I really do not see the conflict in these statements. He does not want religion used as a criteria and because of the possiblity that it will, he believes it fair to question the religious stance of the nominee during confirmation. I have a bad taste in my mouth defending Sullivan. No pun intended.

Mary Mary Quite Contrary sure is a mess these days. Seems that all things Catholic just make her head spin.

If only Alito adhered to Cthuluism instead of Catholicism Angri Andi wouldn't be trapped in this bind. Bondage by pseudopods would be so much better than by moral judgment.

When quoting Andrew Sullivan could you please refrain from using the word "fudge?"

I, for one, would like to welcome our new pseudopod overlords, and want to remind them that, as a trusted blogging personality, I can assist them in gathering slaves for their human sacrifices.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Does this mean Sully's finally given up on identifying himself as "Catholic"?

I don't think he's renounced Catholicism yet. If he had, he would have spent a couple of months publicly agonizing about it first. I think he's saving that for later. So, you know, it's something to look forard to.

Who is this Andrea Sullivan Character and why is she pertinent again?

Apparently she's having another bout of IBS.
Irritating Bloviator Syndrome.

By the way, today is hump day. So, in keeping with tradition, Ace and Dave celebrated appropriately.

What, this isn't a flame thread, you say? Oh. Sorry 'bout that. Never mind, then...

Following Sullivan's logic through to its logical conclusion, there should not be any avowed Catholics in either the judicial or legislative brances. Or, for that matter, the Executive Branch.

Such people would be unduly INFLUENCED by Pope BXVI.

or Opus Dei.

or Rosicrucian Esotericists who wear wingtips.

Harriet Meirs was not an issue for Sullivan for the simple reason that she's a Protestant, and, as such, handles venomous snakes as part of her worship.

Sullivan probably figured that she'd buy it during one ritual or another.

Hasn't Hyperventilating Andy ever read the Constitution? Such as this clause in Article VI: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Full stop. So, how can a senator "question" Alito's religion without applying a "religious test"? Or does Andy think it's OK that the Senate require Alito to denounce the Pope before they'll confirm him? After all, he'd have to do that to become king of England - and what's the difference?

It looks to me like Andy's sliding from Catholic to Know-Nothing right before our very eyes.

Plenty of Catholics disagreed with the pope's position on communion. If Sullivan really cared about the church, he'd join other Catholics (including Catholic clergy) arguing for change from within, instead of using Catholicism against politicians you'd figure he should like if he actually believed what he claims to believe.

And I'd like to clear up something about this whole communion thing, too. There is no enforcement of such "rules". It's between you and God. The church says you shouldn't take communion if you have grave sin on your soul; you need to repent and make reconciliation first. But the priest doesn't do a background check before handing you the wafer. Feel free to break that "rule", but it's the church's opinion that you're making a mistake in God's eyes.

So what power does this hold over people, really? This isn't the dark ages. If Andrew Sullivan, or John Kerry, or whoever, is worried about being denied communion, they can come to my church. In private, the priest might counsel some people to repent first, but he will give it to you if you ask for it, I guarantee it. Why? Because he's not God, and only God truly knows if you should be receiving it.

I am the Biff a Saurus

Looking at the dates, apparently Sullivan can now make one of those ideological bootlegger's turns in just ten days. I give it about a year before people have to check his site twice a day to see how the PM Sully contradicts the AM Sully. Maybe this is all a fiendishly clever scheme on his part to boost the traffic to his bloghole.

He has a very influential bloghole. I understand it sees quite a bit of traffic. Some even beat a path to it.

OK. Someone stop me.

Only Sullivan would argue that a church has no right to demand that its adherents follow its guidelines.

DaveP.,

In Sully's defense (okay, not really), I'm sure that virtually every elected Catholic Democrat in Congress would disagree with you. I realize he is no longer employed there, but recall the brouhaha between Daschle and his local branch of the Catholic church in South Dakota. Or the media reaction everytime some pastor gets defrocked for performing a same-sex marriage. Though the position you describe is ridiculous, it is certainly not uncommon.

Only Sullivan would argue that a church has no right to demand that its adherents follow its guidelines.

You're right, DaveP. It's a question of moral consistency.

It reminds me of the emerging moral standards of the blogosphere, which become more clear every day, and are a fascinating example of the self-reinforcing standards of a infant media that seeks legitimacy.

For example, consider this hypothetical example:

Say you are Hypothetical Blogger X, and you host a bad poetry contest. Scores of your faithful readers bust their ass to submit entries (including Hypothetical Commenter Y, whose "Ode to Ogden Nash" was a labor of love). But Hypothetical Blogger X NEVER ANNOUNCES A FRIGGIN' WINNER IN ANY CATEGORY, OR ANY HONORABLE MENTIONS.

I suggest that, in the same manner as the church enforces its moral standards, so also should the blogosphere shun Hypothetical Blogger X as a guttersnipe and blogospheric ethical pariah for treating his readership in such fashion.

The blogosphere cannot deny communion toBlogger X, but they could deny him links until such time as he repents of his sin and makes amends for his dereliction with respect to the poetry contest.

Hi Ace fans!

mu.nu will be moving to a new server this Saturday, November 12th. (Actually a pair of dual-core Pentium D 2.8's with 2GB of memory each, for the geeks among you.)

We'll be down for four to six hours. During that time, you should be able to read the posts (though things may go funny now and then), but posting and comments will be disabled.

Ace, maybe you or one of your hench-persons could put up a short post to alert people?

a pair of dual-core Pentium D 2.8's with 2GB of memory each

Whatever you do, don't buy the extended warranty. It's a rip-off.

Ace, maybe you or one of your hench-persons could put up a short post to alert people?

Sure thing, Pixy. Just post the password and I'll get right on it.

Commenter Y is obsessive-compulsive!

Tim: I'm a Catholic myself so I know how it is when your personal ethics and Church dogma disagree. To the Church, the lines are clear: support evil, or support the Faith. Only an arrogant ass would demand that the Church allow its adherents to do both... or claim that it shouldn't matter.

Remember that we're talking about something that Catholicism places on a level with premeditated murder. I have my disagreements with revealed dogma, but if the Catholic Church DIDN'T make a no-compromise stand against something it feels was that wrong I wouldn't have a dime's worth of respect for it.
Sully's stance- that the Church SHOULD compromise its firm beliefs on social issues, because it's more "progressive"- is one of the reasons I have no respect for him.

Michael: "Blessed are the internet poets, for their manliness shall wax full..."
Your reward's in heaven, dude.
--Book of Ricky, 2:24

DaveP.,

You've got me all wrong, man! I agree with you on the subject of the Church's position. I was just pointing out that your statement that "only Sullivan would argue that a church has no right to demand that its adherents follow its guidelines" was incorrect because many current and former congressional Democrats who identify themselves as Catholic, as well as members of the MSM in their coverage of the examples I brought up, have taken the exact same position that Sullivan has. They are wrong, but they join Sullivan in making this idiotic argument.

Give the poor man some Midol, he's obviously cramping!

Tim: I wasn't jumping on you- apologies if it came across that way.

Note to self: stop preaching to choir.

I think you two should kiss and make up.

I gave up on Andy "Sad Panda" Sullivan a long time ago. You never know which head he's been thinking with prior to hitting the keyboard.

But it's fun to see you guys bat him around like an old rag doll.

"under these circumstances is the fuge"
I think in Andy's case that would be the fudge pack