The Dish

Chait hopes Romney pulls it out:

[A]t that point, the difference between regular Republican-bad like Romney — which, don't get me wrong, is pretty bad — and Sarah Palin-bad is pretty significant. Accepting that risk in return for a somewhat higher chance of Obama getting reelected is a risk the administration would happily take, but I wouldn't.

We all live in that fear, Jon.

Italian Bishop Francesco Nolè insists that "'irregulars' such as criminals and homosexuals should not be given communions or funerals":

This, he said, is not to be seen as discrimination, but rather as ‘healthy medicine’ for those close to the person:

“Our behaviour, which could be perceived as mean or cruel, in the long-run often heals and evangelises.” He added: “We must have the courage and tact, perhaps first informing the individual, or the families if he has passed, that it’s not possible to administer a communion or funeral. We would perhaps pray for his soul, which must be done.”

One wonders what Nolè would say about Father Murphy. Well, of course, one wonders not. Homosexuals may not take communion, but known child molesters sure can consecrate the host.

This thread keeps getting creepier. A reader writes:

There is good evidence that Toxoplasma gondii — the parasite often found in cat feces that poses a risk to human fetuses — spreads by affecting the behavior of its rodent hosts. Infected rodents show decreased fear-responses to cats, which is thought to increase the likelihood that the cats will then eat the rodents, allowing the protozoa to complete the next phase of their reproductive cycle in a feline host.

Your reader wrote, "Can you image something like that in humans?  Scary."  There is a growing body of evidence, which is somewhat controversial, that toxoplasmosis may induce behavioral alterations in infected humans as well.

Specifically, increases in risk-taking behaviors appear to be correlated with infection. Wikipedia has a good summary of the evidence, and relevant caveats. Carl Zimmer's book "Parasite Rex" is a great introduction to the weird and wonderful realm of parasites, and their incredible adaptations and ability to co-opt their host's biology.

Another writes:

On his blog, Zimmer reviews recent research that suggests the microbes in our gut may influence what we eat (and how big we get): "Mice with a genetic make-up that alters the diversity of their gut microbes get hungry, and that hunger makes them eat more. They get obese and suffer lots of other symptoms. Get rid of that particular set of microbes, and the mice lose their hunger and start to recover."

Another reader sends an APA article that examines a link between T. gondi and schizophrenia. Another writes:

Yet another reason to chose dogs over cats!

"Fox lifted an interview I gave in 2008 to someone else & are misrepresenting to the public in order to promote Sarah Palins show. WOW," – LL Cool J.

A reader writes:

The gist of that reader response, as I understand it, is that while women have a socially acceptable outlet (and a political movement) in which to express their displeasure with the wage gap, the glass ceiling, and the various sacrifices women must make in order to have a family and succeed at work, men have nowhere to turn when they must suffer the "emotional toll" taken out on them by the "unexpected focus on their career."

But men do have somewhere to turn when they feel that they are unfairly expected to sacrifice all in pursuit of a career: feminism.

For example, feminism has been behind the push for parental, rather than maternal leave, because feminists believe that both parents share responsibility for their child, and should have a chance to enjoy close personal and familial bonds. Both men and women must make the choice whether to focus on career or family, and whether to focus on only one. Men are expected to choose their careers, women are expected to choose motherhood. Neither expectation is fair.

Feminism is attempting to change that, and if your reader is really upset about what is an actual injustice toward men, I would recommend that he become involved with a local feminist organization that works on the issue. Because in an ideal feminist world, both men and women would be able to make independent, informed decisions about what their career-life and/or family life would look like, without any societal pressure, just independent self-determination.

Another writes:

Your commenter feels inadequate for not having casual sex?  Well, sounds like he’s being ridden by traditional male stereotypes that survive from the more unambiguously-patriarchal past.  That’s who he can officially blame, if he dares.

Another:

Apologies if this email is not as coherent as I’d like it to be, but I am writing quickly from my own 70-hour-a-week finance job to respond to the reader who so ineloquently attempted to defend the persistent wage gap in this country. I won’t take the obvious bait from his first line on “call me a misogynist asshole,” but this reader is very much missing the point.

Having recently graduated from a top undergraduate program, I can assure you that the same pressures to “earn lots of money” exist for young women. Young professionals of both genders are equally compelled to get their footing in their careers early and ascend the corporate ladder as rapidly as possible. The difference is that young women have to overcome “mommy track” expectations almost immediately. It is still immediately assumed that we will one day check out to raise kids, or that if we marry and stay at work we’ll still be the second earner in the household, the one who misses meetings when the kids get sick, etc.

The alternative is to be the “stereotypical female executive – no kids, no husband, singlemindedly focused on her career. Contrary to his assertion that women treat the workplace as separate from life, I think many women of my generation already see that the two are fully intertwined, and it is nearly impossible to optimize for happiness, or even more “success” by any traditional definition, in both.

Young women aren’t asking for sympathy; we’re asking for the opportunity to pick any one of these paths without being at a wage disadvantage from the start. This reader still has every chance to be a high powered Hollywood executive and eventually find another girlfriend, marry and have kids. Or he could choose an entirely different lifestyle and be a successful male professional. Why should he earn 25% more than I do for having those same alternatives?

Another:

Wait. This guy was born in the mid 80s? He's like 25 and all "I gave up blah blah for a career!" Come back in ten years, then you can whine about it.

The alleged commie-Muslim adopts "drill, baby drill" and nuclear energy on top of climate control. In other words, Obama's position is now indistinguishable from McCain's "all of the above" approach in the campaign. As long as exploring domestic energy does not send the wrong signal and inhibit a shift to post-carbon energy, I'm not opposed. Drum shrugs:

I guess this makes me a bad environmentalist, but I've never really had a big problem with opening up these offshore tracts as long as (a) the affected states are OK with it and (b) oil companies don't get sweetheart deals. But here's what I don't get. When it comes to energy, conservatives are crazy about two things: nuclear power and offshore drilling. Now Obama has agreed to both. But does he seriously think this will "help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation"? Wouldn't he be better off holding this stuff in reserve and negotiating it away in return for actual support, not just hoped-for support?

Yglesias and Benen have the same question.

Butte, Montana, 10.18 am

Jimmy Akin of the National Catholic Register surmises:

This creates a situation where we don’t really know what Ratzinger’s involvement was. In the documentation presented by the New York Times Ratzinger never replies. It’s always Bertone who does so. Bertone (not Ratzinger) even chairs a meeting at the Vatican on the matter.

Did Cardinal Ratzinger even see the initial letter regarding Murphy? Maybe. Or maybe it was given to Bertone as part of his role as show-runner. Maybe the mail room at the CDF automatically gives correspondence addressed to the Cardinal Prefect to the Secretary, who serves as his filter. I don’t know. (Maybe someone who knows such things can clarify in the combox. Please cite sources.)

One can fault any number of things about process or policy in this case, but we don’t have evidence that Ratzinger did anything in bad conscience.

(Hat tip: Aggie Catholics). I think this is the best defense available in the Murphy case where Weakland clearly bears most of the responsibility, but again it relies on the Vatican being so removed from the issue that it took nine months for the CDF to respond in 1996, and it relies on subordinates taking moral responsibility for everything the current Pope once did or said. I think that kind of shifting of responsibility makes sense in a large corporation, or even in a corrupt government (see: Abu Ghraib), but I also believe – mirabile dictu – that the church has a moral duty to behave better than a large, self-interested corporation or corrupt, secretive government. I actually believe it should lead by example in cases like, er, the rape of children by its own employees covered up by its own officials.

I guess this is now a minority view among those most attached to eternal, unchanging moral values. It's very odd – and deeply revealing – to see theocons dancing with moral relativism and cultural context on the issue of child abuse. But my question is less about the Murphy case than the Hullerman case. In the latter, it's clear that Benedict was the equivalent of Weakland in the Murphy case. He had a priest under his direct authority known to have raped children under his care; and Ratzinger knew this, did not contact the cops, personally authorized the transfer of the child-rapist to therapy and thereafter to parish work where he was subsequently convicted of child-abuse and rape.

I don't want to sound self-righteous, but if I knew I had done that, for whatever motive, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

The knowledge that I had enabled someone – by negligence or institutional loyalty – to rape a child when I could have stopped it would be something that would cripple my conscience. I would not subsequently dismiss these issues as "petty gossip." I don't think I could ever recover from it – until I had somehow found a way to repair what I could of the wound I had helped inflict. Until I had found every victim and seen what i could do. And I'm just a weird gay sinful wayward Catholic – a black sinful marginal sheep in a large flock who refuses to leave entirely.

Shouldn't the Pope be holier than me, for Pete's sake? Or if he isn't, could he not acknowledge – as Peter did in Jesus' darkest hour – that he let Our Lord down, that he is as much a sinner as all of us – maybe even a greater sinner? That he allowed something quite terrible to happen to innocent children? That he doesn't merely regret it, but repents it?

Until that happens, this basic truth remains: the moral authority of Catholic church's central authority is over. The only two options are denial and defensive p.r. (the current knee-jerk response) or open repentance and total transparency, led from the top.

As average Catholics, this seems to me something that we have to try and insist upon. Because once all moral authority falters, it is very hard to regain. It may be lost for generations. And this is our church too.