In an number of recent articles I’ve linked to on this blog, the claim of the Catholic Church shrinking and dying is frequently errantly reported.  I usually make sure to correct them on that, but just so there is no doubt, here is an article about the growth of Christianity and particularly of those Christian denominations that actually have stuck to their beliefs instead of bowing to modern crap-theology.

One particular note about the article is that I thought understated the growth of the Catholic Church was the use of percentages instead of raw numbers.  It’s not hard for a smaller denomination like the Mormons and Assembly of God churches to grow 15+% over a decade because of their size.  The 15% the Catholic Church grew in the same decade is a HUGE number.  In fact, that 9 million additional people is more people than the entire population of any organized denomination in the US besides the southern Baptists, including the Mormons.  Said another way, if for some miraculous reason the Catholic Church was able to convince the Episcopalians, the Assembly of God, the Presbyterians AND the Pentacostals to join the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church still would not have grown as much as it did in the last decade.

I found this article about the lack of due process for accused priests very interesting.

One of the most overlooked aspects of the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church is how to deal with priests who have been accused.  Of course, it goes without saying, that it is more important to first consider protecting children before one considers the issue of handling the priests.  However, that doesn’t remove our obligation to treat every human being with the dignity they deserve.  The reality is that even the worst criminals who are put in jail are still given a place to live (the jail) and food to eat.  So what do we do with priests who are accused to both protect our children while accepting that when the priest was ordained the Church took on the duty to provide for them?

I think it is a very difficult issue, one that I’m not sure the article did a good job of addressing.  Furthermore, I think it is important to note that we face the same issue in civil society.  When a crime merits refusing bail, we still take the freedom of that criminal away while they are still presumed innocent.  If they later are found not-guilty they get no more than an “oops” from the state despite the fact that the state took their life away from them for at least a year in most cases.  Similarly the complaints about feeling obligated to take early retirement feel a lot like a plea-bargain.  Often times they are done not to admit guilt but to find the most pain-free way out of a bad situation.  I’ve seen many articles in the news where the accused felt “forced” to accept a plea-bargain in a civil trial.

To some degree, it sounds like the current process within the Church has a similar format to civil courts.  There is an initial analysis/hearing to determine if there could potentially be any merit to the case, similar to an arraignment.  Then there is what is effectively a “preliminary trial” done by the diocese.  The final trial does not occur until the Vatican gets involved.  That all sounds pretty good.

However, there are three aspects of the current process that worry me:

1. The most troubling to me is the level of penalty the “preliminary trial” can assess.  Layicizing a priest doesn’t sound like a “preliminary” action.  While removing them from ministry and even notifying the public of that may be necessary for both safety and PR issues, denying that person their ordinational right while still awaiting the full trial seems inappropriate.
2. The next issue that exists is one that is addressed in US law that probably is missing from the Church canonical process: the right to a speedy trial.  I know it can take the Vatican years to get around to these types of trials, which is unacceptable if a man’s life is hanging in the balance.  It further makes the “preliminary trial” all to much like the final trial.
3. Finally, the housing and income of the priest.  I’m very concerned that they can be cut loose when guilt has not been conclusively determined.  I’m fine with forcing them to live at a retreat house or something similar, but denying them their Church income and telling them to go find their own means of living while they are still presumed innocent is unfair.

To some degree I am OK with the idea that the Church overshot in its initial reaction to the crisis.  It was an important time to make sure as many loopholes as possible were closed for those who were abusing our children and, as a result, robbing our money through the lawsuits brought against the Church.  However, it is important that over time the Church refine its processes so as to protect both the rights of our children and the rights of our priests who have dedicated their lives to serving God and the Church.

Hopefully articles like this can help the Church to continue in a prayerful and thorough analysis to determine what if any revisions of the norms need to be made.

(hat tip to Mark Shea for the analogy in the title and the link to the column)

I can’t decide what aspect of this column about more women deciding to stay at home after having children bothers me the most.

Perhaps it is just how misguided Ms. Hirshman is about the value and impact of a stay at home mom.  Why staying at home to raise children is at all relevent to “participation in public life allows women to use their talents and to powerfully affect society”  I’m not sure I’ll ever know.  Is she really trying to tell us that to all of the stay at home moms who use part of their time to help in their community at schools and libraries and homeless shelters and churches and hospitals and a host of other important “public” entities are not “participating in the public life”?

And that says nothing of the value and importance of children being raised by people who are doing it for more than the financial benefits of running a childcare facility.

Perhaps it is the amazingly biased use of words like “pressure” to refer to the reasons mothers decided to stay at home while she stares down her nose at stay at home moms who are “doing the easy thing”.  Is she really so incapable of reading her own writings to see the distain she has for those who choose to stay home in her desire to see them “liberated” from it?

And that says nothing of the financial strain that many families find themselves under that pressures women who would otherwise stay at home to work.

Perhaps it is the complete refusal to recognize that it is indeed a matter of choice even though she quotes in her column the evidence that makes it clear: “New mothers with husbands in the top 20 percent of earnings work least, the report notes.” and “they are unlikely to affect the behavior of the highly educated women with the highest opt-out rates.”  Is she really so incapable of seeing that there might just be something to this staying at home thing considering it is the smartest women and the women with the financial means who are staying at home the most?

And that says nothing of… um… OK, I can’t keep up the format forever.

Perhaps, as an extension of the above point, the troubling yet odd libertarian mindset of putting choice as the arbitor of all government decisions…. unless that decision happens to be a traditional one, in which case we need to compel those people to comply with what the column’s author believes is right.

However, in the end, I think  commenter John Henry on Mark Shea’s blog summarized the column, and hence the err in it, best:

“All the progress I have poored my life into is being flushed by the rising generation.”

I guess when it is put that way I have some sympathy for Ms. Hirshman.  It is hard to see what one has worked hard to accomplish undone.  However, in this case, I think it is the chickens coming home to roost.  After the baby boomers spent a generation telling their parents that they don’t care about the collective wisdom their parents had to pass on to them, it is fitting that the following generation is giving them a dose of their own medicine.

Maybe, just maybe, we have found that life’s meaning has less to do with work and more to do with God and our families and we really don’t care that we’re undoing The Feminist Cause ridiculously displayed in the column.

I’m a pretty precise kinda guy.  I like things to have clearly defined lines, particularly when it comes to the goverment.  The reason I bring this up is because I find myself more and more confused as time goes on with what exactly the 1st Amendment means and should mean.  In my latest moment of confusion I read this blog post about a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco for their resolution condemning the morals of the Catholic Church.

Obviously I think the city of San Francisco is run by anti-Catholic bigots who are the biggest hypocrits ever for their constant message of “just let people live their lives the way they want… unless you want to live a Christian life.”  But just because I think it was a horrible resolution doesn’t mean I think it is worthy of a lawsuit based on 1st Amendment grounds.

Just for clarity, The 1st Amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

It’s a pretty broad statement that says more than just “freedom of religion”.  But in regards to religion is says 3 things:

1. It is illegal for the government to set up its own religion (called ‘the establishment clause’)
2. It is illegal for the government to prevent people from practicing their own religion (called ‘the free exercise clause’)
3. It is illegal for the government to prevent people from preaching their religion to others (called… um… the free speach clause?)

Generally the thing that I find difficult to determine is what a “religion” is from a legal standpoint.  Lots of people have religious beliefs that are illegal.  I’m pretty sure it is still illegal for canabals to eat human flesh, even human flesh of someone who consented to be eaten after their natural death.  As such, for obvious reasons, there is both a history and a good reason to bound the free exercise clause to mean “within reason”.  But who decides what “within reason” means?  It’s not just about infringing on the rights of others, as my canabal example shows.  And who is to decide what “within reason” means?  It can’t be the general population/majority because this clause is a right that is there to protect the minority.

So it’s all very confusing to me from a purely theoretical standpoint.  What I do know is that my Catholic faith should be protected because it historically and currently falls “within reason” and I’m fairly sensitive to the way our country is going with regards to infringing on Catholics right to practice our religion.  There are currently laws on the books in regards to abortion and birth control that place minor limit the rights of Catholics to practice their religion by compelling them to either act in a way their religion finds objectionable or refer others (which is in itself an afront to Catholics) to someone who will act in an objectionable way.  I fully believe that this trend will continue and there will be more significant legal abuses of the 1st Amendment against Catholics that will have to be fought all the way up to the Supreme Court.  As such, despite my theoretical confusion, I find in practice the 1st Amendment essential for Catholics in this country, despite being vague and confusing.

But this case against the city of San Francisco has nothing to do with my above confusion.  The city council is in no way preventing people from exercising their faith nor from having free speach.  So really, at least based on numbers two and three in my list, there is no case against SF.

Which brings me to my new confusion.  What does the establishment clause really mean?  And I guess in some way this comes back to the original confusion of, what exactly defines a religion?  We know that athiesm is indeed a religion from the various lawsuits athiests have brought forward protecting their right to practice their religion, so “having a God” is not a requirement for a religion.  So is all that is required a set of moral beliefs?

If that is the case, any time the goverment speaks to what is right and what is wrong (separate from what is legal and illegal), they’ve broken the establishment clause.  They have created a moral framework and if that’s all that is required to call your beliefs a religion, the government does it ALL THE TIME.  It does this on both sides.  We’ve got the various sex education measures that are constantly pushing a certain morality.  Yet on the other side, the Catholic Church in the US, which is very aware of the issues surrounding the 1st Amendment and is very protective of its freedom is constantly calling on the government to make moral proclamations.

So it’s all very confusing to me.

One take-away I have from this case is that I think it would be wise for the government to take a step back from the highly public service announcement model it has evolved into, including how it teaches things in public schools.  While there are minimums that can reasonably be taught without getting into murky areas, we long ago crossed over that line.  Somewhere the line between reasonable minimums like “don’t break the law” or getting the facts out like “AIDS can kill you” and making moral pronouncements like “teen pregnancy is bad” (purposely chosen for it’s lack of controversy) got blurred and then forgotten.  Perhaps it is time to re-draw that line.

As to whether there is actually a case against SF, I’m still not sure.  My gut says yes because not only were they making a moral statement, one that reeks of a anti-Christian religions mindset, but also because their statement was directed at a specific religion as opposed to a general “this is good” statement.  At the same time, I’m not so sure how to specifically corolate that to the specifics of what the 1st Amendment requires without breaking tons of reasonable precident.

Today, the combination of two different blog posts (one from Mark Shea about a new documentary and one varia post on TBIOOTF that ends with the following video that you must see) helped me to find the words to comment on the Virginia Tech tragedy in a way that could sound crass but I believe is meaningful.

One of the reasons I love college football over pro football is because college football is about more than an owner and his team.  The NFL tries to deceive people into thinking they are there for the community just like corporations try to fool people into thinking their motives are bigger than the bottom line, but it’s all a joke.  The reality is that the job of the NFL is to make the 32 owners money just like it is the job of corporations to make money for their owners/shareholders.  Sometimes the best way to do that is by being a “good citizen” but in the end, they exist for one and one reason only.

Not so with college sports.

There are many out there that think college football is just as comercial as pro football.  While it may seem that way, and while there are definitely comercial aspects of college football, the reality is there is far more there.  To make my case I give you two proofs:

1. Name me a pro-football team that has “boosters” who are willing to donate money to the cause?
2. There was no talk of the New Orleans colleges and University leaving for a new town like there was with the Saints after Katrina.

At it’s heart, college sports are about people.  It’s about students at a college and the alumni who used to go there.  It’s about the hope and pride of those individuals.  No matter what happens, those people have a link to that college.  The college can’t just move and no longer be the Houston Oilers and now is the Tennessee Titans.  Nope.  My diploma will always have the same name on it.  I will always be bound to that school.  While in good times it will be easy for me to show my pride, it is just as true that in bad times I can not deny my ties to them.

That’s why when I watch the video I linked above, it gives me chills and makes my eyes water.  Because it’s the same people who filled that stadium with hope and joy who were struck down by fear and sadness last week.

May God give peace to those affected by the tragedy so that they may again find hope and joy. 

Today is the 2nd Anniversary of Pope Benedict’s election.  I still remember with fondness the memory of his election.  Since that time he has come under fire from just about every political group for one thing or another.  Too liberal about the middle east, too conservative about sexual issues, too liberal about immigration, too conservative about sexual issues, too liberal about care for the poor, too conservative about sexual issues, too liberal about torture, too conservative about sexual issues.  So the evil conservative is routinely denouced in the media for being an evil conservative.

Personally, I think he’s done a fine job and clearly is doing his best to follow God.  He is neither conservative nor liberal.  He is merely Catholic.

UPDATE on 4/20: Do yourself a favor and go check out the comments on the post Where were you? at Amy Welborne’s blog.  It brings joy to my heart to read similar experiences to my own of the pure and unexplainable anticipation and joy of the papal election.

This morning I read my normal assortment of news sites and it was all very depressing.  Of course some of it was depressing because of the news itself, but what stuck me this morning was how much of it was depressing because of the attitudes of those covering it  or those commenting on it.  I don’t have the strength/determination to fully quote and rebutt everything, however, for my own sake forgive me these rants:

1. Part of the governments job is to regulate the medical industry.  There are thousands of medical proceedures that have been banned that one can find doctors who will complain about their being banned.
2. I’m sorry but the headline “Abortion Ruling Ripped” is amazingly biased.  One could have just as easily used the headline “Abortion Ruling Praised”.
3. There is a vast difference between the supreme court striking down legislation and refusing to strike down legislation.  If you’ve got complaints about a law that falls within the constitution, don’t blame the courts, blame your elected officials.
4. The only way NBC would have not released the killers videos they received is if it hurt their ratings.  We get the news we watch.  If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.
5. If you decide you’re going to release content from a murderer, you’ve got only two choices in my mind: Refuse to air any of it or air it ALL (with the possible caveat of up to 5% which is “pornographic” (speaking more broadly than sexually) which should still be fully described including why it was too “pornographic” to show).  There is nothing I despise more than the possibility that a news outlet can be manipulating content to get the story they want.  Nope.  No dice.  You give me the content, I decide what to make of it.  Deal?

That is all… for now.

After years of crummy decisions by the Supreme Court regarding abortion, there was finally a minor victory for the unborn.  The federal partial birth abortion (also called Intact Dilation and Extraction or Intact D&X or IDX) was upheld.  The radically morally repugnant proceedure, which is illegal in most countries, even liberal European countries like Sweden and not used in most of the rest including the UK, is now finally illegal in the US.

Of course I would like to see the high court go further.  I would first like them to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will allow states to make their own laws on the subject, and then to go futher to protect the lives of the unborn (when it does not explicitely risk the life of the mother).  But those desires are for another day.  Today is a day to praise God for giving the justices the wisdom to stem the tide of Roe v. Wade, the worst decision in the courts history since Dred Scott v. Sandford.

I haven’t blogged anything about the tragedy at Virginia Tech.  My prayers are with those who have lost loved ones and also that God grant mercy to those who have died.

It has been very sad to me to see so much of the focus on the issue quickly turned to political solutions to tragedies like this.  Is there no decency in this country?  Do we allow any time for mourning?  Along those lines, Mark Shea had a great couple posts (first (follow the link to Mrs. Shaidle’s post) and second) about how our society is losing it’s ability to meanfully mourn those who have died as it loses it’s Christian identity.  It is ridiculous how so many fluffy “memorial” services pass for an appropriate way to mourn the loss of life.

In any case, if you want to see any commentary on the political issues surrounding the tragedy, come back in a week or two.

I’ve always admired the fisking skills of Dale Price and have wondered if perhaps it is a skill that I too might be able to someday use.  I mean, I often read articles and my “director’s commentary” track on the article seems pretty insightful.   Perhaps I could put that into print?  Well today I get that chance.  I was reading about the various articles about Benedict’s 2nd anniversary as Pope over at Amy Welborn’s blog.  Her comments are very insightful and worth reading.  However, it is one of those articles that I found worth fisking because of its ridiculous self-contradictions and obvious bias.

So without further adieu:

April 19 marks the second anniversary of Benedict XVI’s election as pontiff, and in a few weeks he heads to Brazil. Not long ago, when a pope traveled to the region it didn’t occasion much comment;
Yeah, there were never any articles about John Paul’s various travels.  In fact, it’s news to me that he traveled anywhere.  I just thought he spent all of his time writing encyclicals about how to abuse young boys while making homosexuality illegal. 
John Paul II was a globe-trotter who hit Mexico and the Caribbean during his first 100 days. But Benedict, who turns 80 this month, has rarely left home
How do I love thee?  Let me count the ways: Germany 2005 (for World Youth Day), Poland 2006 (including visit to Auschwitz), Spain 2006 (for the World Meeting of Families) and Turkey (for Muslim relations).  As well as 8 additional journeys scheduled.
and seems most interested in trying to revive European Catholicism.
SINNNER!!!! How dare he try to save Europe from falling into Apostasy!
On his upcoming trek to the Brazilian town of Aparecida do Norte, he plans to huddle
Give me play R-23 on 4. BREAK! 
with regional prelates worried about their declining influence, the growth of evangelicals and local moves to legalize gay unions and abortion.
Apparently picking right off where he evil predecessor… er… the noble “you’ll never measure up to him” John Paul II left off.
The pope should choose his words carefully; on one of his last trips, to his native Germany, he sparked a firestorm when he quoted in passing scathing comments about the Prophet Muhammad. Within days Benedict was being burned in effigy
Try to contain your giddiness.
He can expect a warmer greeting in South America. But there’s no denying he’s been a disappointment to many faithful there and elsewhere.
Just like there is no denying that he’s extremely popular in other circles, that his weekly audiences are twice as large as John Paul’s and that his books routinely top the best seller lists.
Some U.S. Catholics condemn him as aloof,
The Horror!
Europeans resent his intrusions into their affairs
Wait, I lost the script again, is he a meddling dictator or a distant bookish theologian?
and he’s never been popular in Latin America. The region, home to 450 million Catholics, had hoped to see one of its own succeed John Paul.
How dare he not be Latin!  Wait, not Latin, that word is banned from use… how did that sneak in here!?!
Many there have felt ignored by the man who ultimately did.
Uh-oh, that devastating “many” word again.
Part of the problem is style. The last pope was a former parish priest who recast himself as an international player (he spoke eight languages, including Spanish and Portuguese).
A simple math question for our author, which is greater: eight or ten?  (see 9^th paragraph, hat-tip GetReligion.org)
Benedict is a colorless
Are we still picking on his not being Latin again?  ARG!?!  How does Latin keep getting into the discussion!
academic who spent much of his career teaching theology and philosophy. “This is a professor, a quiet man, not an actor skilled in politics,” says the American theologian Michael Novak. “[People] should not judge him by the standards of John Paul II.”
And yet that is exactly what this reporter has decided to do.
Perhaps, but the differences go beyond personality. During his long tenure, John Paul undertook more than 100 trips abroad
Back to that meme are we?
and showed real concern for the developing world. Although Benedict calls for more aid to Africa in a new book,
Although… but I’ll disregard it anyway.
he seems preoccupied by Europe.
How DARE HE!?!  (I’m getting the hang of this)
His defenders say this narrow focus represents a return to tradition. “Prior to the election of John Paul II, it was understood that the pope played a far more active role in European affairs,” argues Friar Thomas Williams of the Legion of Christ. 
But Benedict’s emphasis hasn’t won him many fans.
Man this meme merry-go-round is spinning fast.  Are we already back on the unpopular meme again?
Just before his ascension, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger warned Italians that “Europe has developed a culture that … excludes God from the public conscience,” and last month he decried Europeans’ “dangerous individualism.” Also last month, Italy’s bishops came out against the country’s attempt to extend rights to gay and unmarried couples. Such moves have rankled politicians—one parliamentarian has warned Benedict against imposing a “clerical dictatorship” in Italy—and many of the faithful. “Ratzinger is getting too intrusive on [subjects] such as civil rights for unwed couples and is too out of date,” says Milanese housewife Maria Novella Dall’Aglio.
Got to love the “man on the street” interview.  I wonder how many of those the author did before he found just the right combination of words that matched what he already wanted to say.
Oh wait, sorry for the delay… I forgot my obligatory “How DARE he!?!” 
In the rest of the world, meanwhile, Benedict’s presence has scarcely been felt.
You’d think the author would have some qualms about that lead in after he just lambasted Benedict for meddling.
He was nowhere to be seen in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, arguably the most Catholic city in the United States.
Is there a prize for the most ridiculous sentence of the year award?  It’s rare that the number of things wrong with a sentence exceed the number of words in a sentence.  And why do I suddenly feel the need to buy a “Where’s Waldo” book?
Nor has he paid much attention to Latin America, home to nearly half the world’s Catholics and a key focus of John Paul’s papacy. “He’s ignored us completely,” says Roberto Blancarte, a sociologist specializing in religious affairs at the Colegio de México in Mexico City.
And that’s why he’s got two trips planned to Latin America.
In Benedict’s absence, the influence of his church has continued to wane. In Latin America an estimated 8,000 people leave the Catholic Church every day, and according to the polling firm Latinobarómetro, the number of locals who call themselves Catholic dropped 9 percent between 1995 and 2005.
And imagine how bad it would be if he actually took his meddling self there to impose the evil morals of the Church on them.
The church’s decline is most evident in Mexico, which has the second largest Catholic population on the planet. Coahuila state OK’d same-sex civil unions in January.
REJOICE!  Wait… no… wait… what’s the meme here again?
Two months earlier, Mexico City granted new rights to same-sex couples, and it is expected to decriminalize abortion soon. Such measures would once have seemed unthinkable in a society where the Virgin of Guadalupe rivals the flag as a national symbol. But left-wing politicians no longer fear the Vatican.
REJOICE!  Wait… no… wait… my head hurts.
Under John Paul, politicians “used to have a certain respect [for the church] and a belief that it wasn’t in their interests to pick a fight” with it, notes Elio Masferrer Kan, a religious historian at Mexico’s National School of Anthropology and History. Now they see it as a “paper tiger,” as do judges in Argentina and Colombia, who have ruled in favor of allowing abortions in the past year.
Hurry Benedict!  Come to Mexico to save us… and please modernize your archaic teachings about SEX! SEX! SEX!
Were Benedict to become more active in Latin America, however, it wouldn’t likely change matters.
And I promised myself that I would give up snort laughing.  Just how many ‘Gs’ am I feeling on this merry-go-round?
His one foray into local affairs alienated more Catholics than it reassured: in October he personally approved a Vatican document sharply critical of Father Jon Sobrino, an advocate of liberation theology. The irony
Oh, I can’t wait for this guys take on irony.
of this was that liberation theology—a progressive Catholic social movement—is already considered a dead letter these days. His criticism thus struck many as mean-spirited and unnecessary;
That useful word “many” again.
And wait, I thought the guy was ignoring Latin America?  Why is he approving documents about Latin American topics?
Leonardo Boff, a former Brazilian priest, wrote an open letter saying the pope’s sanctions “filled me with sadness” and “defraud[ed] the poor.”
Yup, nothing to see here.  Liberation Theology is dead and buried.  So dead and buried that it only took the author 2.3 seconds to dig up a quote of a liberation theology priest who is unhappy that Benedict is “defraud[ing] the poor” by not giving in to the “dead” theology.
It also underscored just how conservative—and far from the mainstream—Benedict is.
If by mainstream we mean “the views of this author”.  Let’s see, gay marriage: extremely unpopular, euthanasia: extremely unpopular, abortion: losing popularity… yup that silly conservative Benedict.
That will cause more trouble in the future, especially in Latin countries that already believe he is behind the times.
So go away and stop bothering us, and why haven’t you come to visit… PLEASE!?!
Later this month, the Vatican is expected to permit congregations to celebrate mass in Latin without seeking prior approval.
THE HORROR!!!  The dictator wants to allow people to do things without getting approval.
This represents a big step backward:
Must… move… forward…     out… of… breath…
Pope Paul VI abolished the Latin rite in 1969, and relatively few modern Catholics can even recall it.
Then we shouldn’t be worried about this VOLUNTARY rite being available… no one’s going to go, right?
But that doesn’t worry Ratzinger.
He’s smart that way.
“He’s an old-fashioned guy who wants to go back to what [the church] was before,” says David Gibson, the author of an acclaimed 2006 biography of the pope.
Yup.  That silly, backwards pope again.  Not that it matters that he was one of the authors of Vatican II, the council that supposedly made Benedict a dinosaur.
The problem, according to Gibson, is that Benedict “doesn’t seem to realize that he’s a world leader and not an academic.”
Because academia is so dangerous to our modern world.
Indeed, the pope’s great misfortune may be his election to a job he was never suited for.
God is so silly.  Why did he let a man who was clearly unsuited for this job get elected?
With the Vatican facing an acute shortage of priests and nuns and its moral authority tarnished by child-abuse scandals,
I hearby envoke Argumentum Ad Pedophilium.  (Also called Anderson’s law or Godwin’s law for Catholics.)
the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics could use a shepherd who would help them tackle present and future problems.
Without meddling!
What they’ve got instead is a reclusive intellectual more interested in resurrecting old rituals and disputes.
Because this author’s tired meme’s are not nearly old enough.