The American Conservative Goes All-Out Crazy in Its Denunciation of Judge Napolitano

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

Article here.

Since the release of Evangelii Gaudium, there have been countless articles and commentary about the economic portions of Pope Francis's Apostolic Exhortation. Some of the commentary has been downright bizarre, such as Rush Limbaugh denouncing the Pope as a Marxist, or Stuart Varney accusing Francis of being a neo-socialist. American conservatives grumbled but dutifully denounced a distorting media when Pope Francis seemed to go wobbly on homosexuality, but his criticisms of capitalism have crossed the line, and we now see the Pope being criticized and even denounced from nearly every rightward-leaning media pulpit in the land.

Not far below the surface of many of these critiques one hears the following refrain: why can't the Pope just go back to talking about abortion? Why can't we return the good old days of Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI and talk 24/7/365 about sex? Why doesn't Francis have the decency to limit himself to talking about Jesus and gays, while avoiding the rudeness of discussing economics in mixed company, an issue about which he has no expertise or competence?

On the brash side there is Larry Kudlow, who nearly hyperventilates when it comes to his disagreement with Pope Francis, accusing him of harboring sympathies with Communist Russia and not sufficiently appreciating Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. Revealingly, Kudlow counsels the Pope to concentrate on "moral and religious reform," and that he should "harp" instead on "morality, spiritualism and religiosity," while ceasing to speak about matters economic. Similarly, Judge Napolitano, responding to a challenge from Stuart Varney on why the Pope is talking about economics, responded: "I wish he would stick to faith and morals, on which he is very sound and traditional."

These commentators all but come and out say: we embrace Catholic teaching when it concerns itself with "faith and morals" - when it denounces abortion, opposes gay marriage, and urges personal charity. This is the Catholicism that has been acceptable in polite conversation. This is a stripped-down Catholicism that doesn’t challenge fundamental articles of economic faith.

It is precisely this portion of Catholicism that is acceptable to those who control the right narrative because it doesn't truly endanger what's most important to those who steer the Republic: maintaining an economic system premised upon limitless extraction, fostering of endless desires, and creating a widening gap between winners and losers that is papered over by mantras about favoring equality of opportunity. A massive funding apparatus supports conservative Catholic causes supporting a host of causes - so long as they focus exclusively on issues touching on human sexuality, whether abortion, gay marriage, or religious liberty (which, to be frank, is intimately bound up in its current form with concerns about abortion).

Francis - like John Paul II and Pope Benedict before him - has upset the "arrangement." Rush and the gang are not about to go down without a fight. If only they could get that damn Marxist to talk about sex.

 

[angelatc]

This title is pretty deceptive. There is only one line, and it's almost a throwaway that mentions Napolitano:

Similarly, Judge Napolitano, responding to a challenge from Stuart Varney on why the Pope is talking about economics, responded: “I wish he would stick to faith and morals, on which he is very sound and traditional.”

This is an article that reminds all of us that Catholics are by and large Democrats.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This title is pretty deceptive. There is only one line, and it's almost a throwaway that mentions Napolitano:

This is an article that reminds all of us that Catholics are by and large Democrats.

eduardo will haz teh sad if that's true...

 

[angelatc]

I'll make him some cookies.

Too bad you gave up the sugarz...

 

[Ronin Truth]

I always have trouble trying to square Catholics with the abortion party. Strange bedfellows I guess.

 

[Ronin Truth]

This title is pretty deceptive. There is only one line, and it's almost a throwaway that mentions Napolitano:

This is an article that reminds all of us that Catholics are by and large Democrats.

Preaching Marxism
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/andrew-p-napolitano/preaching-marxism/
Andrew Napolitano on the Pope’s unfortunate economics.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Catholics aren't democrat. They are 50/50. Among white Catholics 60% voted Romney.

 

[Acala]

Catholics aren't democrat. They are 50/50. Among white Catholics 60% voted Romney.

Wasn't Romney a democrat? I'm confused . . .

 

[Brett85]

"The American Conservative" is anything but conservative. I like their non interventionist stance on foreign policy issues, but they don't take or advocate a conservative point of view on any other issue.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The fact that theft apparently isn't an issue of "faith and morals" is yet more proof the RCC is not the "One True Church."

Mind you, my church doesn't get this right either, so I'm not saying that this absolutely discredits them as a "legitimate" church (I discount them as such for other reasons.) But the fact of the matter is, this is proof that they are not infallible. This was a blatant mistake right there. As smart as he is, I'm somewhat surprised that Judge Napolitano hasn't thought about this. Or maybe he has.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'll make him some cookies.

Too bad you gave up the sugarz...

I still haz sugarz...just in moderation, at the right times, and in conjunction with lots of dietary fiber. (I am love dark chocolate!...Fruitcake is nom nom )

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The fact that theft apparently isn't an issue of "faith and morals" is yet more proof the RCC is not the "One True Church."

Mind you, my church doesn't get this right either, so I'm not saying that this absolutely discredits them as a "legitimate" church (I discount them as such for other reasons.) But the fact of the matter is, this is proof that they are not infallible. This was a blatant mistake right there. As smart as he is, I'm somewhat surprised that Judge Napolitano hasn't thought about this. Or maybe he has.

Does teh judge believe in papal infallibility? If so, you're right-that is a blatant mistake, and in the general vicinity of heresy. It's one of the reasons for the East/West schism.

 

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

"The American Conservative" is anything but conservative. I like their non interventionist stance on foreign policy issues, but they don't take or advocate a conservative point of view on any other issue.

I absolutely agree with you. There's some very brilliant and scholarly writers there (in particular, "Tory Anarchist" Daniel McCarthy), but the position they took on the Cruz-Lee-Paul defunding strategy of ObamaCare was extremely disappointing. If it provides any consolation, libertarian doctrinaire Tom Woods is still a contributing editor, and Pat Buchanan - the very founder of this publication - deviates from much of what is published there. Here he is on the principled ObamaCare showdown in the Senate:

Ted Cruz may have, as Richard Nixon used to say, "broken his pick" in the Republican caucus. Yet, on Obamacare, his analysis is right, his instincts are right, and his disposition to fight is right.

These are more important matters than the news that he is out of the running for the Mr. Congeniality award on Capitol Hill.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Does teh judge believe in papal infallibility? If so, you're right-that is a blatant mistake, and in the general vicinity of heresy. It's one of the reasons for the East/West schism.

I don't know. For the record, I wasn't trying to bring up the sola fide (The doctrine) debate again, we have plenty of threads we can do that, at this point.

But to me this is a very clear mistake on the part of the Catholic Church. I know they don't think the Pope is always infallible, but they think he can be on issues of "faith and morals." Yet, conveniently, they say taxes aren't a moral issue. The Bible, however, makes no exceptions to its "Thou shall not steal" command.

Now, this isn't a salvation issue either, so I'm not saying a true church (small c) couldn't get this wrong. I don't think a single person in my church agrees with me on this... I might have half-agreement from a few people, but I don't think a single person completely agrees with me on it. I still view it as a true church, albeit flawed. But my church doesn't claim to be the one true church, or infallible in any circumstance. Hence the difference.

Does the EO church condemn ALL theft, including taxation?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Does teh judge believe in papal infallibility? If so, you're right-that is a blatant mistake, and in the general vicinity of heresy. It's one of the reasons for the East/West schism.

Oh, and to be clear, I admire Judge Napolitano alot. He's right up there with Ron Paul as one of the best. I think gay marriage is the only political issue I disagree with him on, and that's such a small issue it hardly registers for me. I just don't understand how, as someone who comes out so strongly against taxation as being theft, he somehow thinks the pope's statements are not statements regarding "faith and morals." That just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[eduardo89]

The fact that theft apparently isn't an issue of "faith and morals" is yet more proof the RCC is not the "One True Church."

Mind you, my church doesn't get this right either, so I'm not saying that this absolutely discredits them as a "legitimate" church (I discount them as such for other reasons.) But the fact of the matter is, this is proof that they are not infallible. This was a blatant mistake right there. As smart as he is, I'm somewhat surprised that Judge Napolitano hasn't thought about this. Or maybe he has.

What does a personal statement by the Pope have to do with the infallibility of the Church when it comes to the Faith?

Oh, and to be clear, I admire Judge Napolitano alot. He's right up there with Ron Paul as one of the best. I think gay marriage is the only political issue I disagree with him on, and that's such a small issue it hardly registers for me. I just don't understand how, as someone who comes out so strongly against taxation as being theft, he somehow thinks the pope's statements are not statements regarding "faith and morals." That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Perhaps because the Pope said nothing about taxation? Or because the Pope didn't actually denounce capitalism, but instead was talking about consumerism and corruption?

 

[FrankRep]

This is an article that reminds all of us that Catholics are by and large Democrats.

I know plenty of Catholics who disagree with the Pope.

 

[eduardo89]

I know plenty of Catholics who disagree with the Pope.

That's because Catholics are free to disagree with the Pope (and any other bishop) on matters which are not de fide.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Preaching Marxism

 

[Brett85]

I absolutely agree with you. There's some very brilliant and scholarly writers there (in particular, "Tory Anarchist" Daniel McCarthy), but the position they took on the Cruz-Lee-Paul defunding strategy of ObamaCare was extremely disappointing. If it provides any consolation, libertarian doctrinaire Tom Woods is still a contributing editor, and Pat Buchanan - the very founder of this publication - deviates from much of what is published there. Here he is on the principled ObamaCare showdown in the Senate:

Why would a website called "The American Conservative" have a socialist columnist who advocates socialist/big government principles in his editorials? That just seems completely ridiculous. I wish there were an actual paleo-conservative group on the internet.