News from China II

Sandro Magister at www.chiesa has chimed in with his usual excellent work.  Aside from his usual links to the primary sources, he provides a nice summary of the latest happenings in the relationship between the ChiComs and the Holy See including this description of the genesis of the recent agreement:

That day, [Francis'] touchdown in New York on his way to Philadelphia coincided with the landing of Chinese president Xi Jinping, who was expected at the United Nations. Everything had been calculated for the two to cross paths “accidentally” at the airport and exchange a greeting. Xi was aware of this ardent desire of the pope, but in the end he let it drop and the meeting did not take place.

From that moment on, however, the secret contacts between the Vatican and Beijing underwent an acceleration. In October and then in January a delegation of six representatives of the Holy See went to the Chinese capital. And in April of this year, the two sides set up a joint working group that now seems to have come to an understanding over a point that the Vatican takes very seriously: the appointment of bishops.

Read it all for details on the excommunicated bishops of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association and their being brought into the fold under the deal.

Magister notes:

The example that is brought up most often is that of Vietnam, where the candidate for bishop is proposed by the Vatican but the government can veto him, and then on to other candidates until the government approves one of them.

But for China, the solution of which Cardinal Tong appears to have knowledge sees the roles reversed. The candidate will be selected and proposed to the Vatican by the Chinese episcopal conference. Only that this conference is a creature of the communist party, completely at the beck and call the regime, devoid of “underground” bishops and with one of the excommunicated eight as its president.

Let us pray for our Chinese brethren as they enter this brave new world created by the Holy Father.

News from China

In recent days, relations between the Holy See and the People's Republic of China have been in the news.  This column by Anthony Clark at Catholic World Report is as good a recap as any of recent events.  The column describes Cardinal Tong's statement, "the pope will choose from a list of proposed candidates for ordination to bishop by China’s bishops and state authorities, which would finally normalize how bishops are selected and ordained in China."

Clark quotes from the statement,

Fortunately, after working for many years on this issue, the Catholic Church has gradually gained the reconsideration of the Chinese government, which is now willing to reach an understanding with the Holy See on the question of the appointment of bishops in the Catholic Church in China and seek a mutually acceptable plan. . . . The Apostolic See has the right to choose from the recommended list the candidates it considers as most suitable and the right to reject the candidates recommended by a bishops’ conference of China and the bishops in the provinces under it.

Hmm.

Mr. Clark goes on to describe Cardinal Zen's reaction.  Zen, the long time opponent to any compromise, wrote a response posted by AsiaNews.it. The title says it all: “My concerns over China-Holy See dialogue and repercussions on Chinese Church”

The end of Mr. Clark's column is a brief summary of  Sino-Holy See relations.

The point that stands out is Mr. Clark's comparison to Vietnam, "but it should be recalled that the Vatican’s proposed agreement with China is comparable to agreements made with communist Vietnam quite some time ago. In June of 2010, Pope Benedict XVI established a similar form of diplomatic relations with Vietnam, and the Church there has continued to flourish under a circumstance that Pope Francis is now proposing with China."

Long time readers know where I stand vis-a-vis the ChiComs.  They are not to be trusted.   Mr. Clark's comparison to Vietnam is on the surface apt due to PRChina and Vietnam being communist, but whether the Church is truly prospering there is debatable.

Will the Pope Sell Out to Red China?

As with remarriage and communion, the issue of the appointment of bishops in Red China seems to be one where Francis says one thing, but his underlings do another at the expense of Benedict's past actions that Francis has claimed to support fully.  Read this from Sandro Magister and try to discern for yourself just where the Holy Father is going with relations with the PRC.

The Lost Kingdom

Daily Mail

The event, which is understood to be taking place on June 19, will be a secular event and will instead feature just a simple proclamation, as well as a military procession, in front of Spanish politicians.

Palace and government spokesmen have already said no foreign dignitaries will be invited to the ceremony, largely due to the late notice given to plan the event.

Even Prince Felipe’s father, King Juan Carlos, has signalled he does not intend to be at the ceremony to see his son take over his throne.

And

When Juan Carlos was sworn in a king, pictured above, it was a much larger affair than what is expected from the imminent coronation of Crown Prince Felipe, pictured third from right as a young boy. The event included a mass after the coronation which is not expected to be held this time around

A low-key secular ceremony.....

Huh.

There is a reason sovereigns are styled Majesty.   They are majestic, venerable.  By divine right, along with lineage, tradition, and pomp, building up legitimacy over hundreds and hundreds of years.  And now the soon-to-be King of Spain is seemingly detaching himself from the foundation of his monarchy, from the outset.  No great ceremony to demonstrate the King's majesty.  No mass to celebrate the connection between God and the King.  And the old king, who is still alive, will not be there to show the connection between the present, the future, and the past.

It sets a bad precedent.  Without those things that make a monarchy a monarchy, why have a monarchy at all?

Yes, times are hard in Spain.  And HM Juan Carlos I is said to be abdicating partly because his popularity has nose-dived from scandal, such as a hunting trip during a time when one-in-four Spaniards are unemployed.  But I think personal extravagance is one thing.  While spending some Euros on the coronation of the king is a necessary investment in the legitimacy of the monarchy.

Forgotten Lore: Triumph

Awhile ago while I was hunting around the Web for something, I came across some information about Brent Bozell, Jr. and his magazine named Triumph, published from 1966 and 1976.  Since then, I've acquired Bozell's collection of essays, Mustard Seeds: A Conservative Becomes a Catholic, and a compilation of essays and editorials from the magazine known as The Best of Triumph, both currently published under the imprint of Christendom College, itself founded by a contributor to the magazine.

While hunting around the Web for more information, I came across the dissertation of Mark D. Popowski about the magazine.  I later found out that he had written a book on the same subject, published in 2011, which I obtained through interlibrary loan from Marquette University.

The following is a comment I posted today at Rorate Caeli:

Yesterday I finished reading The Rise and Fall of Triumph: The History of a Radical Roman Catholic Magazine, 1966-1976 by Mark D. Popowski.  In his book, Popowski does an excellent job of summing up the philosophical writings of Catholics Brent Bozell (not the currently living neocon son), Frederick Wilhelmsen of the University of Dallas, and many others as published in the magazine Triumph from 1966 to 1976.

Their efforts were directed towards showing that The American Experiment(tm) is fundamentally flawed (both the conservative and liberal views of it) and at war with natural law and Christianity.  Popowski writes, "The editors sought to lead an exodus of American Catholics from the American state and society and to establish a Catholic tribe—not for isolation but for confrontation—in order to fortify and order their ranks from which they could lead sallies into American society to convert it to the Roman Catholic faith."

This review looks at Popowski's book and describes well the thoughts and motives of Triumph and its parent organzation, the Society for a Christian Commonwealth.

One of the comments to that review alludes to an historical detail about which I would love to learn more.  The woman who posted the comment said that she had been in contact with one of the contributors of the magazine who had back in the day done research that including a "surprising link with Freemasons in the Irish American Church hierarchy."

Chinese Regards to Pope Francis

New York Times

Hua Chunying, a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, said that Beijing hoped the pope, who was elected on Wednesday, would work with Chinese officials on improving relations. But, she said, the Vatican “must stop interfering in China’s internal affairs, including in the name of religion."

She also said the Vatican must sever diplomatic relations with Taiwan before ties with Beijing improve. China considers Taiwan a renegade province that is part of its territory.

Sadly, with the current regime of China, I don't see much room to improve relations.  Can the Holy See do much of anything besides either take a hard line or capitulate to Chinese demands?

But perhaps there is hope for improvement on horizon.  China has only just recently installed its Fith Generation of leadership.  And I've read there is hope for real political change with the Sixth Generation.  That is still at least a decade away, though.

B16: Close in prayer to the Church in China

TUESDAY, 24 MAY, IS dedicated to the liturgical memorial of Our Lady, Help of Christians, who is venerated with great devotion at the Shrine of Sheshan in Shanghai: the whole Church joins in prayer with the Church in China. There, as elsewhere, Christ is living out his passion. While the number of those who accept him as their Lord is increasing, there are others who reject Christ, who ignore him or persecute him: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4). The Church in China, especially at this time, needs the prayers of the universal Church. In the first place, therefore, I invite all Chinese Catholics to continue and to deepen their own prayers, especially to Mary, the powerful Virgin. At the same time all Catholics throughout the world have a duty to pray for the Church in China: those members of the faithful have a right to our prayers, they need our prayers.

AFP: China calls for Vatican ‘actions’

CHINA YESTERDAY CALLED FOR “concrete actions” from the Vatican to help improve relations, after Pope Benedict XVI urged Chinese bishops to resist pressure from Beijing and stay true to Rome.

“We hope that the Vatican can be clearly awhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifare of the fact that China practises freedom of religious belief and of the continuous development of China’s Catholic Church,” foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters.

Ms Jiang added that Beijing hoped the Vatican would “create conditions for the development of China-Vatican relations through concrete actions”.

A New Voice in the Holy See's China Policy

Sandro Magister's latest piece talks about the recent events in the People's Republic of China and the new secretary of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Archbishop Savio Hon Taifai. Magister includes a translated interview of the archbishop with Avvenire.

The two sides are manned principally by Father Jerome Heyndrickx and Cardinal Zen. The former takes a compromising approach and the later not so much. Magister sees Hon as occupying a position that is much closer to that of the cardinal's than Heyndricks, though Archbishop Hon is not in lockstep with Zen. Reading the interview provided, Archbishop Hon's answers are on the whole prudent and level-headed.

More to come, I'm sure.

Book Review: The Pope's Legion

The Pope's Legion: The Multinational Fighting Force that Defended the Vatican
by Charles A. Coulombe

I discovered this book by way of a book review in an issue of New Oxford Review last year. As much as I want to say that it's a military history due to the great part of its subject-matter, I can't quite bring myself to do it. It does recount the history of the Papal Zouaves and recounts their various actions both in service to the Pope and afterward. But I've found it to be more a description of the time and those who lived during it.

To wit: the main strength of the book is Coulombe's attention to individuals and their stories. He details their entry into and exit from the story, interweaving the accounts of the various volunteers into that of the larger regiment and the wars in which it fought. However, the flurry of names, particularly at the beginning as the first volunteers are introduced, is daunting. It's clear though that Coulombe must have sifted through a mountain of material, personal accounts and so on, to bring so much to the narrative.

The main drawback of the book is the lack of maps, which is one of the reasons why I don't qualify it as a military history. Battles and skirmishes are described (some in great detail), lines of march are given, but without maps to show the way, it is hard to follow.

The conclusion of the book does a very good job of bringing together all the threads as Coulombe recounts the final dissolution of the regiment and the endeavors of the veterans and then talks of their legacies, both personally and collectively. The Papal Zouaves and the ideals they embodied represent a facet of the Catholic identity that has been lost due not only to the encroachment of a secular, industrialized world, but also due to changes in the Church's view on war itself after two world wars.

Coulombe quotes Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro's homily at the annual Zouave requiem in 2007, "These soldiers had received from the Church, their reason for living and this is why they were ready to sacrifice their own life for her. We are sons of the Church, too, and for her we have to fight the good battle of our time." The author then remarks that whatever response may be made to the story of the Zouaves, it had better be made quickly as time is urgent.

Vietnam

Magister writes today about Vietnam. The Vatican got to appoint a representative to the country, but it seems the quid pro quo required entailed the archbishop of Hanoi resigning for some fake reason, but really because he wasn't docile enough for the Vietnamese government. There are eight million Catholics in Vietnam out of a population of 84 million and they are growing. They are also politically active with peaceful demonstrations and marches. But of course, the secretary of state is playing a role; from Magister: "In 2008, cardinal secretary of state Tarcisio Bertone wrote to the bishop of Hanoi to keep his faithful in check, in order to avoid harming "the dialogue with the authorities.""

Included is an essay by Lorenzo Fazzini entitled, "Rome and Hanoi Closer to Each Other? The Steps of Patience" which goes into more depth.

For those interested, Southeast Asia is once again getting hot. The Spratly Islands claimed by just about everyone along the South China Sea have come up again in the contest of maritime rights and of late the Vietnamese have been purchasing submarines from Russia. Into such a mire the Vatican wades with its new representative...

Illegal Aliens

For reference:

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

Okay.

Father Z has in a post today a Catholic World News article on Cardinal Mahoney's criticism of the Arizona bill that would require state and local law enforcement to check immigration status. I have my own thoughts on Cardinal Mahoney's stance, but regardless of one's thoughts, the article is more about His Eminence's comparison of the bill to Nazism and communism and the reaction to such a comparison.

I only glanced through the article and Father Z's personal comments. He was evenhanded in his dissection of the article. What was more interesting were the comments after the post. As of this writing, there are seventy of them, so I'm not going to attempt to sum up the different threads of argument beyond the fact that they largely focus around the interpretation of the quoted paragraph above from the Catechism. What are the rights of illegal aliens and what are the rights of citizens of the receiving country in light of the Catechism?

Uh, right...

Davenport, the city where my bishop has his cathedra, had a bit of a controversy this last weekend. It seems that on the advice of the city civil rights commission, the city manager, without consulting the city council, issued a memo that Good Friday would henceforth be known as Spring Holiday.

Outrage ensued... Aside from the outcry from Christians, a lot of it came from city employees whose contracts stipulate that Good Friday (NOT Spring Holiday) is a city holiday where they are paid time and a half.

Apparently order has been restored thanks to the city quickly backtracking and noting the city manager was out of order.

Hat tip to ABC News and Drudge.

The Zero Sum Game

It's been awhile since I've written about the People's Republic of China (mainland, communist China). The Holy Father issued his letter back in 2007 and after that, things in the Far East dropped off my radar screen.

Now we have this: China: One Bishop's About-Face Reignites the Dispute between Bertone and Zen by Sandro Magister.

I'll sum up very briefly: The secretary of state Cardinal Bertone believes that now is the time to come out of the shadows, even if it means accepting the directions of the communist regime; this is based on the Pope's phrasing on how the clandestine Church is not a natural state. He makes other points as well on the state of the clergy in China. Cardinal Zen of Hong Kong on the other hand believes that the Pope's words about the clandestine Church not being a normal feature of Church life, the Pope means that the Church should continue until the abnormal circumstances of communist oppression are at an end.

My first instinct in this matter is to go with Cardinal Zen and give nothing to the communist Chinese.

Just as it is easy to connect to the clandestine community Bertone's statement that "a truly Eucharistic community cannot retreat into itself, as though it were self-sufficient, but it must stay in communion with every other Catholic community."

This point of Bertone's quoted by Magister is on the outside convincing, but I am reminded of various instances throughout history when Christians have been persecuted or when a small, orthodox faction of Christians have been at odds with a far larger faction of heterodox Christians that have the backing of the State. Does communion with other Catholic communities trump the freedom of the Church to govern its own affairs? I would say no.

Health Care

I wrote this as a comment at TitusOneNine:

It’s a slippery slope. All the things that may end up left out of the bills now (abortion, euthanasia, etc.) may be slipped in later once control is handed over. What I am fearful of is that the bishops are either letting their own personal or ‘institutional’ (USCCB) opinions intrude or else simply being short-sighted by approving of a concept that will subvert the autonomy of the individual conscience.

As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.
—Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79

If you want to talk about conscience, then feel free to discuss free will and each person’s willingness to give to charity to help those in need. But I for one do not accept the premise that government confiscation of revenue for whatever reason beyond the most basic necessities is a legitimate means to provide for those in material need.

No More Crucifixes

Reuters/Yahoo!: Italy, Vatican in uproar over court crucifix ruling

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday that crucifixes should be removed from Italian classrooms, prompting Vatican anger and sparking uproar in Italy, where such icons are embedded in the national psyche.

"The ruling of the European court was received in the Vatican with shock and sadness," said Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi, adding that it was "wrong and myopic" to try to exclude a symbol of charity from education.

Read the whole thing for various responses, etc. Will Italy tell the EU courts to stick it or will it knuckle under? Only time will tell.

EDIT; Zenit's in my inbox, so here are more links...

Vatican "Regrets" European Court Ruling on Crucifix

and

Crucifix Ruling Seen as Severing Italy From Roots

"It ignores or neglects the multiple meaning of the crucifix, which not only is a religious symbol, but also a cultural sign," a communiqué from the conference stated. "It does not take into account the fact that, in reality, in the Italian experience, the display of the crucifix in public places is in harmony with the recognition of the principles of Catholicism as part of the historical patrimony of the Italian people, confirmed by the Concordat of 1984."

Or Else!

Via Drudge, we have this blog post from ABC News' George Stephanopoulos:

In a letter just released, the three Catholic bishops leading the Church’s efforts on health care warned Congress that “we will have no choice but to oppose the bill” unless current bills are amended.

The letter signed by Bishop William Murphy, Cardinal Justin Rigali and Bishop John Wester outlines three main areas of concern: “that no one should be forced to pay for or participate in abortion, that health care should be affordable and available to the poor and vulnerable, and that the needs of legal immigrants should be met.”

Of those, of course, abortion poses the gravest threat to the bill. The bishops simply don’t buy the argument that House Democrats found a way to block public funding for abortions with the Capps amendment, and they insist that the Hyde amendment doesn’t apply to the bills because they are not appropriations measures. A sizable bloc of House Democrats, led by Bart Stupak of Michigan, agree and are pressuring for a clear prohibition on public funding.

Not really much new here, but the reference to /legal/ immigrants (my emphasis) is heartening.

Dipping Into Health Care

His Excellency R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City has this to say regarding the health care debate (hat tip to Hotair.com):

First and most important, the Church will not accept any legislation that mandates coverage, public or private, for abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem-cell research.

We refuse to allow our own parish, school, and diocesan health insurance plans to be forced to include these evils. As a corollary of this, we insist equally on adequate protection of individual rights of conscience for patients and health care providers not to be made complicit in these evils. A so-called reform that imposes these evils on us would be far worse than keeping the health care system we now have.

Second, the Catholic Church does not teach that “health care” as such, without distinction, is a natural right.

The “natural right” of health care is the divine bounty of food, water, and air without which all of us quickly die. This bounty comes from God directly. None of us own it, and none of us can morally withhold it from others. The remainder of health care is a political, not a natural, right, because it comes from our human efforts, creativity, and compassion.

As a political right, health care should be apportioned according to need, not ability to pay or to benefit from the care. We reject the rationing of care. Those who are sickest should get the most care, regardless of age, status, or wealth. But how to do this is not self-evident. The decisions that we must collectively make about how to administer health care therefore fall under “prudential judgment.”

Third, in that category of prudential judgment, the Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care.

Unlike a prudential concern like national defense, for which government monopolization is objectively good – it both limits violence overall and prevents the obvious abuses to which private armies are susceptible – health care should not be subject to federal monopolization.

Preserving patient choice (through a flourishing private sector) is the only way to prevent a health care monopoly from denying care arbitrarily, as we learned from HMOs in the recent past. While a government monopoly would not be motivated by profit, it would be motivated by such bureaucratic standards as quotas and defined “best procedures,” which are equally beyond the influence of most citizens. The proper role of the government is to regulate the private sector, in order to foster healthy competition and to curtail abuses. Therefore any legislation that undermines the viability of the private sector is suspect.

Emphasis mine. The bolded parts are excellent illustrations of his point.

FUMARE has a post on monetary policy and the Pope's failure to address it in his encyclical. The post references a critique by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. in Taki's Magazine.

I'm not so interested on the monetary policy bits as I am the general response of Woods to Caritas in Veritate:

I actually didn’t want to write anything about the Pope’s encyclical. In 2007, I wrote a book, Sacred Then and Sacred Now: The Return of the Old Latin Mass, in defense of the Pope’s restoration of the traditional Latin liturgy, an area in which Benedict XVI is quite knowledgeable and has much of value to say. I like this Pope. He is smart and serious, not frivolous or vain. He is in many ways a substantial improvement over his predecessor. (I cite as evidence the very fact that the media believes the opposite.) And having been viciously denounced and ridiculed by some pretty despicable people, he certainly has all the right enemies.

I have reluctantly yielded to the urging of quite a few correspondents and typed up a few thoughts. So here goes: Caritas in Veritate strikes me as at best a relatively unremarkable restatement of some familiar themes from previous social encyclicals. At worst, it is bewilderingly naïve, and its policy recommendations, while attracting no one to the Church, are certain to repel.

The response to the encyclical throughout the right-of-center Catholic world was drearily predictable: with few exceptions, it was a performance worthy of the Soviet Politburo, with unrestrained huzzahs everywhere.

It is one thing to receive a statement from the Pope with the respect that is due to the man and his office. It is quite another to treat his every missive as ipso facto brilliant, as if the Catholic faith depended on it. If his supporters are trying to live down to the Left’s portrayal of Catholicism as a billion-person cult, they could hardly do a better job.

Woods then launches into an explanation of the concepts of his book and how economics should be viewed only as what it really is, an objective study of economic processes and the theories that attempt to describe those processes. Then Woods goes on:

Nothing in the Deposit of Faith even comes close to deciding this and countless other important economic questions one way or the other. Not even the most uncomprehending or exaggerated rendering of papal infallibility would have the Pope adjudicating such disputes as these. Yet misunderstandings or ignorance regarding such seemingly abstruse points are so often at the heart of the policy recommendations that bishops’ conferences propose and papal encyclicals can seem to imply.

It is obviously not “dissent” merely to observe that the cause-and-effect relationships that constitute the theoretical edifice of economics are not a matter of faith and morals. They simply do not fall within the range of subjects on which a Catholic prelate is endowed with special insight or authority. Catholic laity cannot head up petition drives against them. They are facts of life. Facts cannot be protested, defied, or lectured to; they can only be learned and acted upon. There is no use in shaking our fists at the fact that price controls lead to shortages. All we can do is understand the phenomenon, and be sure to bear it and other economic truths in mind if we want to make statements about the economy that are rational and useful.

Woods closes out the section of his critique by basically saying what we already know in the real world (and the Holy Father does in his Catholic world when dealing with Catholic things): just saying it should be this way won't make it so, especially when economics is a trade-off. One can't ask for higher wages for all bread winners and expect employers to be able to pay to hire as many bread winners as before.

Anyway, go read through the rest. It's pretty interesting.

Notre Dame: Those Outside Looking In

While the Catholic blogosphere has been doing its thing lately in looking at Notre Dame and all that, I've found interesting the look by 'secular' blogs at the Catholic divide.

To wit: Laura Ingraham: Notre Dame’s no longer a viable Catholic institution at HotAir.com. HotAir.com has two lead bloggers, one of them Catholic and the other atheist, both conservatives. The atheist's view on ND and the Church's overall response to Obama:

The real question here isn’t whether Notre Dame is still Catholic in any meaningful sense, it’s what it means to be “Catholic” in America today. 54 percent of Catholics voted for The One last fall and 67 percent approved of his job performance as of three weeks ago; majorities approve of torture in at least some circumstances and say they’re more likely to consider common sense and experience when making decisions than Church teachings; a narrow plurality think priests should be allowed to marry. Even on abortion and stem cells, those calling themselves Catholic are almost indistinguishable from non-Catholics (although there are sharp differences between non-Catholics and Catholics who attend mass regularly). And of course the Vatican itself is as squishy as can be when it comes to taking on Obama for his stances. The Church, ironically, seems to have the opposite problem from the GOP these days: They’re so comfortable with “centrists” that it’s no longer clear what American Catholicism stands for. Which puts Notre Dame squarely inside the mainstream.

While the traditional, orthodox elements of the Church work on renewal and are seeing signs of life from the US episcopate, at the same time, what should be the Church's allies in political life look in from the outside and they don't seem that encouraged, especially by the Vatican itself and the whole deal with L’Osservatore Romano's efforts of late in wooing Obama.

Anyway, food for thought.