He is not our worst ex-president — that would be Jimmy Carter, affectionately known in Springfield as “History’s greatest monster — but he’s trying his best to claim the title:
[Clinton] said he had met “two great popes” in his lifetime, John Paul II and John XXIII. Clinton said he recognized that John Paul “may have had a mixed legacy,” but he called him a man with a great feel for human dignity.
This from the guy who is primarly remembered for messing aroud with the White House help:
Specifically, 53% of Americans named “Monica Lewinsky” or the “affair, adultery, sex scandal” as the most memorable moment of President Clinton’s eight years in office, more than four times the number who cited “the economy” (12%).
UPDATE: As I typed this, Drudge has posted the full quote:
“[Pope John Paul II] centralized authority in the papacy again and enforced a very conservative theological doctrine. There will be debates about that. The number of Catholics increased by 250 million on his watch. But the numbers of priests didn’t. He’s like all of us – he may have a mixed legacy.”
Getting carnal favors in the Oval Office, standing up for 2,000 years of Christian truth…it’s all pretty much the same, right?
Well better a mixed legacy than no legacy at all. Or at least not a legacy that will be talked about in text books rated less than R.
Being Bill Clinton is its own punishment.
There is still the vocation issue in the West, whether is is brought up by Bill Clinton or a Rad Trad…..the issue won’t go away and the “springtime of the Church” just is not at hand in the West.
Why does everyone equate the springtime of the Church with numbers?
If people want to solve the vocation issue they need to start with the real vocation issue: laity not living out their call.
That man is Klassy with a K!
A springtime in the Church would certainly have numbers; Acts saw fit to mention the thousands converted at Pentecost, and growth is obviously expressed numerically. The Church has always used numbers to express realities in her midst; to deny their use would lead to real absurdities.
To solve the vocation issue you could start by cleaning up the seminaries, promoting a worthy image of the priesthood, cleaning house, so to speak. There are wolves going about in sheep’s clothing, and as the Gospels teach us, people are being led astray.
Wouldn’t that be double jeopardy?? Can an ex-president be impeached (twice)??
Here are some stats on seminarians:
1981:
North & Central America: 13,554
World: 73,001
2002:
North & Central America: 15,397
World: 113,199
The growth is strong in Africa, South America, and Asia, modest in North and Central America, and nil in Europe. Still, Europe has more seminarians (25K) than does North America.
A perspective on these statistics needs to take account of a larger period, say 1950-2005, I think. You also need to take account of the growth in the number of Catholics during this period. The lay to priest ratio might be more indicative. If the Church has grown massively in the last 20 years, then a marginal increase in seminarians that didn’t keep pace with the numerical increase could still be a net loss.
Breier
There is a real focus on seminaries and priests. Yes, the seminaries and clergy need reform, but the reform of seminaries have been going on since the late eighties. But the laity need reform too, especially in regards to marriage and sexuality. I can bet you that many married couples under the age of forty in my parish used or are using birth-control and lived together before they were married. Priestly vocations is the fruit of good and faithful families.
Back to Clinton – you also have to remember that this was a guy who governed by poll numbers. The MSM polls all talk about Catholics having a divided assessment of the Pope. Clinton’s merely echoing that, like he echoed every other poll that came out during his regime. He doesn’t take the time to reflect and assess that the MSM polls might be slanted by the actual questions asked – he’s just presenting what he thinks people want to hear. It’s a natural reflex for a politician like him. Had the poll numbers stated that most Americans would have preferred that the pope be an enormous penguin, he would have said something about the Pope’s legacy being decent, for a human being, who was not, unfortunately, a giant penguin.
I am so tired of going to a Catholic site for some spiritual and religious uplift and instead finding political snarking. The Catholic Church is NOT a political party, believe it or not, and I seem to remember something about motes and planks, too.
I think it’s very unfair, Eric, to describe Jimmy Carter in such fashion.
Not to quibble, but Sarah, isn’t part of being Catholic that we’re actually engaged in the world – including the world of politics? One of the beauties of our faith is that we worship a God who deigned to come among us, and sanctify every aspect of life by his presence. Our incarnational faith can mean that discussing politics can be as much of a pious act as discussing the circumincession of the Blessed Trinity, for God wants us to build the Kingdom here and now. And that can take the occasional snarky comment.
Mike, the “history’s greatest monster” comment is a reference to a Simpson’s episode. Follow the link in the main post for a reference. I do not think that Carter was worse than Stalin.
Sarah, I am sorry you’re disappointed by this site, but this isn’t really a devotional blog. Catholic Light doesn’t have a mission statement, but the content centers around a few things: mainly culture, politics, and the liturgy. We comment on other things such as food and drink, and there are the occasional totally random posts. That mix includes devotional posts and personal reflections about the Faith, but there are plenty of other blogs that fill that niche.
Regarding the “snarking”: If you mean sarcasm, that’s something Jesus and St. Paul used, among others, and therefore it can’t be un-Christian. If you mean it’s unfair to point out that President Clinton is best remembered for being impeached for lying under oath about adultery, and that he should therefore stay away from criticizing a man who will (probably) be canonized as a saint, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
As far as motes and planks, I don’t think that applies here. I have never recieved, and would never receive, carnal favors in the Oval Office from a young tart.
I believe the Carter = History’s Greatest Monster is a Simpson’s reference, and therefore 95% tonque-in-cheek.
Ah just found it – it IS a Simpson’s reference
http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageServlet/showid-146/epid-1365
The priest shortage can not be decoupled from the birth rate. When couples are having only 2 children and only 1 or neither of them is a boy that family is very unlikely to give us a pastor.
The laity needs to take some responsibility in this crisis and not lay it at the feet of those who have already taken their vows.
Regardless of the priest situation, perhaps we can look at a positive side:
The laity have really stepped up to provide many services (including the oft onerous duty of administration!) which formerly only our priests had time to provide.
I also remember a homily from when I was much younger, about how we Irish Catholics have “arrived” on the American scene. Problems, we do have aplenty. But we are also in a position to do the teaching our priests provided for us (and in a more public setting, too!), the nursing, the duties formerly found mostly and only within purely Catholic institutions. In other words, we’ve spread the principles of Jesus to a more public setting through our everyday actions.
Bill Clinton is a polling president, rather than a position president. I think his comments may come back to hurt Hillary’s next campaign, as she attempts to move towards the moderate middle.
As Bill Clinton once went to communion, Jonah Goldberg once wondered if Catholics could find a loophole for excommunication. The only thing I can say about the Bill Clinton remarks that when I called to tell a friend about them, she laughed so hard I could not get her to stop.