You’ve got to give it to Sarah Palin. When she speaks she doesn’t sound like any other politician in this country. All the others sound so… politician-ish when they speak. Too canned. Sometimes preparation can work against them. The fact that Sarah doesn’t have those canned prepared answer is why so many people love her and why many feel she’s unelectable.
Here, she drops a very uncanned “yay” on O’Reilly for our tolerance for other religions.
And then she asks in very un-politician-ish speech “What in hell scares people about talking about Americas foundation of faith?”
I’m always intrigued by her and I’ll admit that I agree with her an awful lot. I’m interested in your thoughts.
May 10, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Sarah Palin is not anti-Catholic as far as I can tell, and is more in tune with Catholic doctrine in many aspects than those CINOs (e.g. Pelosi et al.) smugly receiving Holy Communion as they plot to finance abortion with public monies. And she cannot be held accountable for her parents' actions to separate from the Church; her beliefs today regarding the Church probably fall into the category of invincible ignorance, as do the beliefs of most cradle Protestants.
May 11, 2010 at 12:47 am
but Sarah Palin is a Catholic apostate. Does that count for nothing?
I guess the answer is a resounding, "No!" You got a love the blogosphere combox…. Of course everyone misinterprets my comment as if I was trying to defend Pelosi and the other awful CINOs. The point of my original post was not to try to defend them. Never in my life would I try to defend a liberal democrat, especially one who is Catholic. But by mentioning Nancy Pelosi and trying to draw contrast between her and Sarah Palin, you make my point:
We denounce Pelosi for her lack of faith, (and rightfully so) but we give Sarah Palin a pass. Yes, Sarah Palin draws the right political conclusions that we as faithful Catholics coincidentally agree with (and we all love seeing her give the crazy Left heartburn!). But we always lament Catholics who leave the faith for evangelism, and here with Sarah Palin we have an excellent "Catholic moment" as Father Neuhaus would say, and I never see any erudite commentator in the Catholic blogosphere take advantage. I'm not say be mean and rude about this subject, but has anyone even asked her the question? Has any credible Catholic author pontificated on the matter? Someone above mentioned Raymond Arroyo and I think that would be fantastic interview!
Am I just in bad taste for bringing up this subject? Is this all her parents fault and is something that shouldn't be mentioned in polite company? Should I just shut up and get along????
May 11, 2010 at 3:32 am
DM Reed, it is indeed in bad taste to accuse Protestants who never were in the Church, or were in it only as infants, of damnable heresy and schism.
On the internet one frequently endures traditionalist Catholic blowhards who are all too gleeful to damn cradle Protestants and 400 years' worth of their ancestry in a quest to defend their own position on top of the heap. The fact that said cradle Protestants have never learned to trust the Bishop of Rome — or in many cases, have never even thought to — counts for nothing with these internet inquisitors. Apparently they have the ability, which the Church on earth does not claim for herself, to test the souls of Protestants and find them wanting.
May 12, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Palin and O'Reiley don't seem to have even read the constitution.
The U.S. was NOT founded on the outdated and ridiculous beliefs of christianity or any other religion.
Morons….
gods are man-made, and only insane or mentally weak-minded people believe otherwise.
May 12, 2010 at 10:14 pm
DM Reed, it is indeed in bad taste to accuse Protestants who never were in the Church, or were in it only as infants, of damnable heresy and schism.
Oh brother…Who the hell accused Palin of damnable heresy and schism?
I must say, the lack of intellectual depth to the responses to my question in this combox have left me greatly dissapointed in the CMR readership. Nonetheless, I will keep reading CMR because the Archbold brothers do a great job and always have something compelling to offer. I hope in the future some of CMR's readership can imitate their qualities…
May 12, 2010 at 11:00 pm
My bad: you accused her of apostasy instead.
The point stands that Palin was never in the Church, or was in it only as a child. So her ability to discern the divine identity of the Church has been impaired by the circumstances of her upbringing, and so too is her culpability for separating from the Church. Unless you have some factual basis for a charge that she knowingly and willfully apostasized, such a charge is calumny. That is why your question has been treated with the dismissal it deserves.