Maybe this afternoon's oppressive heat and humidity on the Hardball Plaza in DC were getting to Chris Matthews. I'm not sure how else to explain his complaint, to the effect that it is wrong of the Roman Catholic Church to apply its rules to politicians as it does to other adherents.
His remark came in the course of a debate on religion on this afternoon's edition of "Hardball" between Christopher Hitchens, author of the atheist polemic "God Is Not Great", and the Reverend Al Sharpton.
HARDBALL HOST CHRIS MATTHEWS: Today you have the Roman Catholic church through its bishops challenging the rights of Catholic office-holders to take positions for abortion rights. They basically say you have to be for imprisonment of people involved with abortion or else you're not a Catholic and you'll be excommunicated. It seems to be an era, not just because of Islam, to keep religion out of politics . . . Why are they foisting themselves, why are the religious leaders jumping into the political marketplace and saying to politically-elected people, who are duly elected, "you cannot take that position and be in our church, or we will excommunicate you"? That seems to be what's going on.
View video here.
I have never heard a Catholic official say that a member of the Church who opposes established doctrine does not have a have right to run for or serve in office. But surely the Church has a right, one might argue a duty, to enforce its doctrine on politicians just as on any other member. Should the Church say that a pro-abortion rights politician is a member in good standing when, pursuant to Church doctrine, he apparently is not? Does Matthews expect an exemption for politicians? Would Matthews object if the NAACP expelled someone who, say, espoused a belief in white supremacy? What's the difference?
BONUS COVERAGE -- Hitchens'-shots-at-Sharpton. Hitchens took two of the most pointed jabs I have seen someone aim at Al Sharpton in the course of a debate. First, after Sharpton claimed that it was not a religious vision "but a personal hallucination" of Pres. Bush and Hitchens that led us into the war in Iraq, Hitchens shot back:
"Well, I've lived to see the Rev. Sharpton denounce rhetorical maneuvering, so that should be enough for me this evening."
But the polemicist par excellence was just clearing his throat. A bit later he said:
"You're the guy who proves you can get away with anything in this country if the word 'Reverend' is in front of your name."
Ouch.
View video here.
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Hypocrites
June 28, 2007 - 18:18 ET by nkviking75This is one variation of the unspoken but widely held belief among liberals that anything liberals say is beyond criticism. Seems to me the Catholic church objects to politicians calling themselves Catholic while defending practices which are totally contrary to Catholic teaching. When an evangelical slips up, or is so much as accused of slipping up, the word "hypocrite" is freely tossed around. Well, the word also applies to "Catholics" whose political words and actions run counter to the faith they claim.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
In the 1950s, New Orleans Arc
June 28, 2007 - 18:28 ET by SMGalbraithIn the 1950s, New Orleans Archibishop Joseph Rummel threatened to excommunicate any Louisiana Catholic politician (and anyone else) who refused to desegregate/intergrate the parochial schools or who opposed that integration.
At that time, the state of Louisiana was funding the Catholic school system. Rummell wanted to integrate that system; but Catholic state politicians (and others) would only fund the schools if they continued to segregate. They wouldn't fund the system if Rummel continued to integrate the schools.
In fact, Rummel did indeed excommunicate several local figures - none elected officials - for opposing integration.
Eventually, the politicians allowed the funding - and integration - to take place.
Methinks Mr. Matthews would have supported this mixing of church and state.
SMG
Religious leaders (?)
June 28, 2007 - 18:40 ET by RedinaBlueStateI was going to comment on the "reverend" jibe until I read the "bonus coverage". IT's becoming old news when libs bash Catholics for involvement in political discourse, and ignore (even applaud) the rantings of the "Rev" Jesse Jackson and "Rev" Sharpton. Most conservatives have been saying this for years; Hitchens had the pulpit (pun unintended) and now it's "news"
What's the penalty for treason these days?
Catholic Liberals
June 28, 2007 - 18:47 ET by kiwikitare a contradiction in terms. One is either one or the other but can NOT be both. Being a member of the latter group defines one as being against the tenets of the former. On Judgement day, the final decision will be made.
"a contradiction in term
June 28, 2007 - 18:55 ET by QueenMum"a contradiction in terms"
kiwi: I think this is a generalization. The term "liberal" has a broad definition. I think a devout Catholic can be politically and socially liberal. Being politically or socially liberal doesn't necessarily mean that one supports such things as abortion, for instance. Note that I'm not talking about Catholics who have a liberal point of view re: the Catholic faith itself.
I thought this was an interesting article on the topic.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Politically or socially liber
June 29, 2007 - 09:28 ET by drillanwrPolitically or socially liberal means one places himself under the care of the government, to whatever degree. And that you look to government to force other citizens to be charitable for the good of others. G-d/Jesus expected us to be voluntarily charitable, or it is meaningless.
Star Parker [tried] to express this when she was on The View a couple weeks ago when debating Michael Moore's assertment that Christ would expect the American people/government to provide for everyone medical care.
Liberals only relate, actually USE religion (Christianity) to twist conservative views on limited government, and personal responsibility. Jesus cured the blind man so he would have to live a productive life, and not beg off others anymore.
Religion in politics is OK
June 29, 2007 - 04:26 ET by motherbeltReligion in politics is OK with Liberals, as long as it involves "social justice" and redistribution of wealth. They maintain that it's a biblical valur to raise taxes. It's that other stuff, about abortion and fornication, that they say has no place in public discourse.
But start talking about tax
June 29, 2007 - 04:56 ET by sarcasmoBut start talking about tax-rates in terms of the tithe, and sparks fly from all sorts of hair, Democrat and Republican. I'm living proof, I've been talking about this issue (a hell of a lot more than most preachers do) for literally decades...
JMR
"You're the guy who prov
June 28, 2007 - 18:40 ET by bigtimer"You're the guy who proves you can get away with anything in this country in the word 'Reverend' is in front of your name."
I was posting on here at the time but listening somewhat to this little debate...but I heard that loud and clear and yelled it's about time somebody said that to Sharpton...while laughing out loud ....
Hope or wish someone would Jesse Jackson next.
btw...Wasn't that leftist Father Drier or Drynan or something like that in congress and used in hearings afterwards too?
Bigtimer: Don't forget, you c
June 28, 2007 - 18:47 ET by Mica the MagnificentBigtimer: Don't forget, you can also get away with anything with the MSM if you are a Kucinich, a Pelosi, a Reid or a Kennedy.
God help us if they had 'reverend' before their names!
Yo, Jesse! We gotta find more racism in this country. I'm running out of folding money. How about finding racism in plastic products? . . . Or lakes? - - Al getting desperate
Evening Mica.......please do
June 28, 2007 - 19:40 ET by bigtimerEvening Mica...
....please do not forget to throw in a Clinton...
Man! I wish I had legs like t
June 28, 2007 - 20:01 ET by Mica the MagnificentMan! I wish I had legs like that! - - A piano watching Hillary walk by
Hillary, I feel blue. I have stained our relationship. - - Bill's unfortunate choice of words apologizing to Hillary for the blue stained dress
I remember talking to my mama. She told me, "I am so proud you put garlic and sauce on your cheerios, but Hillary, I ain't no ways tired because the struggle has just begun, and please, can't you change that lightbulb by yourself?" - -Hillary attempting to pander to an Italian, African and Polish-American audience
Fr. Robert Drinan, SJ ... a J
June 28, 2007 - 19:03 ET by KC MulvilleFr. Robert Drinan, SJ ... a Jesuit. Since I was once a Jesuit myself, I feel the need to defend him, because he was a good man and a very, very bright guy. And, by the way, he was an obedient priest. He left politics when he was ordered to do so, and he gave his best to both his church and his country. I disagree with some of his political positions, but I had enormous respect for him. He just died within the last year. He wasn't just a leftist masquerading in priest clothing. He engaged in politics as a ministry.
KC thanks for that info.I att
June 28, 2007 - 19:14 ET by bigtimerKC thanks for that info.
I attempted to google and go to wiki...I see where I sent wrong with one letter on two variations of spelling.
I listened to him also, for years on and off...he was too far left for me, just wanted you to know I wasn't necessarily putting him down much...I was attempting to make a point about Matthews and his hypocrisy...bad as it was.
I also knew he just passed away last year...thanks again.
bigtimer ... Drinan would hav
June 28, 2007 - 19:44 ET by KC Mulvillebigtimer ... Drinan would have been the first to say, no problem. By the way, Drinan was as partisan as they come, but he wasn't a jerk about it. I actually sat to dinner with him once when I was doing a summer study at Georgetown. He couldn't have been nicer to me. I admit, those qualities carry a lot of weight with me.
The problem with politics these days is that it's all TV, publicity stunts, and punditry. It's not personal anymore. When you meet these guys in person, it makes a lot of difference.
Oh I agree with you KC...The
June 28, 2007 - 19:49 ET by bigtimerOh I agree with you KC...
The last hearings that I saw him at it seems to me he was being used by the left.
I understand where you are coming from and respect your view-point.
Drinan was a piece of trash p
June 28, 2007 - 20:45 ET by ncstevemDrinan was a piece of trash posing as a priest. He gave cover to pro-abortion 'Catholics' like the Kennedy slim. There are very few Jesuits who actually have a Catholic mindset. Most are just typical lib 'Catholics' who have absolutley no sense of what the Faith is.
Well that's ... fresh ...
June 29, 2007 - 00:20 ET by KC MulvilleWell that's ... fresh ...
Thank you Dennis Moran, SJ, wherever you are ...
KC - it's disgraceful that yo
June 29, 2007 - 07:35 ET by ncstevemKC - it's disgraceful that you'd come on here and defend Drinan. That jerk defended abortion -- even the horrific partial birth abortion. I don't care how many degress he had or how 'intelligent' he was. I maintain he was no Catholic at all. He may have worn a collar but he was no Catholic. As for you defending him - the fact that you were an ex-Jesuit says it all. Most Jesuits these days aren't Catholic either. The order is rife with homos and the schools that they operate are Catholic in name only. But Christ taught in the parable of the vine and the branches that those who separate themselves from Him wither and die. The Jesuits don't foster any vocations because they aren't Catholic and the average age of the Jesuits is 57 years. They'll disappear before too long. It couldn't happen soon enough.
Must ... control ... self ...
June 28, 2007 - 18:46 ET by KC MulvilleMust ... control ... self ... At this moment, I feel like Bugs Bunny, shaking, turning color toward scarlet, steam hissing out of my ears. Oh wait a minute, who was it? Matthews? Thank God. No need to take seriously. Will post later ...
Ah, a few hours of baseball.
June 29, 2007 - 02:58 ET by KC MulvilleAh, a few hours of baseball. I feel much better.
Do you want to know why Chris Matthews doesn’t understand the separation of church and state? It’s because of Constantine in the 4th century and JFK in the 20th. Forgive me while I explain why. (The story is long enough, so allow me to use short generalities instead of long specifics.)
The Catholic Church has many laws that apply only to Catholics. Going to Mass, for example, is a duty that you accept only because you join the church. If you don’t join the church, it’s no sin to skip Mass. The bishops have an administrative or pastoral duty to enforce those laws. Those laws are different from the laws against humanity, like murder and larceny, which the church believes are crimes against humanity. The church believes those laws apply to everyone. The bishops have a moral duty to speak publicly on those issues. (Again, substitute your religion and clergy here. For convenience, I’ll just refer to my own faith.)
In the fourth century, though, the Roman emperor Constantine screwed things up. For both political and religious reasons, Constantine made Christianity the state religion. That meant that the state treated all of the “in-house” laws of Christianity as absolute. Skipping Mass became a crime. The same people who were executing Christians for not obeying the state religion were soon executing non-Christians for the smallest infractions of in-house laws. Then, over the centuries, the “universal” church split up a few times. A little tension here and there. Islam entered the picture, originally friendly. Then Europe enjoyed the Renaissance and Enlightenment, and all of a sudden, Europe had millions of people who weren't Catholic, and many with no church at all.
I won’t lie; Catholics were a wee bit slow to unlink the power of the state from their merely pastoral duties. (OK, we were egregiously sinful about it. We used the state to enforce belief. We were wrong.) For a few centuries, non-Catholics were still forced to treat the Catholic hierarchy as the only authority, state or religious, and the non-Catholics rightly hated it. Therefore, when non-Catholics took over many parts of Europe and then America, there was an understandable belief that given half a chance, Catholics would once again try to make Catholicism the state religion, and use the power of the state to enforce belief. By the 1960s, the pendulum had swung entirely the other way. Non-Catholics essentially prevented any Catholic from holding office, for fear the bishops would once again impose Catholic beliefs on everyone else. The resentment had turned into a prejudice. Then, JFK gave his famous speech in Houston. If you read his speech, JFK basically confirmed the prejudice. He said that if bishops tried to impose their faith on others, he wouldn’t accept it. He made no distinction between the bishops’ pastoral duties and their moral duties. JFK simply promised not to listen to bishops at all. The funny thing is that, for the most part, Catholic bishops long ago accepted that they couldn’t use political power to enforce their pastoral laws on non-Catholics. That doesn’t mean, however, that they must remain silent on moral issues. They still have that duty, and they have every right to speak out. Some idiot bishops celebrated JFK’s deal because it broke through a social barrier, but I think history has shown it was a bad deal.
Let’s face it, JFK botched it. The moment he was elected, it became established myth that religious leaders have no right to speak publicly about politics. What started for Catholics quickly became the rule for everyone else. But that was never the American tradition. There are a lot of three-watt bulbs out there, like Matthews, who make no distinction between the bishops’ moral teaching (which addresses everyone) and pastoral authority (which applies only to Catholics).
He was raised in Philadelphia. He should know better.
Stop the insanity!
June 28, 2007 - 19:01 ET by c5thenWhy does this country ( or the world, for that matter) allow athiests like Matthews to opine on matters of religious doctrine within a denomination? The point that the Bishops are making is that any politician (or person) is perfectly free to hold whatever opinion on abortion they want, it's just that if you choose to be pro-abortion, then you cannot also claim to be a Catholic (as that is against their doctrine) and so will be officially seperated from the Catholic Church.
But then Matthews allows a person to claim that they are an environmentalist who lives in a 26,000 sq. ft. home and uses $50,000 worth od electricity per month while taking a personal jet back and forth to speaking engagements.
I guess that is why liberals don't get religion. They think that it's all about what you say, regardles of what you do, yet religion is all about living what you beleive and not about anything you say.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
c5....Amen to that... and I m
June 28, 2007 - 19:04 ET by bigtimerc5....
Amen to that... and I mean that seriously.
Protected stupidity
June 28, 2007 - 19:05 ET by nkviking75Unfortunately, the price of free speech is allowing such idiocy to be spewed. Fortunately, the First Amendment also gives us the opportunity to rebut it.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Absolutely true, of course.
June 28, 2007 - 19:20 ET by c5thenI didn't mean that the government should prohibit them, I meant that the general public should voice their displeasure of the idiocy by not watching them. they will eventually get the message.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Nobody's watching
June 28, 2007 - 19:28 ET by nkviking75With audiences under a million, less than 1/3 of 1% of the US population appears to be enough to keep these idiots afloat. It could already be said that no one is watching.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Maybe low viewership is one r
June 28, 2007 - 19:33 ET by Chris NormanMaybe low viewership is one reason they have the tendency to be the playground for a lot of outrageous liberal antics. Nah...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Cafeteria Catholics like Chrissy will never get it
June 28, 2007 - 19:01 ET by terrigYou know, Chrissy will never get it. I'm excommunicated because I'm not married in the church because my husband was previously married and we haven't had the $3500 it will take to get the annullment because we've been busy with saving for a house, and it annoys me to no end because unlike my brother, I didn't shack up with my husband for 18 months or 18 minutes for that matter but yet I was not able to get married in the church. I still attend Mass weekly and I do go to communion on Easter & Christmas and I'm pro life to boot. However, I think it's okay for a priest to refuse giving communion to Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy, et. al because they don't give it to me. What Chrissy doesn't get is being able to receive communion does not thwart one from running for office. Not surprised Chrissy doesn't get it.
Isn't Chrissy a Catholic too?
June 28, 2007 - 19:08 ET by bigtimerIsn't Chrissy a Catholic too? seems like I have heard him mention that over the years...could be wrong that is for sure.
....seems like his hypocrisy runs deep..but then again it always has.
BT,I'm pretty sure he is. Rus
June 28, 2007 - 19:12 ET by Chris NormanBT,
I'm pretty sure he is. Russert, too. I think the Catholic schools in their generation pumped out a lot of liberal boys who went into politics as staffers. When I lived in Sacramento, I knew a lot of the staffers at the state capitol, with similar backgrounds.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Yes, he's a Catholic. I s
June 28, 2007 - 19:12 ET by terrigYes, he's a Catholic. I saw him at Mass one Sunday about 12 years ago. He was all holy roller and my friend and I laughed at him.
Actually, if I recall correct
June 28, 2007 - 19:22 ET by KC MulvilleActually, if I recall correctly, he's from Blessed Virgin Mary parish in South Philadelphia, which was a huge parish years ago. It was like an aircraft carrier parish. It's about three parishes away from where I grew up. I assure you that he wasn't taught that attitude toward religion and political involvement at BVM. Again, whether he's a Catholic or not is between him and God, but he seriously misunderstands the church's attitude towards politics. Instead of listening to Matthews's version, if anyone's interested, here's what the bishops say themselves.
Chris Matthews then supports Political Pedophiles
June 28, 2007 - 23:17 ET by Lame CherryI wonder if Chris Matthews is trying to be the next lesbian Rosie O'Donnell as he usually only says asinine things once a week instead of every day.
According to Matthew's illogic about the Catholic religion, all politicians then have a license for all acts involving sex. Aborticide is a product of sex and the religion should not judge politicians so child molesting monsters are therefore part of this debauchery to be overlooked.
This is NOT a reach. If you search out the words and work of politicians, Hillary Clinton has been advocating "adult rights" for children, that means 5 year olds for decades. Adult rights means a child can engage in all choices and adult makes.
What ties this all together is the Democratic National Convention under John Kerry, when his daughter addressed the nation on national television. Something no one caught or deliberately was not posted was Kerry's daughter making the platform which switched the aborticide term, "A woman's right to choose", to "A child's right to choose".
What rights are these regressives calling for? A child already has the rights to build their lives for the future in protection from an adult world. So why would people like Matthews desire politicians to be free from the moral clauses all people are governed by?
A child can do anything in the United States from owning a business, banking, purchasing a condo if they have the money and even credit cards give them credit. The only arenas not viable for children are serving in the military which would scar them, performing adult tasks like surgeons which they are not emotionally capable to cope with, political office which they do not have the experience for and sexual activity which is harmful to them.
So what of the above does Hillary, Kerry and Matthews advocate for American children? Children to be handling M 16's in Iraq? Children to be performing heart surgery? Children with their 5 year old fingers on nuclear weapons? Children have a "right" to engage in sex? All of that is judged by law as perverse and yet these are the only vistas of "child rights as adults" which Matthews and his political hacks are pushing. His attempts to give politicians free reign in aborticide is the same as his secular smile in Bill Clinton being free to abuse women.
When is the world going to wake up to what these agendas are about. It was no coincidence when regressives took God out of America. It gave license to "free love" which gave requirment for "free abortions" which destroyed the entire fabric of America.......and if you notice it is why politicians want all of these illegals in the US to pay for Social Security since 6 million American babies are dead from aborticide.
These liberals are not seeking rights for children for jobs or military choice service no more than removing God allowed for jobs or military choice. The liberal motive as Freud would state is always based in a sexual struggle.
Chris Matthews needs an ambuscade phone call pulled on him in truth when he is grilling Catholics to repeatedly question him why he is supporting wholesale debauchery in opening pandora's sexual box as history in America and the world has proven, political elites allowed license end up burning down Rome.
Augustus was a person still governed by laws, but Caligula's time the leaders had Matthews free license to do what they pleased as the societal religious laws were gone. Matthews made excuses for Bill Clinton raping and abusing women. Matthews is making still excuses for baby butchers in John Kerry. When is the world going to start demanding Matthews explain why he is advocating a Caligual pedophile elite as that is the only thing left in his political forum he will be defending.
Sure he will run a Republican out of town crucifying him without a trial like Geraldo, but what happens when the rumors which float around about democrats who Matthews adores surface with pictures?
Chris Matthews analogy against Catholic morality judging all will have Chris Matthews supporting political pedophiles.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
No Wissy, If they want to cl
June 29, 2007 - 09:47 ET by garvinNo Wissy, If they want to claim to be Catholics they should follow the doctrine, or not call themselves Catholics. It's just that simple.
My Faith is much stronger tha
June 29, 2007 - 18:19 ET by drillanwrMy Faith is much stronger than my Religion. I am personally responsible for my Faith (how I live it, and how I share it with others). My Church is responsible for my Religion. I can have my Faith without my Religion ... But my Religion can not exist without my Faith. My Religion has no rights to my Faith.
Perhaps this is completely lost on Islamists. They cannot separate one from the other, and are lead around by it, sans personal responsibility for their Faith.
As much as Chris Hitchens is an athiest, I think his biggest doubts are in manmade religions, and not so much in people's individual faiths in something greater than themselves ... which Hitchens chooses NOT to believe in.
Anyway, Hitch is spot-on in his views on the war and terrorism, and about this:
"You're the guy who proves you can get away with anything in this country if the word 'Reverend' is in front of your name."
drill...I cannot believe how
June 29, 2007 - 18:28 ET by bigtimerdrill...
I cannot believe how you just explained so eloquently the exact way I feel.
I thank you.
Think about Jesus Christ. H
June 29, 2007 - 18:35 ET by drillanwrThink about Jesus Christ. He was Jewish. Yet, His Faith threatened the heads of the Jewish Religion because He wouldn't let them dictate to Him how to live it or how to share it with others.