Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
According to a Wall Street Journal blog, John Hagee has issued one of those fake "to anyone I might have offended" apologies to Bill Donohue and the Catholic Church:
"Out of a desire to advance greater unity among Catholics and Evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful," Hagee wrote, according to an advanced copy of the letter reviewed by Washington Wire.
Translation: since my words are causing problems for a politician I support, I'll make the standard-issue non-apology apology and hope it all goes away. Mind you, I'll keep preaching batshit crazy and bigoted things to my flock, but maybe now the press won't be paying so much attention.
He did not apologize, even in this fake manner, to gays, on whom he blames Hurricane Katrine for their provocation of God's anger. Don't hold your breath waiting for that one, or for McCain to try and distance himself from those bigoted and ridiculous statements. Why? Because he needs the anti-gay vote go win in November and he knows it. That's the difference between the stupid things he says about Catholics and the stupid things he says about gays - McCain needs Catholics, but he needs the anti-gay vote as well. That's why he distances himself from the first statements and not the second.
Actually, you have to love this exchange where McCain spells out with great specificity which statements he disagrees with:
McCain addressed the issue in April during an appearance on ABC's "This Week." "Any comments that he made about the Catholic Church I strongly condemn, of course," McCain said."So was it a mistake to solicit and accept his endorsement?" asked host George Stephanopoulos.
"Oh, probably, sure. But I admire and respect Dr. Hagee's leadership of the -- of his church," McCain said, later adding: "I'm glad to have his endorsement. I condemn remarks that are, in any way, viewed as anti-anything."
What courage.
Comments
For some reason, I don't believe his apology is sincere. A fanatical anti-Catholic his entire life until now? Me thinks McCain's campaign asked him to be a little nicer because McCain will need some Catholic votes come the fall. I don't buy it though.
Posted by: Ben Roethlisberger | May 14, 2008 9:38 AM
Ed and Ben, I concur. This was a non-apology on Hagee's part. Why politicians accept endorsements from pastors is beyond me. As this season shows, it's nothing but trouble.
Posted by: TomJoe | May 14, 2008 9:55 AM
Let's be clear: It not only wasn't an apology, it wasn't to Catholics or the Catholic Church. It was a "sorry some of your fellow Catholics are so damn sensitive" sent to Bill Donohue. Donohue represents no one beyond himself and the teeny, tiny number of Catholics who are members of his little club.
And McCain - what a vacuous statement. He's against statements that are "viewed as anti-anything"? REally? What if they're anti-bad stuff? Or what if they're not actually anti-anything (e.g. someone says the word "niggardly" and some other nitwit thinks that's anti-black)? Grow a pair of political balls, already.
However, I do admire and respect McCain's ability to speak so many words without actually saying anything.
Posted by: AnneS | May 14, 2008 10:00 AM
Hmm. Some 'maverick' there.
Watching Hagee and Bill Donohue trading apology-and-acceptance made me think only one thing - scum vs. scum.
Posted by: Vic | May 14, 2008 10:02 AM
Posted by: tincture | May 14, 2008 10:07 AM
I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful
I love apologies like this: "I'm sorry you chose to find these comments hurtful." It's not the comments that he's apologizing for - it's the fact that people got upset. If no one (or rather, not enough people) had gotten upset, he wouldn't be sorry for saying them at all.
Posted by: Eric | May 14, 2008 10:10 AM
Does a pastor's endorsement of a candidate change his church's non-profit status?
Posted by: Eliza | May 14, 2008 10:21 AM
"Any comments" is pretty broad. How can one be deeply regretful of something they are unaware of?
Posted by: rpsms | May 14, 2008 10:22 AM
I am strongly against anything that anyone I know has said that is not considered nice by any select group your choose to ask at that particular time.
Thank you.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2008 10:26 AM
Eliza: No. Pastors have First Amendment rights too. They may not make an endorsement in the name of the church.
Hagee apparently thinks Catholics who took offense were missing the subtle nuances of his "Whore of Babylon" sermon.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 14, 2008 10:36 AM
McCain should be staying as far away as possible from John Hagee.
Posted by: Cheddar | May 14, 2008 10:47 AM
On behalf of the Catholic Church (hell, I have as much responsibility in the Church as Bill Donohue), I'd like to thank Pastor Hagee for his apology and make a promise in return. I personally will stop referring to Mssr. Hagee as a heretical, blasphemous, Satan-worshipping, ignorant, bigoted false preacher who is leading himself and all his followers to Hell. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | May 14, 2008 10:57 AM
CPT_Doom: Hagee does not worship Satan. It's more along the lines of a business partnership.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 14, 2008 11:00 AM
Kehrsam: what is the difference between a pastor's endorsement and one from a church? (I'm not arguing, I just find it confusing.)
Posted by: Eliza | May 14, 2008 11:01 AM
The Pastor is free to state her personal opinion about anything. When she claims to speak on behalf of the church, however, she needs to stay away from politics.
So a pastor could state from the pulpit that he is personally going to vote for Party X or candidate Y, and even encourage the flock to do the same (getting close to the line there, however). What he may not do is say something like, "As Southern Baptists, you are obligated to vote for the Libertarian Party and its candidates."
In other words, if it a person doing the endorsing, it is legal; if an institution, it is not.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 14, 2008 11:11 AM
This kind of crap is just an inevitable consequence of the fact that in the United States we incorporate into our political discourse-indeed elevate to the highest level of importance-the delusional views of wackaloon religious assholes and the relationships of political candidates to those assholes.
http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/obama-wright-wackaloon-religious-assholes/
Posted by: PhysioProf | May 14, 2008 11:22 AM
He doesn't say he was wrong or even they he was sorry for saying those things, merely that he "regreted" saying them. That's exactly what the Japanese government says about the Rape of Nanking, which no one concerned accepts as an actual apology.
Posted by: Ericb | May 14, 2008 11:53 AM
This is pretty obvious, but notice the use of the passive voice? It's not, "I express regret for my hurtful comments". No, he expresses regret for comments that they may have found hurtful. He's not the one responsible for the hurting, they are.
You can tell a lot about how sincere someone is by subtleties of language like this.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | May 14, 2008 12:16 PM
Let me make clear that I don't like Hagee or the kind of religion he preaches. That said, his biblical metaphor, the great whore I think it was, may have been colorful, but aren't the reformation churches built, in part, on the premise that the Catholic hierarchy was full a corruption -- a view that many still hold about the Catholic Church today?
I've read plenty of very harsh, often deserved, condemnation of the Catholic Church in other threads and I've heard plenty of statements during my lifetime that indicate to me that evangelicals and fundamentalists often hold views similar to those of Hagee. Perhaps Hagee was simply impolitic enough to speak those views loudly in his capacity as a preacher who gets involved in politics. Put Hagee's comments in a thread in this blog and change the biblical metaphors to the language of a PZ Myers commenter or a Brayton commenter and few would bat an eye at his contempt for the Catholic church. Would his comments have been more palatable if he loudly proclaimed the Catholic Church a club for pedophiles and child rapists? Would Bill Donohue have merely gone sub-apoplectic instead of full-out apoplectic?
I realize this is a separate matter from the question of whether or not McCain should have sought or accepted Hagee's endorsement. Politicians seek and accept endorsements from odious people all the time -- it's just a matter of numbers and what they anticipate about voter reaction to those endorsements. In my opinion, Hagee is no worse than Falwell was with his vocal anti-gay bigotry. We pretty well know that McCain held Falwell other fundamentalist conservatives in deep contempt and yet he patched up his relationship with these characters.
I dislike this sort of whoring, but then I'll never hold elective office.
Posted by: Dr X | May 14, 2008 12:30 PM
Look at McCain's statement: "I condemn remarks that are, in any way, viewed as anti-anything." Can it be possible to be any more wishy-washy? First, it's not if the remarks are "anti-", just whether they are viewed as "anti-". And any statement that is anti-anything? Is it possible to make any choice that isn't anti-something? (the answer is "no", for any closet McCainites lurking)
Posted by: QrazyQat | May 14, 2008 12:44 PM
I also notice he didn't apologize to Jews for blaming them for the Holocaust. Or to America for making us a laughingstock and spitting on the ideals this country was built on.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 14, 2008 1:16 PM
I do believe McCain said pretty emphatically that he disagreed with Hagee's assertion that New Orleans was punished by God. That said, isn't it amazing that these people are even getting press coverage in this day and age?
Posted by: John | May 14, 2008 2:29 PM
I think that McCain and Hagee are both complete fucking assholes. But, then, I'm not running for office and I don't have to worry about my tax status. Oh, I meant to add I'm sorry if they find those comments offensive.
Posted by: democommie | May 14, 2008 10:10 PM
That may be true, Kehrsam, but in practice, I think its clear that pastors, priests, and local ecumenicals regardless of title are the direct personifications of their church to their audience. Why else would we refer to it as their ministry? So in reality, despite the sophistry they use to justify it, and which the law recognizes to avoid conflict, anything a priest says in regards to politics is taken by their followers as having the full weight of her office and the faith behind it.
Posted by: Julian | May 15, 2008 10:11 AM
Julian says, "That may be true, Kehrsam, but in practice, I think its clear that pastors, priests, and local ecumenicals regardless of title are the direct personifications of their church to their audience. Why else would we refer to it as their ministry? So in reality, despite the sophistry they use to justify it, and which the law recognizes to avoid conflict, anything a priest says in regards to politics is taken by their followers as having the full weight of her office and the faith behind it."
Particularly when it is said from the pulpit! Now if Father Patrick happens to be shooting the breeze with his cronies at the bingo game, and mentions that he thinks that Barack is a right guy and he will probably vote for him, that's a different story.
Posted by: Elizabeth | May 16, 2008 8:48 PM
From McCain cuts ties with evangelists over extremist views in sermons (The Grauniad, 24th May), emphasis added:
One possible translation of the emphasized parts: McSame will suck up to anyone for votes, and disapproves of freedom of speech.
I--and I assume most everyone else--in no way shape or form agree with Hagee or Parsley, but I also think they have the right to vent their vile opinions, just as I and McCain have the right to disagree with and ignore them. McCain, however, doesn't think they have such a right, or at least not now after he's reported as admitting he made a mistake. (I also don't believe he didn't know--or perhaps more accurately, his campaign team didn't know--that the pair seem to be racist kooks, but am not aware of any evidence one way or the other just when McCain et al. knew what.)
Posted by: blf | May 24, 2008 3:06 AM