It was moving and beautifully filmed, and the subplot about the leftist revolutionaries who are so dedicated to ideology that they forget the humanity that made them leftists in the first place could probably fit into a reactionary film. ~Amanda Marcotte

I hesitate to guess what Ms. Marcotte thinks would qualify as a “reactionary film,” since hers is apparently such a hard-core leftism that she would probably find fault in the politics of Doctor Zhivago.  Speaking as an actual reactionary, I can assure Ms. Marcotte that no reactionary filmmaker would ever make the mistake of hinting that people became leftists out of a concern for other human beings.  They might become leftists out of a devotion to Humanity, perhaps, but for so many dedicated leftist revolutionaries of the past and present the old Sartre line (“l’enfer, c’est les autres“) is perfectly appropriate and true.  Of course, it probably was P.D. James’ original purpose to depict this indifference to the fate of actual people as a trait unique to people on the left.  However, it is actually a malady that afflicts all ideologues who make their cause into an idol to which they are willing to sacrifice any number of people (being an ideologue of sorts herself, Ms. Marcotte might be able to recognise the symptoms).

Not one to be chastened or humbled by the recent controversy surrounding her past blogging in connection with her new position at the Edwards campaign, Ms. Marcotte uses this review of Children of Men to unload again on Christians and our “super-patriarchal” religion:

The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal, where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels.

So many errors, and so little time in the day to refute them.  Can Ms. Marcotte manage to be more wrong and more offensive at the same time?  I’m not sure that she can, but I expect that she will keep trying to outdo herself in the future.  Where to start…let’s start with the stunning idea that the Church’s teaching of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ reduces the Theotokos Mary to “nothing but a vessel.”  Of course, in the scene of the Annunciation the Theotokos is far more than “a vessel”–it is her voluntary acceptance of her role that makes salvation possible, and it is because of her that God was able to become man for the sake of the whole world.  Far from being “nothing but a vessel,” she becomes second only to Christ Himself with respect to importance in the economy of salvation.  Christian iconography makes her central to the understanding of the Faith, while St. Joseph, respected and venerated as he was and still is, serves mainly in a supporting role.  As far as elevating and respecting women go, it seems to me that there could hardly be a better teaching than that of the Virgin Birth.  The theological importance of the birth being from a virgin is at least twofold: it fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah and removes all doubt about the divinity and sinlessness of Christ. 

It has essentially nothing to do with God’s power, except insofar as it tells us that God, while being omnipotent, refused to compromise the freedom of the Theotokos and left the choice to accept this awesome responsibility up to her.  I suppose there could be a religious teaching that empowers and honours a woman’s choice more than this, but it isn’t leaping to mind.  If this is what super-patriarchy looks like (where a woman’s free will is respected and she is honoured above all others), it might just make feminism entirely irrelevant. 

Update: Ben Smith, blogging at The Politico, has this latest reaction to Marcotte’s post:

Brian O’Dwyer, a New York lawyer and Irish-American leader, who attacked Edwards the first time round, just came out with a statement:

“The blogger’s continuing hostility to Catholics and other Christians, especially in the centrality of the Virgin birth, is both morally wrong and, for Senator Edwards, politically stupid. Senator Edwards was horribly flawed in refusing to see the importance of how offensive the blogger’s earlier comments were to people of faith. This latest so-called review, published after Edwards refused to fire her for earlier anti-Catholic writings, should now wake him up and lead him to finally do the right thing as his campaign tries to move forward. Bigotry of any kind should have no role in the Democratic Party, or in any presidential campaign.”

O’Dwyer, also, is hard to cast as a GOP hitman. He’s the chairman of the National Democratic Ethnic Leadership Council, the Democratic Party’s official white-ethnic grouping; close to some labor union leaders; and a leading member of a prominent New York democratic [sic] family.

Mr. O’Dwyer makes an important point.  Mocking, insulting or in any other way disrespecting the Virgin Birth of Christ–and thereby insulting and mocking both the Lord and the Theotokos–doesn’t simply offend Catholics with strong Marian devotions, but demonstrates a contempt for the Christian Faith and the core of that Faith in the Incarnation.  It is, of course, especially appalling to Christians, particularly Catholic and Orthodox Christians, who venerate and honour the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, but it is a symbolic attack on all Christians and all forms of Christianity.  What is remarkable about this is just how unsurprising all of it is to me.  Of course left-wing feminists have appallingly bigoted, anti-Christian views.  Of course they couple their pathetic commitment to freedom of religion and tolerance to the most venomous hatred for actual religious people and religious faith itself. 

The more interesting question that remains unanswered is this: why do so many ethnic Catholics, such as Mr. O’Dwyer, continue to belong to and work for a party whose activists and leaders have such a low opinion of their religion?  They could potentially be the future building blocks of a pro-life, pro-family, pro-labour populist party that could defend Christian social teaching, repudiate cultural radicalism and combat the culture of death, whether it is pushed by abortionists at home or militarists abroad.  It is not written anywhere that they must continue to support a party that favours and enables the Marcottes of the world.