I hereby resign from the Catholic Church

You forgot to use your sarcasm tags!

What? No way!

I'm not going to replace the banner image with a diptych of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.

You can't say "diptych" on a Catholic blog!

Sal,

You didn't get the memo: it is not a Catholic Blog anymore: it is now Neo-Con Republican Light.As Eric goes, so goes the universe, or at least the website.

Eric,

No, no, no. You can't say ora pro nobis in the Neo-con Republican Church. You have to use late eighteenth-century English, which will forever be the holy language of Capitalism. Or, alternatively, if you want to be a bit more risque, you can use Yiddish as the Eternal Language of the Neo-con Cabal. Either would be acceptable.

All,

You should know that I am the official Treasurer of the Neo-con Republican Church. As such, I expect your tithes (that's one tenth of your year's total income; no accounting tricks!) to be sent as soon as you are received. In exchange you will receive (1) videotape on how to be a success in the business world, (2) official Stephen Moore (president of the club for growth) coffee mugs, (1) lifesize portrait of Cosmo (Jonah Goldberg's dog), and (1) oilcloth-bound copy of the Rules of Acquisition (from Star Trek).

The person whose check arrives first will also receive a lifelike and lifesize replica of Saddam Hussein's head on a stick, but only if it is requested. Be sure to ask! If you want it on a pike, send an extra $39.99 for the pike and $49.99 for shipping.

How could I forget to pay obeisance to my new Zionist masters! I have added another supplication.

OK, since you guys have owned up (finally), maybe you could define for me what "neo-con" means. Yeah, I know it's short for neo-conservative, but really, what the heck does that mean? I voted for Reagan, but doesn't that make me a paleo-conservative, or do I have to have voted for Eisenhower to be paleo? Sheesh, this is all so confusing now! When do we get to the post-modern-conservatism where we all just get to sit around and count our vast wealth?!?

Dinesh D'Souza protect us!

Mark,

Do you delight in setting off high-yield nukes just for the fun of it? Then you are a neo-conservative. Do you enjoy invading country after country in an effort to get more and more oil? Then you are a neo-conservative. Do you have an ikon of Irving Kristol in your closet to whom you recite the Liturgy of the Howitzers? Then you are a neo-conservative.

Do you wish to raise tarriffs to the point of bringing international trade to a standstill? Then you are a paleo-conservative. Do you wish that we'd never gotten involved in World War II, that we'd let Hitler have Europe? Then you are a Paleo-Conservative. Do you have a statue of Pat Buchanon in your closet to whom you sing O Holy Nation of America? Then you are a paleo-conservative.

Hope that cleared things up. If you are a neo-con, and want to join our Church, be sure to send me your tithe on time.

JS ... why would sarcasm tags be needed?

TPFKAAC,

So, if I'm not a neo-con, and I'm not a paleo-con, does that mean that I'm simply a con?

Mark,

Nope. It means you're simply a cheese-eating surrender-monkey. The Neo-con Republican Church offers salvation both from Cheese-Eating Surrender-Monkeydom and Pro-Hiterian Paleo-con Kookdom. And it is quite a bargain at just 10% of your gross income.

BTW, I accept PayPal (anon@dev.null), or if you prefer, email me at the same address for my mailing address. Hurry and you could have Saddam's head on a stick!

Fine Print: You are expected to provide the coins for your own baptism. However, there is a change machine in the lobby if you only have bills, which for your convenience will provide you with baptismal coins for a rock-bottom 10% fee.

I believe the going rate for Baptism is 30 pieces of silver.

Us and we??? Is that the royal "we" that the popes used to use in their encyclicals, Eric? Because I never said that "us" or "we" should declare our allegiance to the Republican Party -- I said you, as in you specifically, not anyone else, you should declare your allegiance to the Republican Party, since the only thing I have ever seen you blog about is Republican propaganda.

The rest of your blogmates at least blog about things Catholic from time to time, thus reminding us that despite their heavy usage of Republican propaganda, there is still a Catholic under there. I don't recall ever seeing you blog about anything other than why the Republicans are so right and the Democrats are so wrong. Thus, you remind me much of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly in their very much alleged but never quite proven Catholicism.

Nathan, I haven't really posted much in July at all, but when I have, I've talked about several Catholic-related topics.

On Sunday, I condemned the Paulist Center for running interference for pro-abortion politicians. I did this explicitly in Catholic terms, not "Republican" terms. I've talked about gay marriage and abortion a few times, too; if those issues have nothing to do with Catholicism, you should inform the bishops.

I'm very sorry that you don't like what I have to say, and that you don't think I'm "really" Catholic. Sounds pretty judgmental to me -- but who am I to judge? My Zionist overlords tell you to cease!

Seriously, Nelson -- maybe you should just avoid my posts if I make you that angry.

Speaking in absolutes is absolutly wrong!

For Mark: the article on neoconservatism at Wikipedia looks like a pretty reasonable overview.

not funny. even scandalous.

Amazingly, all of your "Catholic-related topics" are also topics that relate to the Republican agenda, Eric. Do you ever discuss anything that doesn't have to do with the Republican Party?

At least some of your blogmates from time to time discuss the liturgy, or something else that doesn't have to do with getting Bush re-elected. Hence why I say and have said for quite some time that you strike me as more Republican than Catholic. Every post that spews forth from you seems to be propaganda to get Bush re-elected, and seems only to use the parts of Catholicism you find handy at the time.

I'm sorry you don't find it funny, Father -- that's a matter of taste. However, I respectfully disagree that anything I've written is scandalous, unless you want to argue that I'm actually making fun of the sacrament of baptism, or that Calvin Coolidge is a saint. If anyone feels that his faith is impeded or harmed by 167 words of tongue-in-cheek humor, please e-mail me.

Nathan, I really have nothing useful to contribute about the liturgy. Why should I comment on things in which I have no particular expertise, and nothing interesting to say? I'm pretty sure I can say some interesting and perhaps even thoughtful things about our national political life, so that's mainly what I comment on.

The Catholic Church and the Republican Party's views on abortion and gay marriage roughly coincide with each other. Those aren't trivial topics -- they butt up against immutable Church teachings. I'm not going to ignore either subject merely because they are "political" topics, or because I'm a Republican. If the Republican Party takes a stand that is against defined church teaching -- not a prudential judgment, but an actual teaching -- then I will oppose the Republican Party on that point and try to get them to change. As of today, that is not the case.

Really, Nathan: calm down. I don't know why you find me so threatening. I'm a nobody. Ignore me if you don't like what I have to say.

Disagree with Eric if you like, Nathan, but it's not accurate to call his writings "propaganda." Eric always offers reasoning and evidence for his positions, positions he holds on their merits. He clearly writes out of conviction and not an unreasoning party loyalty.

Eric,

Nathan might have a point about the content of your postings. Catholic Light is a religious blog, rather than merely a Catholic-oriented political blog (which type of blog I have no problem with); just look at the icons of Our Lord and Our Lady on the banner, and the backround to match the liturgical season. Therefore it would be nice if you posted something of a religious nature once in a while that didn't have anything to do with the Republican party.

I appreciate the advice, Coward. As I said, I haven't had much time to post lately, and when I do, it's usually about things in the news. Most of those things have a political dimension, and are connected with the Faith in some way. I have many opinions on purely political subjects, such as campaign-finance "reform," but thus far I have spared Catholic Light's readership from having to scroll past them.

Maybe Nathan can serve your Masses?? Seriously..Nathan just doesn't get that this whole struggle is beyond ideology...and that "the worst republican is better than the best democrat"....bcause that party has embraced evil pretty much wholesale.

"the worst republican is better than the best democrat"

That's ludicrous. I'd vote for Zell Miller over George Pataki (and the rest of his pro-abort brethren) any day of the week, but that's just me.

First of all, separating yourself from the Body of Christ is not a matter for jokes.

Secondly, I used to check this blog more often, but I agree with Nathan that it has taken on more of a political tone than a Catholic one.

For what it's worth, I just compared the April archive page with the July one, and made a rough classification of posts as being "about electoral politics" and "not".

For April, I counted 12 on politics and 42 not; for July, I counted 34 about politics and 83 not. Interpret this as you will.

It would seem the ratio has changed; and the total quantity of posts has increased too, so that there is now more talk about electoral politics than there was before. Also, there are many posts about secular subjects that have political connections (e.g., the pro-life cause) but aren't specifically related to the elections this year; I wasn't counting those as "political", but they contribute to the "tone" of the blog.

First, RC, I want to say that I don't have a problem with the blog overall. I have said several times now that the other bloggers on this blog do, at least, blog about things directly pertaining to the Faith from time to time. It's Eric, specifically, that I'm having a problem with.

I think TPFKAC described what I was trying to say quite well.

Finally, Eric -- I do not find you threatening, I find you irritating. Believe me, there's a big difference.

Then don't read me, Nathan. I don't want to be a source of irritation to you. (Did you get a rash or something? I sure hope not!)

Father, if I mocked the Eucharist, that would be wrong. Bringing the name of a saint into disrepute -- that's wrong, too. Joking that I "resigned" from the Church is something else altogether (I chose the word because you can't very well "resign," can you?)

If this blog isn't worth everyone's time, that's not surprising. I don't think our mission statement says that we will try to be all things to all men. In fact, I don't think our mission statement says anything at all.

All of the sacraments have the word "Holy" in front of them. I would equate mocking Holy Baptism with mocking any of the other sacraments.

I do have a sense of humor, and am willing to give you some slack, but there is nothing in the post that indicates that it is sarcasm, so an unsuspecting reader couuld infer anything from the post. That is why I think it is potential scandalous.

So, do you have a mission?

We don't need no steenking mission statement!

I don't think we have a mission per se, Father. We are a rabble of practicing Catholics who post what we hope are interesting (and maybe occasionally edifying) things on the site.

I hate to belabor the point, but I don't really see how I was "mocking" baptism. If I joked that it was an "empty ritual," sure, that would be mockery. And although we've had trouble from humor-impaired people in the recent past -- not you, by the way -- I think that the "Saint Calvin Coolidge" reference should tip off even the most solemn reader.