[mgist]

If it didn't come from the NY Times, I would also call it fair and accurate. However, considering this source, I can't help but feel that there is a slant somewhere. I'm sure a few good freepers will find some spin somewhere in this article.

Here's a challenge. . .

Can you spot the spin?

[Polycarp IV]

On political matters, evangelicals and Catholics will not fall on the same side of the divide on every issue. The Vatican opposed the war in Iraq, while many evangelicals were hawkish. And many Catholics still profess a strong social-justice, pro-union, Democratic orientation that makes them natural antagonists of evangelicals, who largely swing Republican.

This looks suspicious...most Catholics on this forum sided with their evangelical brethren, not the Vatican, on this issue.

And the latter claim is an old cliche that no longer rings true either for mass going Catholics.

[steplock]

Did you say spin? That was easy:

Christianity Today says in a June editorial that it is "certainly appropriate" for bishops to expect a Catholic president to submit to Vatican authority.

"submit to Vatican authority" is the spin to try to cause fear about a "Christian" theocracy running the country...like in the 60's when they tried the same with kennedy.

Didn't work then - won't work now. Why?

Because Christians are good ... leftist democrats are evil!