Skip to comments.
Marco Rubio, Dinesh DíSouza and the end of the Reformation?
| David Gibson
Posted on 12/08/2010 9:30:05 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Florida’s Republican Senator-elect and Tea Party heartthrob Marco Rubio is the youngest member of the senate, the GOP’s only Latino senator (he is Cuban-American), and a straight-talking Catholic who brings the same sense of conviction to his faith as he does to his politics. A flattering profile of him at Catholic Advocate last February was called, “Marco Rubio, A Catholic Candidate Who Will Not Compromise.”
But now it turns out (I have a piece on it all at PoliticsDaily) that Rubio has been attending a Southern Baptist-affiliated megachurch near Miami for much of the past decade, a revelation that has surprised many folks and dismayed a few supporters. After many requests, a Rubio spokesman said that the senator-elect “regularly attends Catholic Mass, and he was baptized, confirmed and married in the Roman Catholic Church. On the final Sunday of the campaign, for example, he attended Mass at Christ the King Catholic Church in Tampa. . . . He also attends services at a Christian church with his wife and children.”
The “Christian church” is apparently Christ Fellowship. Asked why Rubio attended a non-Catholic church regularly, Burgos said: “He attends both regularly.” His donations, some $66,000 since 2000, go to Christ Fellowship, however.
Dinesh D’Souza, another Catholic paladin on the right, also surprised and unsettled more than a few of his allies last August when he was appointed to lead The King’s College, a small evangelical college located in the Empire State Building. How’s that? D’Souza D’Souza told Christianity Today at the time that he himself is “non-denominational” and has been attending an evangelical megachurch in San Diego for several years.
“My apologetic is very nondenominational; it’s very much inspired by the C. S. Lewis idea of mere Christianity. I’m quite happy to acknowledge my Catholic background; at the same time, I’m very comfortable with Reformation theology.”
“Being a Protestant is a term defined in opposition to Catholicism and refers to a set of historical battles over denominational issues. As far as I can tell, those denominational issues are not the center of what’s being argued today.”
Earlier this month, Marvin Olasky, the provost at The King’s College, resigned, and it’s not clear there will be any further fallout for D’Souza. And Rubio, whose positions on gay marriage and abortion are in line with his conservative faith-based supporters, will likely be protected behind the “ecumenism of the barricades.”
But if Rubio were a Democrat, I don’t see thing playing out so irenically. And what of his religious double-dipping? Or D’Souza’s take on post-Reformation theology? It all seems rather wobbly men of such strong convictions.
TOPICS: Current Events; Ecumenism; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: catholic; dineshdsouza; marcorubio; reformation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
posted on 12/08/2010 9:44:54 AM PST
But if Rubio were a Democrat, I dont see thing playing out so irenically.
I don't agree with that.
Democrats could care less if a nominally Catholic candidate also attends (or only attends) his wife's Episcopal or Methodist or what have you church.
A lot of people are in Rubio's situation, and the ambiguity is largely the fault of the bishops.
posted on 12/08/2010 9:45:10 AM PST
Dinesh DSouza, another Catholic paladin on the right...added Being a Protestant is a term defined in opposition to Catholicism....
Sounds like a smear to me. What a rube!
History Lesson: Positively Protestant
posted on 12/08/2010 9:49:31 AM PST
by Alex Murphy
("Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed, he's hated on seven continents")
I don’t know what this revelation says more about—their supposed intellect gone vacuous, or extraordinarily poor catechesis, or marrying non-Catholics and trading off faith for peace at home, or for political/career gain. It looks quite blase about faith and their explanation of sorts try to make blase look cool, intellectual and rather broad and worldly, in a professorial kind of way. All of which are referred to commonly taken together or separately as the broad road to hell. Terribly interesting but a little hair raising for those of us who still appreciate, on faith issues particularly, just a little rigidity here and there in this era.
posted on 12/08/2010 9:49:33 AM PST
“A lot of people are in Rubio’s situation, and the ambiguity is largely the fault of the bishops.”
You are correct, but there may be more to this than many realize. For instance, I wonder where his wife stands in all of this. We need to hold them all up in prayer regularly...regardless. The Truth will eventually dominate. ;-)
posted on 12/08/2010 9:56:05 AM PST
(Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
To: SeekAndFind; Dr. Eckleburg; Forest Keeper; Gamecock; RnMomof7; HarleyD; fish hawk; Alex Murphy; ...
Or perhaps God is waking them up to the truth of the Gospel.
You have to seek the Truth and it takes a lot of time. Many, like these politicians, have little extra time for that search (so they think) and will fall for sound bites that at least make some sense. Life is a journey and theirs is not over. It is a process and as long as they are exposed to the Truth, the thick cream of logic should surface to the top. Time and Truth will favor God.
I have known of people at our church who went to mass before attending service with us.
And in my travels I have often attended catholic services where ever I was.
posted on 12/08/2010 10:17:49 AM PST
What’s the big deal? It’s still Christian.
posted on 12/08/2010 10:37:41 AM PST
by Mandingo Conservative
(Satan was like the first "community organizer", just ask Eve, the first liberal useful idiot!)
It all seems rather wobbly men of such strong convictions.
I'm a Catholic, but my beliefs don't effect whether my candidate is Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or non-denominational BUT mooselimbs are out.
Mooselimbs want to kill me and my family, can't vote for'em.
“What more can we hope for?”
How about actually understanding it properly? Ever have a room full of Protestants and watch them argue doctrine? They all claim to believe in the Bible, but can’t seem to come to real consensus on many issues. Seems like they lack understanding.
posted on 12/08/2010 10:50:49 AM PST
(The anti-Catholic will now evade or lie. Watch.)
To: Mandingo Conservative
"Whats the big deal? Its still Christian."
Not sure which "It's" you are referring to, but the Reformation demonstrated from the Scriptures that much of the "Catholic" perspective was anything but Christian. Thus, the need for "reforming" the church. That is a big deal. If D'Souza and Rubio are being exposed to this fact, someday soon they will recognize the two views are not compatable. At that point something significant will occur.
much of the "Catholic" perspective was anything but Christian. Thus, the need for "reforming" the church.
If the first part of that statement were true, there would have been no church left to "reform" -- you can't "reform" a decomposed corpse and make into a living man again.
Fortunately, the first part of that statement isn't true.
posted on 12/08/2010 11:26:19 AM PST
Rubio and D'Souza are just two of millions of Catholics who have only the foggiest idea about what the Catholic Church believes, and none at all about how to defend those beliefs from the Scriptures -- a direct consequence of the complete abdication of catechesis after Vatican II in the US.
The situation started improving in the mid 1980's, but by then an entire generation had been lost.
posted on 12/08/2010 11:30:01 AM PST
Rubio and D'Souza are just two of millions of Catholics who have only the foggiest idea about what the Catholic Church believes, and none at all about how to defend those beliefs from the Scriptures
With all respect, shouldn't your beliefs coincide with Scriptures? Seems like you are saying Scripture goes against your beliefs?
But maybe I am misunderstanding your statement, if so I apologize.
"If the first part of that statement were true, there would have been no church left to "reform" -- you can't "reform" a decomposed corpse and make into a living man again.
Fortunately, the first part of that statement isn't true."
If the last part of your statement was true, then the Reformation would not have been necessary. Fortunately, it is not. The Reformers identified several errors of Rome and brought truth to light, again.
The "reforming" hearkens all the way back to the early church wherein Christ alone was the Gospel. Rome's sacerdotalism, absolution of sin by men, Mariolatry, indulgences, and really its entire basis of salvation were all exposed as the frauds they are. Hopefully, D' Souza & Rubio are granted an opportunity to recognize that and turn from Rome. As I said, perhaps it is beginning.
You miss my point entirely. If the church's "entire basis of salvation" was a "fraud", there was nothing left to "reform". You don't "reform" a fraud into truth; you throw it away and start over. That would involve admitting that Christ failed and the Holy Spirit had taken a 1500 year long vacation while the Church collapsed into heresy.
At least the Mormons are consistent in admitting that that's what they believe.
posted on 12/08/2010 2:07:51 PM PST
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson