I find this a bit wild. The New York Times ran a story today on Senator elect Marco Rubio’s faith. You see, he calls himself a Catholic but he attends an evangelical church. And the Times is going to get the the bottom of this.
Marco Rubio, the charismatic senator-elect from Florida, is in many ways similar to other Cuban-American politicians from his home state: conservative, Republican and a “practicing and devout Roman Catholic,” in the words of his spokesman, one who “regularly attends Catholic Mass” and “was baptized, confirmed and married in the Roman Catholic Church,”
But while Mr. Rubio, 39, presented himself on his Florida Statehouse Web site and in interviews as a Roman Catholic, bloggers and journalists have noted since Mr. Rubio’s election that he regularly worships at an evangelical megachurch whose theology is plainly at odds with Catholic teaching.
I understand bloggers and religious websites wondering where Rubio stands as far as his faith goes but the New York Times? Really?
And if the Times thinks the faith of legislators is fair game, how many other legislators have had stories done on their faith? With all those legislators in Congress, is the New York Times sending reporters to see whether they head to Church on Sunday? I think not.
I believe this was done because it was an opportunity to hurt Marco Rubio. That’s it. Liberals fear Rubio so his base of support must be splintered in order to derail him.
Ironically, the Times can’t seem to admit that faith is important to people so the denouement of the piece concludes that it doesn’t really matter.
It may never be clear whether Mr. Rubio is more Catholic or Protestant. The question itself reduces a complex experience, human religiosity, to simple terms. What may be clear from this story — call it The Case of the First Catholic Protestant Senator — is that in America, religious distinctions matter less all the time.
Soooooo, let me get this right, religious distinctions matter less all the time so the Times writes a story about one particular Senator’s faith.
Uhm, does that make sense to anyone else?
I don’t know or understand Rubio’s faith but I’m not sure it’s appropriately questioned in the pages of the New York Times. If the Times wants to set itself up as lead Inquisitor, I’d like to see it handled a little more evenhandedly.
November 26, 2010 at 8:25 pm
But of course it's NOT OK to question Obama's faith!
November 26, 2010 at 8:32 pm
I would call the Kennedys the first Catholic Protestant politicians, not Rubio. The Times also published a heinous letter to the editor from a professor of theology from Marquette who thinks Dolan needs to show more modesty and makes the insinuation that Dolan is not qualified to lead the Church with authority because of the need for more advanced theology degrees and "at a time when acceptance of church authority is a critical problem." Uh, maybe for some…
This article, anyways, is typical and amusing– glad they care whether he is actually Catholic or not! They need to know where to poke and prod him appropriately!
November 26, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Okay. So since Rubio's not sufficiently Catholic for the media…they attempt to smear him with this alarmist piece.
But if Rubio was a Latin-Mass attending Catholic, he'd get equally smeared for being "too Catholic"…
Methinks the media sees Rubio as a threat if they're suddenly so concerned whether or not someone's authentically Catholic.
November 26, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Oh, come on. They don't even give a crap, literally. It's an attempt to discredit him, to question his authenticity and honesty. So, whatever.
November 27, 2010 at 12:45 am
They'll throw everything possible against the man, hoping something will stick. This won't be limited to Rubio, stand by for more of the same against Sarah Palin, Allen West, Chris Christie, etc.
Strong conservatives scare the snot out of some folk.
November 27, 2010 at 3:32 am
Tell the NY Times to get back to me when Rubio claims to be a Christian but is actually a Muslim.
😉
November 27, 2010 at 4:31 pm
His faith, I think, has little to do with it. It's more a question of claiming to be something you are not. Everyone hates hypocrisy.
I don't care what faith the man espouses, as long as he is a good man. But let him not say one thing and do another.
November 27, 2010 at 9:22 pm
I recall when Michael Sean Walters tried to paint Sarah Palin as an "apostate" because she attended a Pentecostal church as a child after being baptized as a Catholic. That was nothing but despicable.
November 27, 2010 at 10:10 pm
I don't think the NYT is trying to discredit Rubio. Haven't you noticed; the media has never met a former Catholic Hispanic who is now Evangelical it never liked. I have read lots of fawning stories about Hispanics becoming protestant. Funny they never accuse the pentecostals et al of poaching like the accuse the Pope of doing. The issue here is, is Rubio being deceitful. I would say he is. Joseph: Sarah Palin is an apostate. Julie
November 27, 2010 at 11:49 pm
And Julie is now God. What a relief.
November 28, 2010 at 12:04 am
I don't see it as being deceitful or hypocrisy. I understand it as having a love for all Christians. I faithfully attend Mass and raised my children in the Catholic Church, but I also appreciatively attend Lutheran, Baptist, Non-denominational, etc. services with my protestant brethren. The path God leads a man should not make him suspect.
I mean, why does it matter if Rubio "is more Catholic or Protestant"? The question is,"Is he a God-fearing (God-loving) American who believes in the constitution enough to live by it and stand by it?" -D.S. al Coda
November 28, 2010 at 1:57 am
His wife is not Catholic. He attends church services with her, and also attends mass by himself. Not a very dramatic story, but there it is. If this is the "worst" they can find to try to besmirch him, then they are truly desperate and teed off. God bless Rubio.