed now n’ then, they even demonstrate no shame in borrowing “electoral wisdom” from of all people, Uncle Joe Stalin who, in so many words, said, “Elections, no problem. What’s important is who does the counting.” Does the Florida’s Katherine Harris ring anyone’s memory bells?
  Rep. Wasserman-Schultz is right insofar as the additional costs of having to get state IDs and in some states, particularly up north, they might cost a lot more than in other places. But you still have to get them. God help anybody who has an unpaid parking ticket he has no idea of (like the ones his kids were hit with but “forgot” to tell him about while using the old guy’s vehicle.) He’s going to be in for a rude shock when he goes to get his license renewed, or even a voter’s ID card because in some states, that can jam you up. In Massachusetts, you only need to register with your town clerk or through the Registry of Motor Vehicles, and the Commonwealth goes out of its way to encourage people to register to vote, AND vote. That’s not a popular idea with some of today’s more ideologically charged “movement conservatives” who are more interested in winning elections for the moment and well, governing ... what’s that if you can out-fundraise and scare the hell out of any possible opponents from challenging you. Even the old Soviet Duma and Politburo had a better turnover record than what the GOP would leave us if it had its way. And it’d be much paler, too. Or what minorities they recruit and groom will definitely stay close to the old plantation-mentality that today’s predominately Sunbelt-GOP, the !@#$% child of Nixon’s Southern Strategy and raw crassness. Take a look at Rep. Tim Scott, SC, and SC’s new Gov. Nikki Haley. Well, they can take her, period.
  The last thing today’s GOP establishment wants is for a groundswell of minorities voting in any state anywhere because these guys are so cynical that they even know deep in their hearts no self-respecting African or Hispanic American man or woman would be so dumb to vote for so many candidates who’ll play on their religious values all the while remaining ever so cloy about programs designed for one purpose: to pick their pockets one way or another. Oh, the Plantation crowd will promise that smaller government will mean lower taxes, and this will enable private entrepreneurs to enter into privatization agreements to fulfill the same old publicly run services “for less.”
  Ask former publicly employed prison employees, clerks, school “lunch ladies” and cafeteria managers how many “savings” they’ve found from this trend. The gouging of the public by these new entrepreneurs isn’t treated for what it is: a higher tax. A half-lie of baloney as good as the full load of baloney. But who really pays the higher costs most directly? It’s not the wealthy for sure. They don’t get stuck with “ghetto prices” or thanks to these GOP notions of what constitutes “... affordable, accountable, transparent n’ more viable alternatives” to services most of us would (normally) consider part of what the taxpayer, white, black, brown, male and female should expect for his or her buck.
  The rush to privatize everything under the sun and kill government is all part of today’s stingier-than-thouest “conservative movement.” But this bunch can’t pull it off unless they squash the minority vote and the vote of those who aren’t financially qualified to join any gated community. Maybe I was being too charitable in calling the whole schmere reflective of “Plantation Mentality.” It’s just medieval. What next private robber baron armies. Oops, we have those. Check out the DeVos family ownings, besides the Orlando Magic, and tons of soap people sent back because they couldn’t sell ‘em due to high prices. Hmmm, how many bottles of LOC can a pilot pack into a Blackwater chopper?
  Today’s Right wing is very well-funded, clever and fast as hell. There’s no way on earth that Anthony Weiner would’ve been called out or smeared by Breitbart if the GOP kept its long-held seat in NY’s 26th District; especially over the issue of Ryan’s Medicare nonsense. This was pure payback; and unfortunately, Weiner rendered himself a very weak target to whack. “If you can’t recapture a seat back on the strength of your ideas, they figure, Dial 000 for Breitbart.” All parties play the payback game. But, during recent decades, the GOP, the party of Watergate and Tricky Dicky, have indeed learned from that mess and ironically put those lessons to use; but not in the way sensible conservatives would ever approve. Hell, they practically incorporated what they actually wanted to do but couldn’t because they were caught. And to ice their cakes of hidden plans with all Watergate’s rusty, but usable nuts n’ bolts, the “movement conservatives” even told their people to actually DIScourage minorities from voting.
  This is from Paul Weyrich back during Reagan’s 1980 run for the WH: “Many of our Christians have what I call the ‘goo goo’ syndrome — good government ... “They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. . . . As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23638322/blo…
(Actually I found this on another site providing more detailed info on what this wrought.) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7538890
  What a far cry from the legendary, though not entirely saintly, James Michael Curley, Boston’s “Mayor of the Poor” who used to rail against the “goo goos” of his time—he invented the term, too—and the “goo goos” were the supposedly high-minded, albeit equally viciously prejudiced Yankee Brahmin money folks who did what they could to starve the city of Boston and Commonwealth revenues to improve the quality of live for everybody, not just themselves. Sound like a familiar script? GOP forms shadow team to confuse and divide the electorate so it’ll vote for the wealthy against their better instincts and family’s financial best interests. Curley got even; he brazenly approved of a song with the words “Vote early n’ often for James Michael Curley.”
  To hear the wails of the GOP’s hypocrital operatives when the Democrats even openly promise to be more aggressive about doing something as simple, never mind legal, as getting people registered to vote without all the hassles the Republican Stop The Minority & Poor from Voting hacks would love to put into play.
  The party of TR is now a party of eclairs when it comes to demonstrating any sign of civic, never mind moral courage and consistency. They use abortion as their new Willie Horton; but they never let the public in on their plans to knock out the supports for these poor moms, some very young and scared; only to turn on them and say, “You should’ve been more responsible; but go down to the nearest private charity (translate, don’t look at me and my tax bracket as any sign I could be your good Samaritan! It’s MY money. While you were foolin’ around, I was making money.” Perhaps the good old fashioned wealthy GOP way, hmmm, inheriting it with a nice tax break to boot that cost that young mom any hope of what WIC used to provide?)
  They are so cowardly and hypocritical about their selfish “policy changes” they propose that they’ll go out of their way to make sure the people who’ll be most (negatively) affected, will also have to face good ol’ Jim Crow at the polling stations. They don’t even have the courage to admit that any additional financial charge to do something as simple as voting is a ... gasp ... a tax. And like Rep. Wasserman-Schultz pointed out in the video. It’s a return to the old poll taxes.
  Here’s another reason why the GOP doesn’t want more minorities and poor to vote, especially any liberal-minded Christians both inspired, organized and reminded by equally committed and genuinely more high-minded (i.e., consistent, but fair) Christian activists. Even though Senator David Vitter (R) (incredulously enough) won reelection last Fall in Louisiana, he’s still a very weak duck treading water. Take a look at the sections dealing in this wiki-link, dealing with his votes on CHIP (for kids’ health care) and other “social justice” issues. That’s bad enough. But also look at his religious affiliation. Oh, now this is going to hurt. He’s Catholic. He’s also prolife. But is that alone, enough to vote for such a two-timing scalawag like this creep all the while calling for Anthony Weiner’s head?
  If any Catholics still want to justify voting for a bum like Vitter —and sadly far too many did in that (strongly) Catholic Southern state, they’ll have one hell of a hard time doing so. Looks like Vitter “out trailer-trashed” the other guy to win. BTW, for Vitter to even think about running for re-election, now that takes a heavy dose of narcissism that The Donald might want to place an order for. What Vitter really has is a case of permanent PotomacFeverItisChutzpahitis. It’s terminal, though not like call for term limits. When a pol gets this, he becomes a lobbyist, and they live all too well for a very long, happily ever after time on the Potomac’s Banks.

Item No 3:  ....surplus population.  ... comes from “A Christmas Carol”; Scrooge said it. Guess I’m not smart enough to quote Ayn Rand as saying nearly the same thing.

Oh, I’m a Catholic, too.

And nare a peep from the MSM that Jared Lee Loughner was found mentally incompetent to stand trail in the Arizona shooting!

Of course, the NYT still has me *convinced* that Loughner regularly listened to Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck, Ingram, Levin and Coulter simultaneously, WHILE watching both Fox News and the Fox Business Channel, WHILE reading with one eye copies of National Review and Newsmax, WHILE viewing the Drudge Report and RedState on two separate computers with his other, WHILE checking his Goldline portfolio.

Pathetic.

Trolls appear, concerned about your being “judgmental” in 3…2…1

Oops. They’re already there.

And then there’s Steven. No need to visit the lefty blogs; he brings the DNC talking points straight to your combox! Hey Steven: Post an article next time. When the comment is longer than the original piece, it doesn’t look good at all.

Scotty, I get CBS news on a local a.m. “progressive talk” radio station in MA and it was mentioned. It does get around. BTW, do you think any of those characters you listed have stellar reputations for truly giving the news “straight up”? Lawdy! LOL! I interned at the National Journalism Center many years ago, when conservative journalism aspirants were expected to learn how to actually report the news as objective reporters. (Hate that stuffy word “journalist”!) Coulter graduated three years after I did. But times were different, and I’m sure she was too. Nowadays things sure look more Spencerian, with the tire irons out, brass knuckles bared and claws drawn. Here’s the main cause: MONEY. The more outrageous, the higher the interest and ratings. And with the higher ratings, the higher the incomes until things get out of control within the system as a whole as it seems with Fox, or just look at Beck’s demise on the small screen. The goofier you get, the worse you sound and look and the warier the Mad Men become.
  That’s NOT “journalism.” It’s newsertainment with a little of professional wrestling, mud wrestling, roller derby and political karoke shouting contests tossed in to keep “viewer interest” up.
  Just like that ol’ Gospel song, “Will the Circle be Unbroken?” Don’t hold your breath. As for the next big campaign season coming up, I’m already starting to hum, “I’ll fly away.” So will many other (would’ve been) people that’d normally be more interested in political news.

Glad to make your day Phil. Yeah, I went too long. But y’know ... gotta counter all the “fair n’ balanced” diet of junk food so many of you righties (notice I didn’t say “conservatives”) have been stuffin’ inside your heads. And what Kool Aid ya drinking these days, too?
  All seriousness aside, I love good chop-bustin’ FUN banter.
  Gotta roll, Deb Wasserman-Schultz just called ... want me to put in a good word for you?

The Left promotes abortion on demand and homosexuality. You can’t get any worse than that!

The Left’s embrace of immoral positions is ideological which makes the sins exponentially more serious because they are willfully embraced, promoted and defended.

Defending the Left is a lost cause. Get over it Lefties. Get a real conscience.

Ah, yes the fresh air of ditching the so-called conservatism!  The sense of freedom that comes from not being a hostage of both-sides-of-the-mouth politicians any longer!  The satisfaction of looking over all petty disputes and being able to look at the horizon to figure out which direction to take!  I love having let Jesus be the Lord of my politics and tend towards being wholly Catholic.

Steven,

Sigh. You keep pointing the finger at Breitbart over “smearing” Weiner. Uh, didn’t Weiner actually do something wrong? You know, cheat on his wife? Publicly deny it and actually attack those that accused him?

Let’s not even start in on your race-baiting. Your interpretation of the word “breaking” is so laughably absurd that only an academic could believe it.

Mr. Wickens:
Mark does exaggerate Rand’s view of the poor, but not all that unfairly.  Rand believed that charity was neither a moral duty nor major virtue.  It does not strike me as possible for a person to simultaneously hold such views and care about the poor.  Rand may not have despised the poor, but she was almost certainly indifferent to their plight.

When Mr. Shea demonstrates even a passing familiarity with Ayn Rand’s actual ideas and fairly represents her, he will be permitted an occasional exaggeration.

It’s true that Ayn Rand had no particular interest in “the poor” as a class. Ironically, however, her philosophy has far more to offer to them than Mother Teresa ever did.

Mark, I didn’t realize that Mark needed your permission to exaggerate, but I agree that on balance free markets probably do more to help the poor than charity, if that is your point.  And I especially agree that in Rand’s case that fact may carry some irony.  But I think your comparison is more than a little unartfully drawn.  There is nothing incompatable about free markets and charity, and certainly charity is a Divine injunction in the way that self-interest is not, regardless whether such self-interest is enlightened or has beneficial externalities.  Mother Teresa was almost certainly a better person than Rand who had a sadly wooden understanding of the human condition.

Objectivism and Catholicism are not compatable, and Catholics who are doctrinaire Rand devotees seem to be astonishingly in denial about that, just as Catholics who are statist socialists are in denial about that incompatablity.  There is nothing wrong with free markets from a Catholic viewpoint as long as it is understood that such markets serve man in the way they sensibly allocate resources, but are not a way of life or an end in and of themselves.

The one candidate that absolutely terrorizes me is Mitt Romney. Anyone who claims that John McCain is too much of a liberal to lead our country is either living in la-la land, or a totalitarian fascist.

Andy, I have to admit you have me quite amused. Defending Breitbart all the while treating my post as if I didn’t have anything critical to say about Weiner’s major mistakes. Nevertheless, don’t where you come off saying Weiner “cheated” on his wife, when in fact he hadn’t. Displaying horrible judgment while using his electronic gizmos isn’t the same thing as bedding down with the women.
  In this day and age, especially with a hired conscience-challenged wolf like Breitbart ever ready to do the GOP’s dirtiest jobs, any politician who leaves his back door open the slightest will pay dearly. Is this the way our leaders should be picked or pushed? As I said above, Weiner left himself wide open and it doesn’t take a lot of smarts or political training to notice the coincidentally close timing between the GOP’s loss of the 26th District and what happened to Weiner. The Brooklyn Congressman is at fault for his very inappropriate texting, sexting, schmexting, and yes, he lied about it.
  Let me ask you something; and be man enough to admit it. If you did something so embarrassingly dumb as Weiner had, don’t you think you’d be doing everything you could to save a young marriage and your political hide? I’m not saying it’s right; but can’t you cut the guy some slack for doing what any guy would’ve done under those circumstances? Or am I presuming you’re just one of those perfect Catholics who’s never uttered a few “uh’s ahhs, mmmm’s” when you got caught even with your hand in the potato chip bag late at night. And if you thought a Breitbart in your community was gunning for you out of political or business spite and you knew he had some dirt he was going to use, being the ever kind and gentle upright soul Breitbart’s reputed to be ... what would you do? Roll over?
  One of these days Breitbart will get his due and I hope he’ll find his new digs in some privatized debtor’s jug nice n’ comfy because whoever takes him to the cleaners will put him there for so long he’ll never be able to pay it off before all the cows come home.
  Now, as if defending the likes of Breitbart wasn’t laughably bad enough ... are you sure you still want to be in DeMint’s corner?
  Why does it seem more and more often lately that today’s conservative movement is beginning to look more and more like the Bourbons of France, the factory owners who called out the Pinkertons to bust strikers’ heads and hanging out with the likes of of people who think like Bull Connor, Strom Thurmond and make the fictional Archie Bunker look like a flaming “commie-pinko-f….t”? Well, I’ll put more of my trust in the judgments of academic “meatheads” than any font of knowledge or tea-flavored Kool Aid you’re tapping into.

Steven,
I’m with you on Weiner’s lying.  It resembles hypocrisy (another under-appreciated vice) in its tribute to virtue.  What I cannot abide is your take on his so-called “sexting.”  It is lame beyond measure to dismiss it as embarrassingly dumb.  Embarrassingly dumb is getting on the wrong train or forgetting which floor your new office is on.  What he did was disgusting, vile, and perverse, and if you don’t consider it marital cheating you have lower standards than you should fella.

And your comparison of today’s conservatives to Bull Conner et al is idiotic to the point of insane.  Seriously.  Get help.

Mike, he did not cheat on his wife. He had, (unlike Clinton) literally no physical contact with the women. Disgusting sexting, and yes, I should’ve put in disgusting before, but I was typing too fast and wanted to get on to the next point. Vile and I can’t make heads or tails out why people do things like that. Infantile as well.
  Yeah, reaching for ol’ Bull was a bit much, but just listen to Limbaugh, Beck, and Coulter. If you can. On the other hand, I can’t make heads or tails out of dangerous fascist like Allen West, and blow-hards like Herman Cain. There’s a whole list of interesting characters on both sides of the ideological Grand Canyon.
  But “help”? I’ll definitely take you up on that suggestion if the GOP nominates Palin-Bachmann and God help us all, they actually win. You won’t find an opening for any psychrink appointment for some time should that pair take office. The waiting line will years too long, Obamacare or no Obamacare because there’ll be too many people needing that couch and all the good psychrinks will be practicing out of the country. Maybe seeking help for Palin-Bachmann derangement syndrome. But so won’t we all once a pair like that get to do their thing. Only Rush n’ Limbaugh could stomach that “matriarchy.” LOL.
  Better than political prozac ... Vitamin H for HUMOR!

As a conservative and a Catholic I wonder in what way this article conveys Catholic values? Is it a call for reform, action, and prayer?

As evidenced by the examples in this article, our society is in dire circumstances. Most of the incidents in this piece can be catagorized as “social sin.”

As Blessed John Paul II said, “To speak of social sin means in the first place to recognize that, by virtue of human solidarity which is as mysterious and intangible as it is real and concrete, each individual’s sin in some way affects others.” When our leaders have poor morals, it affects America.  Let us work on the restoration of our values.

We Catholics should be striving to change society through God’s love, prayer, and civility. According to the USCCB, “...we must engage social media in a manner that is safe, responsible and civil.”

I think you read the title of Friedman’s article and not the article itself. He said nothing about overpopulation, but over-consumption.

Good post, Mark!

Mark, I find the left repellant because of people like Steven.  Long winded lying loudmouths full of themselves.

Steven.  Just.  Go.  Away.

Oh, for crying out loud. When did cheating get defined only to intercourse? Intent matters. There might be some gray area between friendly banter, crass jokes, and cheating, but sending pictures of your junk to women is cheating.

Reason #3 was my favorite!

Bravo! Another tour de force! You are a great writer writing about great things. Keep up the good work! Literally!

Steven writes above concerning Weiner:  “Mike, he did not cheat on his wife. He had, (unlike Clinton) literally no physical contact with the women.”

Now we know Steven’s character.  Cheating on your wife is only cheating when physical contact is involved.  No doubt Steven is a product of the Clinton years when middle school children were introduced on the nightly news to oral sex which Clinton said was not sex.  We all remember Hilary’s reaction to that.  Steven, if you are married, why not ask your wife if she agrees that cheating only involves physical contact.

“Now we know Steven’s character.”
Hmmm, this guy doesn’t even know me, but he knows my “character.” If he knows his Scripture as well as he knows my character, it looks like New Observer needs new specs or a new Bible, one that includes the moments when Jesus warned against judging people, (especially strangers! no less, LOL.)
Let’s see lately, I’ve had people “wonder” about me; suggest I “get help,” say I’m a “longwinded lying loudmouth full of ... ” myself, “repellant” and highly advised to “go away.” (Now that’s a future Fox News “reporter” if I ever saw one! Goebbels’ “Der Angriff’s” still out of print? Oh well, like I said, there’s Fox.)
  You really don’t think I’ll just “go away” that quickly. Right? I’m just warming up.
  While I haven’t read all the dirty details (Fox will have that when it downloads all the dirt Breitbart’s donating out of the goodness of his heart to Rupert n’ Roger) ... I’ve learned that Weiner’s been called on to resign by no less than Nancy Pelosi. Well, it sure looks like he might be in for far more trouble than I earlier surmised and was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for since the last time I checked, we usually consider people in this country innocent BEFORE proven guilty of whatever the courts, Fox or whipped up mob have already come to believe; all the facts, fair or not fair, balanced or just plain looney, notwithstanding. On the other hand, my character’s been judged, and if it were physically possible, I’m sure New Observer and Co. will have me facing an auto da fe anytime soon.
  Well, Weiner is the GOP’s payback for losing the 26th which was opened with many thanks to its former congressman’s antics.
  Well, on second thoughts, I’m not going to let you guys fry me so easily. Nor am I going to wait till hell freezes over in your cold cells where the dank smelly air of judgmentalism predominates and saturates every thing for you guys to get around to frying David Vitter first.
  Yeah, y’all forgot about that good ol’ boy, didn’t ya? I haven’t. LOL!
  Shamelessly and characterlessly yours in good spirits n’ jest. S.

Why all the gratuitous swipes at Ayn Rand all over, lately?

One part of the foolishness here is the idea that agreeing with Rand’s prediction and diagnoses in “Atlas Shrugged” - the accuracy of which has been demonstrated in the last few years to a nicety - somehow magically commits one to agreement with her total philosophy. Would this argument be extended to an atheist leftist who recommends Tolstoy or Victor Hugo?

The other part is a specific misrepresentation of Christianity. Christianity is not a pro-Statism religion; indeed, given who killed their Savior, it tends to the anti-State. (This is something the left has not yet dealt with.) Nowhere in the Bible does it say that wealth should be expropriated and redistributed by the dubious means of government structures; it speaks of personal and *voluntary* charity. One might add, looking at the horrific debt and unfunded liabilities situation that the U.S. is in right now, that the Bible and Jesus were wise in staying away from government panaceas.

This entire kabuki charade is in bad faith. The Bible does not advocate any Progressive notions of “economic justice.” The progressives who have suddenly discovered religion and its necessary role in politics - after thirty decades and more of stridently and rightly insisting it must be kept out of politics - are not sincere. After this temporary rhetorical bubble is over, they will resume their previous, also ad-hoc, declarations.

As for the “sociopath” accusation, this is what comes of copying attack website garbage. The whole thing rests upon one author - Prescott’s - highly selective excerpting and chopping up of a private [i.e., thinking out loud without clarifications ] journal written when Rand was barely out of her teens, fresh from the blood bath of 1920s Soviet Russia - and still made it very clear that her read on the personalities of the observers showed that they were not appalled by Hickman’s crime - she said there had been far worse, without the same spectacle of glee - but by his flamboyant and mocking defiance of society. She - who was writing about a *legally innocent man* at the time of the trial - even called him a repulsive and purposeless criminal. Enough with the disinformation and - yes - Satanizing of Ayn Rand.

Steven,  David Vitter should resign as well.  Offering some long incoherent rant still does not deflect attention from your comment that cheating on your wife is only true if physical contact takes place.  Still waiting to hear if your wife agrees with your definition of “cheating.”

@New Observer I tend to agree with you that David Vitter should also resign. But there is at least one difference between Weiner and Vitter, that he didn’t engage in a cover up or use the media to perpetuate a lie. Plus, his sexual promiscuity was against his wife at least seven years earlier and he admitted what he did to his wife around that time. Was he still engaging in sexually immoral behavior at the time of the leak to the press? Had he repented and changed his ways?

Teresa, ... Point taken and accepted.  You rightly state the difference in circumstances concerning Vitter.  Thanks for bringing them to light.

@NewObserver.  If it makes you feel better, I, too, believe Weiner should step down. But what are YOU trying to get at by making a personal challenge to an otherwise complete stranger to you on the web by trying to drag my wife into this? This is only juvenile “so’s your old man, and your mom wears combat boots” kind of childishness on your part. Leave my wife out of it. I don’t ask what your spouse is thinking about this and it’s none of my business. Do yourself both the favor of not bringing her into this.
  If you want to discuss bad apple pols running abortion mills, sending grossly immature and sexually inappropriate “tweets” or whatever the latest fad in “communications” happens to be, or pols using hookers, that’s one thing ... but when you go after another commentary section contributor’s personal character as you did to me last night, and tonight ... notwithstanding the fact I tried to end it all gracefully with a good dollop of humor ... well, I’ll let you mull on the space you unnecessarily fouled up here by attacking me personally sans any personal provocation on my part.

I feel an inexplicable urge to clap appreciatively for Steven. So I will give in to it. *clap* *clap* I salute you, unknown Steven, even though I don’t particularly agree with your points. I like your spirit and good humor. You must be doing something right, to provoke such ire, from having your character to being told to just go away.  I am as fascinated by the dynamics of online discussion as by the content contained therein—I’ve been participating in such since 1979, in the good old days of PLATO, that precursor to the Internet. Thank you for providing me with a meta-discursive last read of the day.

Steven, Ok.  Apologies are due you.  I was just so shocked by your statement that cheating on your spouse is not cheating so long as **physical relations** do not occur.  In my view, what Weiner has done is cheating on his wife and apparently there are reports of even more graphic photos he sent to other women.  I also do not condone people like Breitbart who dig up dirt on people.  However, Weiner is the guilty party here.  Equally shocking is a recent poll showing just over half of Weiner’s constituents feel he should stay in office rather than resign.  What does that say about us as a people?  He lied to the press, his wife, his constituents and his colleagues in Washington.  The man is a liar by his own admission.  The word shame seems to have deleted from the lexicon of Washington officials.  If your commentary was meant to inject some humor in this event then I offer my apology to you for not understanding.

@New Observer: Thank you for the apologies and I consider it a past done matter between us. As for Weiner, well, he’s lost it from me completely after not only seeing the photos, (even dumber than that character who used to represent the NY26th) ... but that he had ‘em taken in the House Members private gym. Bad enough from any other place, but on Capitol Hill? This is gonna take a lotta redeemin’ if he still plans on staying on and I don’t see how when he’s got Pelosi, Wasserman-Schultz for starters telling him to hit the road. They can’t afford to lose yet another Democrat after last years thumping, but they also are more foresighted and sensible enough to know they can’t afford to have such a loose cannon (morally speaking) on the Hill either.
  Breitbart’s no great shakes by any measure but Weiner made him look like the “good publicly concerned patriot” ... even though he was being blackmailed by Breitbart, and that’s giving another form of evil a looser reign. New Yorkers are a jaded bunch, but not so jaded that they won’t pay attention to Gov. Cuomo and other disgusted Democratic power thoroughbreds on this matter.
  The fratboy crap has to go. And I’ve changed my mind on Weiner; he too should go because of what he did really was a lot more colossally stupid and immorally selfish to his wife, future family and to his constituents, his party and to his country at large. A political career cut short by such corruption, esp. sexual in its origins, plus the “usual coverup” diminishes the system because it leads to more cynicism and jadedness that’ll only lead to more guys and gals who’ll try to push the envelope again when they think nobody’s looking. And back to the old scandal pigpen for the ever greedy media always eating out of this trough, from which some piggies can’t ever get enough.

@Rae, Thank you very much for your kind remarks. When I noticed “PLato” I thought, well, getting close to sixty, but I’m not THAT ancient ... but try and tell my kids the opposite. LOL. By the way, I going to have to confess one of the seven biggies, envy after noticing your vocabulary as well. With apologies to PBS’ Rick Steves,  “Keep on reading n’ postin’.”

@New Observer: This one’s for you, and I hope you and everybody else gets as much a good laugh as I did from reading it.  When asked about his Democratic colleague in the House, a much beleaguered colleage, the “gentleman from New York” ... Barney really showed how age and mellowness catches up with all of us. I never saw him show this much restraint before. LOL http://thehill.com/homenews/house/166339-citing-his-own-past-frank-stays-on-sidelines-of-weiner-debate

Steven, This is surprisingly hilarious.  Thank you.  Barney Frank actually showing restraint.  Hell has frozen over.  Perhaps he is getting worn down as age creeps in.  I will never understand how MA Catholics continue to re-elect him.  Thanks again for the link.

I see Steven’s inchoherent ramblings ignoring Frank Fleming’s “Tips for Not Appearing Crazy on the Internet” (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/tips-for-not-appearing-crazy-on-the-internet/).....  I gather he does think that my so-called Representative for this safe one-party seat was doing something or other worthwhile…. what, such important issues as whining about Politically Incorrect statues in the neighborhood?

And I proceeded to violate a tip myself by not proofreading ‘incoherent’.

You’re welcome, New Observer. Notwithstanding Barney Frank’s illustrious career in public service from his years serving as one the late Boston Mayor Kevin White’s top aides (when he pushed through local legislation creating the nations first designated “Combat Zone” that completely encompassed the blocks surrounding the building where the Liberty Tree once stood ... well, Libertarians won’t mind that irony LOL)... to his years in Congress where he also moonlighted for a while as a brothel owner, thus engendering the well-deserved wrath of Tip O’Neil ... and his recent unsuccessful attempt to pull the “Do you know who I am” routine out on Fire Island (I believe) ... he has managed to bring home enough of the usual bacon all Reps are expected to return home with. Massachusetts is a very small state that has a lot of people with big memories when it comes to pulling through on fulfilling favors, requests for grants, etc.
  In that respect, it’s hard to knock the guy or anybody if they don’t neglect their real core constituency, the so-called regular folks who rely on their congressman, regardless of his public antics, to get their kid(s) into West Point, Annapolis, AF Academy, have a flag flown over the Capitol and so forth. Unlike the other guy whom O’Neil had to publicly censure/chastize in the House for his private indiscretions (to put ‘em mildly!) ... at least Barney Frank was man enough to face The Speaker who taught him “All politics is local.” The far more arrogant Gerry Studds, however, forgot that “local” meant more than Provincetown and Washington, DC.

Will…no offense intended…but I’m still trying to figure out your post. That’s okay; especially if I’ve driven you crazy with some of mine. Just remember two thoughts from the Man from Margaritaville, James Buffett, SJ, “If we weren’t all crazy, we’d all go insane,” and “It’s alright to be crazy, don’t let it drive you nuts.” And this for everbody, never let politics kill a good sense of humor. Now that’s really going nuts.

One less lefty in Congress for Mark to be repelled with. But seeing Weiner’s saga began with a series of idiotic tweets of despicable and indeed, “sordid” as Rep. Waaserman-Schultz correctly put it, this latest tweet in the Weiner saga is interesting from a far different perspective. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/an-evangelical-attempts-t_b_878005.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=061611&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily Brief
He just got a tweet from the So. Baptist Al Mohler about forgiveness and apparently it looks like this will kick up more dust just as things are beginning to settle down. It wasn’t a “religious issue” before, but sho’nuff gonna look like one now.
  What I find downright cheesy is the use of the twitter means of reaching Weiner or anybody by Mohler. If Al Mohler is that big enough of a figure in his own denomination, he doesn’t need to resort to chickcrap means of getting ahold of a man who has enough on his plate; never mind how to respond Mohler. All Rev. Mohler had to do was pick up a real telephone and call Weiner’s office and if Tony Weiner wasn’t available, he could’ve found other ways to have his concern passed along. But this tweeting people just strikes me as junior high school stuff. It goes public, so the personal aspect of Mohler’s attempt to offer what he can to help Weiner through this gets lost and it looks more like a publicity stunt.
  We need a blog on the most creative ways to crush, destroy or melt so many of these intrusive and obnoxious devices. In the link cited above, Rabbi Boteach was certainly more conciliatory towards Mohler than I’ve been. On the other hand, I’ve also seen how much more damaging the combination of a horrible sense of timing and means of communication can wreck even the best of intentions when it comes to sharing the Good News about Christian Forgiveness, Redemption, and Salvation.
  Whatever happened to handwritten letters on the best stationery with an invite for lunch and a talk in private afterwards? Guess I’m really outta step for suggesting that.

Steven,  Wasserman-Schultz (“the party always comes first”) had no choice in trying to defend the undefendable.  Pelosi already gave the order.  At least Weiner can lay low and use his photos for when he runs for Mayor of NYC.  I doubt Schumer will want to be seen within ten miles of him.  In the meantime, somehow Charlie Rangle can owe 600k in undeclared income and people still re-elect him.  Geitner can fail to pay taxes for 3 years and Obama gives him the key to the US Treasury.

BOTH political parties and for that matter our business and military elite are enablers of murder, avarice, slander, and every imaginable crime and sin.  The democrats murder our young in the womb and republicans starve our babies, adolescents, old, infirm, and weak with their policies. 

We live in an era of self worshiping nihilistic morons that lack wisdom and for that matter common sense.  False priests and false prophets are everywhere and include certain Catholic bishops, priests and nuns that by their silence promote new age woo woo theology and lead many weak souls astray.

Evil is good and good is evil is the mantra of this decadent generation.

May God have mercy on our children.

Do you think he could even carry the precincts around Times Square? Even the most daredevil bookies in all Gotham wouldn’t bet that, either!

Mark: As usual, I find myself in agreement. I once considered myself a “conservative,” thinking that the adjective would broaden my ability to relate to people “across the board” who decry much in (post)-modern culture and who long for “the good old days.” But I realized that in Eisenhower’s ‘Fifties, JFK’s ‘Sixties, and (let’s please forget the ‘Seventies) Reagan’s ‘Eighties, there were all kinds of deplorable social evils being tolerated and even advanced by our increasingly secular culture. As Francis Schaeffer used to say, the Right and the Left are two roads leading exactly to the same end. And the American people are being played like a fiddle by cynical politicians who despise us, because we have proven ourselves dispicable.

Billy: While I find much of your reply very interesting, freshingly so because it harkens to a time when conservatism wasn’t this gung ho, hoorah, USA USA USA juvenile nonsense of today. I have a hard time believing us to be so despicable so as to deserve the fiddling we’re getting all the time from pols.
  That said, I’d still like for more Catholics, at least, to be more constructively critical of a supposedly self-proclaimed (okay, pacacked) prolife pols and put their feet to the fire ... not just letting them get away with saying, “Hey, I’m your guy because I’m prolife”...that’s not enough, especially when they’re sticking it to the poor with their cheap and miserly notions of what constitutes responsible stewardship. After all ... talk’s cheap.
  Yes, we don’t like getting same old “playing us for a song”  treatment but isn’t it time we start demanding consistency from the pols and their big fat cat and long-lived non-profit lobbying groups who’ve only done a magnificant job of living off of nearely 40 years worth of anti Roe fundrasing campaigns with nothing to show for their continued existence notwithstanding their lacklustre records of performance.

I have no problem with the writers such as Mr. Shea writing a blog and expressing their political opinions.  What bothers me a great deal is that they do it under the title of “Catholic” in National Catholic Register.  Mr. Shea….as is true of all commentators on both the left and the right in our political universe…is very selective in the examples he uses to support his positions, is extraordinarily smug and self-satisfied in everything he rights, relies on demagogary (spelling?) and extremism in his commentary.  I think this type of self-expression has it’s place in a Republican or Democratic forum, perhaps in a call to Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews, but not in a place that calls itself “Catholic”.  I find it hard to believe Jesus would have resorted to or condoned this type of thing. It’s irrelevant how “correct” Mr. Shea is…he damages our Church through his angry vitirol and the way he, intentionally or not, divided us all into camps of left/right, forces us to choose sides (I’m sure he’d say we need to choose the camps of good/evil or truth/lies, etc.) Please stop, or go put this stuff where it belongs…it has no place in the Church that Jesus founded.

@Michael: Are you serious, or are you trying to show how “extraordinarily smug” you are with your last post? After reading your reply Michael, I’m afraid it’s time I’ll have to make some amends to all my pals in the Kumbaya Korner for some (well-deserved) shots I delivered for their wimpery. But here’s a conservative writer who’s all of a sudden decided it’s time to interject some “Mr. Manners” treatment of his own so as to prevent his eyes and tender sensitivities from the strain of having to endure good back and forth sharing of different ideas.
  Take off the blinders and get a life if you really want to enjoy good political give n’ take.

The problem is, Steven, that angry vitriol so seldom produces any political give and take, good or otherwise.  It mostly just scores debating points.

Well, excuse me Michael, but excepting your own opinions, I don’t think anybody else contributing to the Register’s commentary boxes for whatever topics and reasons honestly believes he or she is submitting something for debate at their local college’s faculty senate or debating societies. 
  I’ll readily admit to contributing some “vitriol” as you might describe lively commentary, now n’ then. Maybe I should enroll in a “Political Vitriolics Anonymous 12-Step” gathering nearby, or start one.
  But you’ve gotta be kidding (not only yourself) but other readers and contributor’s to Mark’s blogsite with the Register by saying “...through his angry vitirol and the way he, intentionally or not, divided us all into camps of left/right, forces us to choose sides ... “
  Whaddayknow! A columnist/blogger uses some “vitriol” to stir things up. Is there a Vatican Five-O “Vitriol Squad” out there you want to call because you believe he “damages our Church”? “Book ‘im Danno, Church Damage-One.” Somehow the Church which has survived everthing mankind has thrown at it from inside as well as outside has been suddenly imperiled by Mark’s vitriolic articles.
  Have you read the other articles by other bloggers? They provoke just as much controversy and lively commentaries in their own ways, and I wouldn’t call their pieces any more or less “vitriolic” than Mark’s.
  Well, since I’m going down my own personal sometime reporter’s/columnist’s memory lane, I might as well suggest a possible new “crime” against the Church; one that’ll really bring her down. “Selective ideological vitriol.” Is that what you really wanted to zap him with? Because his posts aren’t (psssssst, I’ve almost got to whisper this) ... quite as conservative as the other bloggers ... uh, in fact, they could even betray a l-l-liberal bias on some issues, or at least seem willing to give the liberals the benefit of the doubt, all the while taking the right to task for their smugness?
  Mark nailed the Left and correctly so in this particular blog. I even came around on Anthony Weiner’s disgraceful exit. But Mark was also fair especially in his use of The Donald at the end, or more appropriately enough, bottom, where The Donald belongs politically.
  Michael, a columnist/blogger’s job is to inform and if that sometimes requires snapping the old bullwhip and using some “vitriol” to draw attention to the real villains of this world…then Mark and the other Register regular columnists and bloggers are earning their keep.
  Now I hope Mark will go on to discuss why he finds the Right so repellent. (This might take a series of posts.)
  BOOK ‘EM MARK!

In response to Steven….
**I’m not trying to be smug at all…I just think that it’s time to inject some civility into our discourse…political, religious, whatever.  Of course, I can understand this sort of thing in the political arena, which can be a no-holds barred type of place…though I don’t see any real good “give ‘n take” in this blog or our political world in general…I just see people attacking each other.  This, unfortunately, has become the tenor of all our political discussions in recent times.  As a result, nothing significant ever gets accomplished politcially anymore; people just sit in their opposite camps taking shots at one another. It might be fun and lead to feelings of satisfaction; I just don’t see it bringing any sort of good into our world, a world that desparately needs solutions.
**However, my main problem here lies in those people who represent themselves as having a “Catholic” point of view, yet crawl into the mud and sling it with everyone else.  I like to think we’re better than that.

Michael,
Well you obviously *are* better than that, and that is to your credit.

Michael, I never thought the Vatican or the self-supposed arch loyalist and more orthodox than everybody else, would tolerate a rival magisterium of one person, no less a layman. Does this mean I have to submit my copy to you in advance, or my inquiries and certainly my jokes and attempts to inject humor? Oh, I’m sure you’ll have your editor’s crayon at hand for submissions from renegades like myself.
  In the meantime, I’m going to put on some Jimmy Buffett, grab me some “boat drinks, “lighten up the rest of my day and think of some more ways to inject some badly needed Vitamin H in this thread. The H, stands for HUMOR. You seem to be the expert when it comes to providing all the holiness.

Steven,
I agree that the injection of humor can be refreshing and often lead to better communication.  But your sarcastic little screeds are not funny.  Just lame.

Sigh, what can I say. Maybe I spent too much time reading Art Buchwald, and Mike Barnicle for starters. Sometimes I’d even read Howie Carr, Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, but let’s face it ... when it comes to angry screeds, I only have to turn to the latter three. Besides, they also give me a very good window to peer in “right wing world” to find out how the other side ISN’T thinking.
  Honestly, you guys can’t be serious with your views on Mark’s articles. And you can’t tell me with straight faces (if you’ll pardon the expression though their impossible to tell and I’ll take your word(s) for ... howya like that…I’m not that unfair LOL) that ideology hasn’t played a part in your views about his articles.
  For the record, I’m prolife, socially conservative, believer in high educational standards, especially when it comes to promoting the liberal arts and history/social/economic studies, fiscally liberal and when it comes to military and forgeign policies, while not extremely hawkish, I don’t believe we should take any crap from two-bit terrorists and backwater thugocracies. Guess that makes me a jack-o-all-trades, but that sure as heck beats looking at life from a narrow black n’ white only perspective.
  Hell, even the computer geeks (or the Prussians beat ‘em to it) by coming up with 256 shades of gray.

In this discussion, Catholics cannot be expected to put their political views aside in favor of bowing down to whatever the church says regarding public policy issues.  For example, in recent years, social justice topics have moved up the pop charts to become a favorite of the liberal clergy.  In one example, Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles earlier this year was a prime speaker at a huge liberal immigration reform rally in downtown Los Angeles.  Many Catholics find his immigration reform position offensive since it places a growing burden of increased taxes on American citizens in general and on Catholics specifically.  The idea that suggests “I am more Catholic than you are”—because one supports the clergy in every church policy doesn’t wash.  If you support liberal public policies only because the church supports them, one is considered a conservative Catholic.  On the other hand, a Catholic who is conservative politically and does not support pubic square issues of a liberal bent which the your local bishop advocates, one’s true Catholicity is questioned as false or that of not following the dictates of Peter’s chair.  Somehow, and conveniently, liberal social justices issue have weaned their way into becoming equal with church doctrine.  Has anyone noticed this?

Addressing “New Observer”...It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, and I agree that their is a political dimension to the Gospel.  Liberals tend to see it in issues such as immigration and government responsibility to the poor, while conservatives tend to see it in life issues and gay marriage.  I encourage people to get involved…though I admittedly cringe when people’s positions differ from my own.
My huge concern, and I think the concern of others who had problems with Mr. Shea’s blog, was his tone.  Personally, I found it sarcastic and dismissive towards people who would disagree with him.  I believe he does this because it attracts viewers, but I feel his tone is destructive and divisive and does not help us get anywhere.  Finally, I don’t think people who self-identify as “Catholics” should adopt such a tone.
However, I know he can do MUCH better, because his blog for Monday (concerning how it’s the Spirit that moves us) to be beautifully written.

Did you even read the Friedman article? It quotes real and serious problems occurring now in developing nations, and then says “WE” need to change in the developed world.
Sheesh.

Mark W., YOU ARE TROLL. Qouting from such “scholarly” publications as the Rolling Stone and Democratic Underground qualify you for that moniker. Your reference to “LIBERAL” Christians is an oxymoron, there is only one true faith directly linked to the apostles and it is not any of the water-downed versions of Christianity Lite that your refer too. Your arguments, better to say liberal fantasies about “Jim Crow” trends ignores the decades of de-humanizing liberal pandering to minorities to enslave them and buy their votes. Requiring an I.D. to vote in not a poll tax, though in my world you would not be allowed to vote without your W-2’s in hand (a way to prevent the parasite class from voting themselves benefits,as D’Toqueville warned was the death knell of a nation). The Left has the blood of over 50,000,000 unborn Americans on his hands and before the altar of God they (and their sympathizers) will have to answer for it. So, PLEASE do us all a favor and stop trying subvert the Catholics on this site and mince on over to Huffington or the Daily Kos where you belong.

Mark…my apologies…my rant was meant for Steven. Miss read the poster.

Steven,

The fact that you see yourself as “prolife, socially conservative, believer in high educational standards, especially when it comes to promoting the liberal arts and history/social/economic studies, fiscally liberal and when it comes to military and forgeign policies, while not extremely hawkish,” etc. does not make you Art Buchwald. 

Michael’s point is that while Shea can be witty, his wit too easily drips with an unbecoming sarcasm.  I think he’s right.  There is a place for sarcasm, but its utility has its limits, unless your purpose has more to do with heat than light.  Believing this does not make one smug, but thinking that it does does make one transparently defensive.  Moreover, it is exactly this kind of writing that best reveals the “narrow black and white perspective” you so smugly congratulate yourself on avoiding.

Dr. M’s comments are extraordinarily hateful.  Apparently convinced he possesses and speaks for the “one true faith”, Dr. M attacks and demeans those who disagree with him.  He divides us into different camps….those who are correct (read “conservatives”) and those who are wrong (read “liberals”.)  He leaves no room for dialogue or bridge building…which, of course, he would not see as necessary, since he has God on his side. As I’ve said in my earlier posts, this sort of angry and destructive rhetoric serves no purpose other than to push us further apart. Though I realize I’m probably not going to accomplish anything, I’d ask Dr. M to consider this.  In His ministry, Jesus always reached out to and embraced sinners…bad, horrible sinners, not just the “good” sinners.  He didn’t drive them away or ask them to “mince” over anywhere.  The only people Jesus ever seemed to lose patience with were the Pharisees and Saduccees, the people of His time who thought they had all of the religious answers and put down what they saw as the sinners.  Whenever we’re tempted to condemn, to point out the splinters in other people’s eyes, we need to remember this.

@Mike:For your information, the description I provided about where I stand on various issues was just that, a description—with no humor intended whatsoever. As for this little dollop of sneering sarcasm “...does not make you Art Buchwald”—sincerely, in all fairness, you simply misread my post and self-description and mentions of two (among other ) whose works I admired and coincidently happen to be representative of all sides.
  As for your comments about Mark’s “unbecoming sarcasm,” he’s mild compared to some other columnist’s works I’ve read in both commercial and other religious publications. Just as in baseball, there’s a difference between a pitcher’s legitimate use of a “brush-back” pitch used to protect his players if the other team’s pitcher’s really going after his teamates, especially after gving up back-to-back home runs ... and of course, the ultimate mortal sin for any pitcher, the deliberate knock-down hit-batsman-pitch. I don’t believe Mark is, but to take your argument, and match it to my admittedly rough baseball parallel, he belongs in the former catagory; whilst there’s a lot of right wing commentators who won’t hesitate to use the bean ball on their first pitch “just to set the tone” for the rest of the game. (Especially their female commentators. Geesh are they mean! My two top favorite “usual suspects” in this catagory are no less than Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. Of course, the libs and the Times have their Maureen Dowd, and she doesn’t hesitate to use all sorts of spitters, cut balls, you name ‘em. First pitch, too. But why does seem like the newer breed of take no prisoners conservative commentators are pulling this stuff moreso than their retired or ready to retire older predecessors?
  “Money makes ze vold go ‘round,” and the printing presses roll, not to mention television cameras.
  Even with the notable exception of Dr. M’s comments above, I haven’t even seen anything in this thread or Mark’s other threads by himself or repliers like ourselves. Thank you Michael for reminding the Dr. of a few things. BTW, I don’t even read the Rolling Stone. Listen to the Stones, but not read the mag.
  As for what he has to say about Christians who happen to be liberal on some or all subjects, well, ‘tis best to let him take on Jim Wallis, John Allen or Fr. Jim, Martin, SJ. They’re certainly more “qualified” in that respect than even myself. I’ll admit to being an “ideological mutt” viz a viz a straight left/right ideologue.
  See what happens when you put on sun shades with 256 shades of gray?
  Political commentary, discussions, etc. shouldn’t be limited to the strictures of Miss Manners’ and Mr. Rogers; on the other hand, we I agree that we don’t need the Pedro Martinezes on the Pundits’ Mounds. But Mark Shea, though he’s doing his job to stir up interest in his articles, he’s hardly in the Pedro Martinez variety of commentators; that we can leave to Maureen Down, a nasty southpaw and two equally nasty righties, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.

Dr. M; I’m aghast at your mischaracterization of me. For all these years I worked hard around my VERY liberal collegetown area of New England developing a reputation as a troglodyte and you come along and demote me to a mere “TROLL.”
  Time to call Dr. Phil, I guess.

Steven,

It is you who misread me.  I was merely pointing out that the fact that you may see yourself as politically eclectic in the manner of AB does not render you funny in the manner of AB.  AB was loved by both sides of the aisle precisely because he understood the difference between satire and sarcasm.  And AB never deluded himself into thinking that humor excuses meanness. 

On the other hand I do not misread you.  You think everyone who critizes Shea does so because Shea has taken a shot at their simplistic “black and white perspective,” whereas you are man with a nuanced and sophisticaed perspective.  Ironically, it does not occur to you that folks like Michael, who suggest that Shea would benefit from being more charitable in his accusations and assumptions, also don’t read Dowd, Coulter, et al due to the same objections.  That would not fit your rather cartoonish understanding of your perceived lessers, an understanding that is easy to get away with in the anonymity of cyberspace.

@Mike: This is the fullest extent of my reference to Art Buchwald everybody… and judge for yourself if I was deluding myself to think I was “thinking that humor excuses meanness.”  “Sigh, what can I say. Maybe I spent too much time reading Art Buchwald, and Mike Barnicle for starters.”
  I’ve got better things to do with my time than to defend what I’ve written when my words can speak for themselves against intentional misrepresentation from a humorless and droll critic, or perhaps critics in one person. Mike, in this kind of forum, how on earth would you know what Michael reads or doesn’t read? Unless I should add collusion to my list of legitimate grieveances. Look, I don’t mind good natured ribbing, and in an effort to lighting this commentary-thread, I even took some shots at myself, thus earning your insulting use of the word “cartoonish” to describe what I wrote. However, my patience is wearing thin with your act(s) from either one of you or just one pretending to be both.
  If I’m wrong on this, my sincerest apologies. However, you left the door open with your reference to who Michael reads or doesn’t read. If I’m not wrong, then you owe the Register, and especially Mark Shea a big apology.

I guess you don’t find Sen. Vitter’s deplorable actions repellent?  Oh, that’s right.  He’s a ‘good Catholic’.  Hypocrite.

@SeanNJ, For the record Sean, I at least took a good swipe at Vitter. He should be given the heave-ho and green ligh to go (and yesterday wouldn’t be too soon) from the upper-chamber. What surprised the hell out of me is what Louisianans find attractive enough in Vitter to have re-electeld him in the first place. I don’t know if you caught any debate last fall on CSPAN. His Democratic opponent kept up calling Vitter’s personal conduct disgraceful and literally keeping it up front, center, right and backside all around for the voters to “see” and at least hear ... and yet they still sent the bum back to DC. Had a Democrat pulled this, another Long family, pulled what Vitter pulled, the GOP would be on him like a hungry gator protecting her young snappers, and correctly so.
  But, as I’ve mentioned and implied several times over in this paper’s website, all the GOP has to do it seems to bag “loyalist” Catholic voters these days is to wave the banner “prolife fiscal conservative” and they’ve at least won the Register’s commentary section(s) “Primary.”
  BTW, for some other ... I did post a link to a Rolling Stone article which I got from yet another source. But I think I mentioned that I’m not a regular reader of the mag and that’s true. Indeed, I managed to find that solitary self-incriminating link.
  Telling that in this land where respect of individual freedom is held sacred by the righties, just linking one art icle from Rolling Stone puts a righter on their “usual suspects list” of Liberals n’ lefties. Joe McCarthy could never get around to countering that question about his “decency,” and conservatives in general run for the hills when that question’s brought up about their hero and about the lack of many conservatives active in today’s “conservative movement.”
  The guy you should be directing your ire to is Sen. Mitch MacConnell. Odd how quiet the GOP/“conservative movement” becomes when Vitter’s name is mentioned. LOL. Keep it up Sean,  keep it up!