New Catholic Church Scandal Brewing Over Abuse Cover Up

Cardinal Gerhard Muller - guilty of systematic sexual abuse cover up?

With the Academy Awards in less than three weeks and the movie Spotlight up for best picture (if you have not seen the movie, it is a MUST see), the last thing the Roman Catholic Church needs is yet more high profile sex abuse cover up news stories.  But that seems to be what may be about to burst loose with Cardinal Gerhard Müller (pictured above), the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a/k/a, the Inquisition, implicated in the systematic cover up of sexual abuse of children and youths while he was bishop of Regensburg.  Pope Francis gives mealy mouthed apologies yet this will be another cardinal who has faced no discipline for his misdeeds and suffered no consequences.  Religion Dispatches looks at this brewing bombshell.  Here are excerpts:

Fast on the heels of the news that a Bavarian boys choir directed by Pope Benedict’s brother was a hotbed of physical and sexual abuse for decades, comes the allegation that Cardinal Gerhard Müller covered up the abuse when he was the bishop of Regensburg.

According to the National Catholic Reporter, the allegation is being made by the former head of the lay diocesan council in Regensburg, Germany, who said that Müller and a deputy “systematically” covered up the abuse, disbanded the diocesan council to thwart outside investigation, and installed at least one known abuser priest in a parish who then committed more acts of abuse.

Müller has served as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the second most powerful position in the Vatican, since 2012 and has emerged as one of the most outspoken opponents of Pope Francis’ efforts to modernize church practices around marriage and divorce and the treatment of gay Catholics.

He also oversaw the disciplining of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) for its supposed disobedience to the Vatican and was widely criticized for the public dressing down he gave the nuns in 2014.

If the allegations hold up, Müller will be the third prefect of the CDF to be accused of turning a blind eye to reports of sexual abuse. Benedict has been accused of allowing serial abuser Father Marcial Maciel to hold an exalted position in the church for decades while he was prefect of the CDF despite credible charges of abuse.

Cardinal William Joseph Levada, who held the position after Benedict, came under fire for how he handled charges of abuse when he was the bishop of Portland and San Francisco. Like Benedict, who was given a report on Maciel that he disregarded, Levada reportedly received a brief in the mid-1980s from a three-priest panel on the brewing U.S. abuse scandal that he ignored.

And like Müller, who said in 2012 that responsibility for sexual abuse lay only with the perpetrators, Levada denied that bishops had “aided and abetted” abuse by failing to remove abusers or moving them from parish to parish. Eventually, the diocese of Portland that Levada headed for nearly a decade was the first to declare bankruptcy because of the magnitude of abuse suits it had to settle.

What does it mean for the church that the last three heads of the CDF have been implicated in covering up sexual abuse at a time when Pope Francis has promised transparency on the issue? 


And what does it mean for the sex-related doctrine guarded so ferociously by the CDF, doctrine on everything from birth control to women priests to marriage, that  has been overseen for the past 35 years by a succession of men whose vigorous defense of doctrinal orthodoxy may be directly proportionate to their need to deny the reality of sexual deviance within the church?

"Marcobot" Struggles to Find His Footing

Things seemingly have been going to Hell in a hand basket for Marco Rubio over the last week.  Rubio started out the past week cocky after a 3rd place finish in Iowa. Perhaps it was a case of pride going before fall.  For icing on the cake, Northern Virginia lunatic and gad fly Eugene Delgaudio is (pictured above) now assailing Rubio accusing him of being part of the "Homosexual Lobby" in light of Rubio's  support from pro-gay billionaire Paul Singer.  A piece in Politico looks at Rubio's possibly tettering campaign.  Here are excerpts:

He was supposed to be giving Donald Trump a run for his money. Instead, Marco Rubio could be on the verge of blowing it.

With just hours before New Hampshire begins voting, Rubio looked dead on his feet, delivering the “low-energy” performance Trump has so effectively attached to Jeb Bush. 

We face a critical moment,” Rubio told a group of more than two-dozen BAE employees. “I tell anyone who will listen, 2016 will be a turning point for America.”

New Hampshire could be a turning point in his candidacy, as well.

Rubio was expected to finish second here, propelled by a strong third-place showing in Iowa. His biggest goal — trounce Jeb Bush and force some of the establishment lane candidates to drop out in order to consolidate support and poach donors from other camps.

But after a week of getting repeatedly beaten up — first by his Republican opponents for giving a canned stump speech and not engaging with the press, and then for his dismal debate performance Saturday — it’s unclear he’ll be able to best Sen. Ted Cruz or the cadre of governors like John Kasich, who have spent significant time campaigning here.

And the donors who had been looking favorably at Rubio's camp have become less enthusiastic after his debate performance Saturday, when he froze up and awkwardly repeated one of his talking points on President Barack Obama's agenda to change the country.

Excuse me if I refrain from getting out a tiny violin for Marco.

Monday Morning Male Beauty

The GOP - the Time Loop Party

If one watches and listens to the Republican presidential candidates, you can close your eyes and in many respects what you hear being said bears little difference from what one heard 36 years ago.  Other than tax rates, the goal is to return to the 1950's or perhaps early 1960's before the country began to rapidly change with both the sexual revolution and the acceleration of a much more diverse demographics.  That world is gone forever, yet the GOP continues to cling to the same mantras that have been proven wrong by experience and objective fact over and over ago.  A column in the New York Times looks at this disconnect from reality which seemingly is only getting worse as the GOP increasingly looks as if it is one huge insane asylum.  Here are column excerpts:

By now everyone who follows politics knows about Marco Rubio’s software-glitch performance in Saturday’s Republican debate. . . . .  Not only did he respond to a challenge from Chris Christie about his lack of achievements by repeating, verbatim, the same line from his stump speech he had used a moment earlier; when Mr. Christie mocked his canned delivery, he repeated the same line yet again.

In other news, last week — on Groundhog Day, to be precise — Republicans in the House of Representatives cast what everyone knew was a purely symbolic, substance-free vote to repeal Obamacare. It was the 63rd time they’ve done so.

Mr. Rubio’s inability to do anything besides repeat canned talking points was startling. Worse, it was funny, which means that it has gone viral. And it reinforced the narrative that he is nothing but an empty suit. But really, isn’t everyone in his party doing pretty much the same thing, if not so conspicuously?

The truth is that the whole G.O.P. seems stuck in a time loop, saying and doing the same things over and over. And unlike Bill Murray’s character in the movie “Groundhog Day,” Republicans show no sign of learning anything from experience.

Think about the doctrines every Republican politician now needs to endorse, on pain of excommunication.

First, there’s the ritual denunciation of Obamacare as a terrible, very bad, no good, job-killing law. Did I mention that it kills jobs? Strange to say, this line hasn’t changed at all despite the fact that we’ve gained 5.7 million private-sector jobs since January 2014, which is when the Affordable Care Act went into full effect.

Then there’s the assertion that taxing the rich has terrible effects on economic growth, and conversely that tax cuts at the top can be counted on to produce an economic miracle.

This doctrine was tested more than two decades ago, when Bill Clinton raised tax rates on high incomes; Republicans predicted disaster, but what we got was the economy’s best run since the 1960s.

Oh, and there’s also the spectacular failure of the Kansas experiment, where huge tax cuts have created a budget crisis without delivering any hint of the promised economic miracle.

But Republican faith in tax cuts as a universal economic elixir has, if anything, grown stronger, with Mr. Rubio, in particular, going even further than the other candidates by promising to eliminate all taxes on capital gains.

Meanwhile, on foreign policy the required G.O.P. position has become one of utter confidence in the effectiveness of military force. How did that work in Iraq? Never mind: The only reason anybody in the world fails to do exactly what America wants must be because our leadership is lily-livered if not treasonous. And diplomacy, no matter how successful, is denounced as appeasement.

So how did this happen to the G.O.P.? In a direct sense, I suspect that it has a lot to do with Foxification, the way Republican primary voters live in a media bubble into which awkward facts can’t penetrate. But there must be deeper causes behind the creation of that bubble. 

[Rubio] he wasn’t the only person on that stage spouting canned talking points that are divorced from reality. They all were, even if the other candidates managed to avoid repeating themselves word for word.

As I note repeatedly, one of the deeper causes of the descent of the GOP into insanity is the party's embrace of the Christofascists - who are by definition living utterly detached from reality.  That sickness has now spread across the GOP as sane and rational people have fled the party and ugly elements such as white supremacists have replaced them. 

Ted Cruz’s Christian Dominionist Vision for America

At times it is difficult to decide which of the Republican presidential candidates poses the most frightening threat to America and religious freedom for all in particular.  But, as a piece in the Washington Post lays out, the prize may go to Ted Cruz who is not only borderline repulsive to look at, but also harbors very anti-democratic Christian Dominionist views.   Dominionist like Cruz want nothing more that an overthrow of the United States Constitution and its replacement by a Christian theocracy with, of course, the Dominionists making all of the rules. It is no accident that in Iowa Cruz garnered the endorsement of every extreme right wing Christian organization, a number of which are registered hate groups.  Here in Virginia he will likely get the backing of The Family Foundation, another Dominionist organization that has strong white supremacist undercurrents.  Think of the religious extremism of the Puritans on steroids and that gives a hint of what Cruz and company want to impose on America.  Here are column highlights:

Now that Ted Cruz has an Iowa victory under his belt, it is time to take a deeper look at his Christian approach to politics. What is his real vision for America? Cruz likes to talk about “taking back” or “reclaiming” the United States. What does he mean by this?

Cruz’s shoe leather campaign in Iowa targeted the state’s large number of evangelical Christians. But not all evangelicals are the same.

Donald Trump appeals mostly to those connected with the Christian prosperity movement, a form of evangelicalism that celebrates the accumulation of wealth as a sign of God’s blessing.

Marco Rubio appeals to suburban, educated, middle- and upper-middle-class evangelicals. These evangelicals normally avoid the Pentecostal prayer meetings of the prosperity crowd and change the channel when televangelists show up on their big screens.

Cruz resonates with the evangelical culture warriors. He mixes what New York Times columnist David Brooks describes as political “brutalism” with a belief that he is engaged in a fight with the devil for the soul of the nation. It is only a matter of time before Cruz assumes the role of the Old Testament prophet Elijah and tries to cast down fire from heaven to destroy the “prophets of Baal” who oppose his campaign.

When Cruz says he wants to “reclaim” or “restore” America, he does not only have the Obama administration in mind. This agenda takes him much deeper into the American past. Cruz wants to “restore” the United States to what he believes is its original identity: a Christian nation. . . . .
That is why he has David Barton on his side.

For several decades Barton has been a GOP activist with a political mission to make the United States a Christian nation again. He runs “Keep the Promise,” a multimillion-dollar Cruz super-PAC. He’s one of Cruz’s most trusted advisers.

He writes books and hosts radio and television shows designed to convince evangelicals and anyone else who will listen that America was once a Christian nation and needs to be one again. But his work on the history of the American founding has been discredited by historians, many of whom are his fellow evangelicals. This does not seem to stop him.  

Barton’s work is an important part of Cruz’s larger theological and political campaign to take back America. If Barton can prove that the United States was once a Christian republic, then Cruz will have the historical argument he needs to sustain his narrative of American decline.

Anyone who has watched Cruz on the stump knows that he often references the important role that his father, traveling evangelist Rafael Cruz, has played in his life. During a 2012 sermon at New Beginnings Church in Bedford, Texas, Rafael Cruz described his son’s political campaign as a direct fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

The elder Cruz told the congregation that God would anoint Christian “kings” to preside over an “end-time transfer of wealth” from the wicked to the righteous.
According to his father and Huch, Ted Cruz is anointed by God to help Christians in their effort to “go to the marketplace and occupy the land ... and take dominion” over it. This “end-time transfer of wealth” will relieve Christians of all financial woes, allowing true believers to ascend to a position of political and cultural power in which they can build a Christian civilization. When this Christian nation is in place (or back in place), Jesus will return.

Rafael Cruz and Larry Huch preach a brand of evangelical theology called Seven Mountains Dominionism. They believe Christians must take dominion over seven aspects of culture: family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government.
Seven Mountains Dominionism is the spiritual fuel that motors Cruz’s campaign for president.
Cruz wants to defund Planned Parenthood because it threatens the traditional Christian understanding of the family, one of the seven “mountains.”

When Cruz talks about the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, he almost always discusses it in the context of persecution against Christians, such as Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis.

He is not interested in crafting new models of American pluralism to respond to the country’s ever-growing religious diversity. Rather, religious liberty is a code word for defending the right of Christians to continue to hold cultural authority and privilege.

Cruz’s approach to politics is inseparable from this theology. His goal is to lead a Christian occupation of the culture and then wait for the Second Coming of Christ.

These people - and Cruz - are very, very scary.

New York State Bans "Gay Conversion Therapy"

New York State joins the list of states that have banned fraudulent, witch doctor-like "conversion therapy" or "reparative therapy" for those under age 18.  The bogus practice is peddled by the professional Christian crowd and charlatans as both a lucrative money making scheme and to keep the myth alive that gays can "change" their sexual orientation. A bill that would have made conversion therapy illegal in Virginia has been tabled by Republicans in the GOP controlled House of Delegates no doubt at the demands of The Family Foundation, Virginia's leading hate group.  Here are details from Huffington Post:

New York state will bar health insurance coverage of therapy aimed at changing the sexual or gender orientation of young people, Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Saturday, decrying the practice as "misguided" and "intolerant."

Top U.S. health officials have long discredited so-called "conversion therapy," saying attempts to change lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth are unethical and often harmful.

"Conversion therapy is a hateful and fundamentally flawed practice that is counter to everything this state stands for," Cuomo said in a statement. "We will not allow the misguided and the intolerant to punish LGBT young people for simply being who they are."

As of August 2015, four U.S. states and the District of Columbia have already banned therapies that seek to "convert" minors, according to a report released in October by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Another 21 states and the U.S. Congress have considered or are considering bans, the report said.

Under New York's new regulations, the state would bar private and public health insurers from paying for coverage for conversion therapy to a person under the age of 18.

Additionally, the state's Medicaid program, which provides health coverage to the poor, will not cover the practice, and the New York State Office of Mental Health will prohibit facilities under its jurisdiction from providing the treatment to minors.

Quacks like Michelle Bachmann's closeted husband make fortunes preying on religiously brainwashed gays and/or their parents.  Conversion therapy needs to be banned nationwide and authorities need to crack down on bogus "ministries" that peddle the dangerous lie that one can "pray away the gay."  I tried for 37 years and it is utter bullshit!

Sunday Male Beauty

Why Are the Deeply Religious So Obsessed with Sex?

One thing that binds right wing evangelical Protestants and right wing Roman Catholics is their obsession with all things sexual - especially sex that involves pleasure.  A piece in Salon has excerpts

from the book "The Illusion of God's Presence" that looks at looks at religion's obsession with sex.

One of the book's conclusions is that  the deeply religious suffer from what might be called stunted emotional development - infantile emotions, if you will.  This explains not only their obsession with sex which on the one hand they view as vile and dirty even as they desperately want to indulge in it, but also their fear of thinking for themselves and a desire to be able to "check off the boxes" to prove their future in Heaven.  The end result is a schizophrenic approach to sex where while condemning sex and matters sexual, both the Catholic clergy and conservative Protestant clergy engage in much higher than average levels of sexual abuse and infidelity.  Here are highlights:

Why does the creator of this infinitely vast universe care so much about what we do with our sexual organs as adults? Why is lust considered sinful? Why was Jesus born of a virgin, and, according to Catholics, his mother also? Why did the early Shakers not only practice celibacy, but also dance naked? Why do religious fundamentalists oppose not only abortion, but also the most effective means of pre­venting it, contraception? Why do televangelists rant about the evils of adultery, pornography, masturbation, fornication, and homosexuality, only to be caught with their pants down doing exactly those things? Why is religion so obsessed with sex?

As the core of a believer’s religious love of God, the innate model colors religious experience with infantile emotions. The more intensely pious the believer becomes, however, the greater the risk that these emotions will spill over into other parts of the evolutionary hack. The sparks really fly when the infantile emotions of religious fervor breach the levee and pour into sexual territory.

Perhaps this is to be expected, considering that novitiates are told that their celibate life to come is the price paid for the privilege of being wedded to Christ. But celibate nuns are not the only ones whose image of God is painted in sexual hues. . . .

The big problem here is that, despite this intrusion of the sexual, religious emotion remains primarily infantile, with God normally in the role of a greatly exalted parent. Sexual feelings for this parental figure therefore activate the incest-avoidance system, an innate mechanism that generates feelings of disgust and revulsion at the prospect of sex with close kin. . . .  The predictable result of this conflict is an obsession with controlling or prohib­iting sexual behavior, coupled with an almost irresistible drive to violate those prohibitions. How these people deal with this conflict—as individuals and as religious institutions—determines the variously entertaining or tragic manifestations of sexual obsession in religion.

If these ideas are right, then we should expect sexual misbehavior among the clergy to be significantly greater than in comparable secular professions, and several studies bear this out. Two surveys of predominantly male American Protestant ministers found that more than 12 percent of respondents admitted to having sexual intercourse with a member of their congregation other than their spouse. This is roughly double the incidence of sexual intercourse with clients committed by male clinical psychologists and physicians. The studies also hint at a more general problem of sexual conflict, guilt, and obsession. One of them found that 37 percent of Protestant ministers admit to the vague sin of “sexual behavior inappropriate for a minister.” Responses to other questions in the study suggest that at least some of these transgressions involve sexual fantasy, viewing pornography, and masturbating in private—acts of negligible consequence or moral weight in the broader society.

The pastors, however, see it differently. Their religiously warped view of human sexuality is especially evident in “The War Within,” an account of one Protestant pastor’s tormented struggle with lust, published anonymously in a journal for Protestant clergy. Although he was married and regularly had sex with his wife, the author tells a sad tale of his obsession with various aspects of sexuality off-limits to good Christians. . . . He mentions only in passing a “repressed childhood” that may have contributed to his obsession with lust, but beyond that glimmer of insight he appears utterly blinded by his religious worldview to the essence of his problem: lust is healthy and normal, but a religious obsession with it is not. “

The most obvious culprit here is the Catholic obsession with the sinfulness of sex for pleasure, especially homosexual sex, along with a peculiar sexual proscrip­tion for clergy: celibacy. Intentionally or not, the celibate priesthood specifically attracts applicants who are at best confused or conflicted about their sexuality, and at worst deliberately seek positions conducive to sexual exploitation of the vulnerable. . . . . Aside from being an ineffec­tive sham, the doctrine of celibacy for the priesthood apparently attracts young Catholic homosexual men, either as a means of suppressing a sexual orientation they perceive as evil, or—in certain Catholic subcultures—as a safe venue for hooking up with other gays.

That struggle takes a darker turn among Catholic clergy, who are disproportionately likely to sexually abuse vulnerable children and adolescents. Catholic apol­ogists deny this, often citing a study that found that only 4 percent of Catholic priests sexually abuse minors. They argue that this is the same as in the general male population, implicitly suggesting that there is no special relationship between Catholicism and the sexual abuse of children. There are, however, several problems with this rationalization. One is that other studies find higher rates of child sexual abuse in the Catholic clergy, over 5 percent, and even that is likely to be an underes­timate given the reluctance of victims to come forward and the intense effort by the Catholic hierarchy to protect offending priests and cover up the scandal. Another problem is the specious comparison to the general male population. The Catholic Church claims to be a high moral authority—God’s representative on Earth—and its clergy are supposedly transformed by God into a special state of sanctity. If this were true, we should expect exemplary behavior from Catholic priests, especially with respect to the sexual abuse of innocent children, one of the most odious crimes imaginable.

If the Catholic Church really were what it claims to be, the incidence of child sexual abuse by priests should be zero.

These insights suggest some obvious fixes for the problem of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy:

·        drop the requirement of celibacy;

·        allow women into the priesthood;

·        eliminate the ritual of confession for children and adolescents;

·        accept homosexuality as a natural dimension of human sexuality.

Thus, the ultimate irony is that those who are the most screwed up emotionally and in terms of normal sexual/psychological want to be the ones to advise and control others in all things sexual.  It's like putting the patients in control of the insane asylum. 

Crystal Cruises Signs Option to Resurrect S.S. United States

Concept rendering of the resurrected S.S. United States

I have always loved ships and the husband and I love to cruise - we have booked another cruise for this coming October which will take us to the Bahamas, Dominican Republic and Grand Turk.  Years ago before it was moved to Philadelphia to languish I had the privilege of being aboard the S.S. United States.  Even in severe disrepair the ship was impressive.  Adding to local interest is that the ship - still the fastest liner ever built - was build just a few miles from where I sit at Newport News Ship Building.  Now, in what will hopefully lead to a full resurrection of the S.S. United States, Crystal Cruises has signed an option to buy the ship and transform it into a luxury liner once more.  Here are highlights from Conde Nast Traveler:

It wasn't that long ago that we made the bold claim that "Crystal Cruises may change cruising as we know it"—and it looks like the luxury cruise line isn't slacking. On the heels of an announcement that it plans to pivot the brand from a cruise-only company of two ships to a veritable lifestyle fleet of ocean, river, and small ships, Crystal also just signed a deal to resurrect the famed S.S. United States—once the fastest, largest, and at times, most glamorous passenger ships ever built in America—as a 400-suite, 800-guest ocean liner.

"It will be a very challenging undertaking, but we are determined to apply the dedication and innovation that has always been the ship’s hallmark,” Crystal President and CEO Edie Rodriguez said in a statement. Crystal Cruises will work with the S.S. United States Conservancy to conduct a technical feasibility study this year, to see how much work will be required to bring the 64-year-old ship up to modern standards; Crystal says it will cover all costs associated with the preservation. When the ship made its debut in 1952, it was a $70+ million beauty, more than 100 feet longer than the Titanic and the ship of choice for the glitterati, everyone from Marlon Brando to Prince Rainier and Grace Kelly. But it was retired abruptly in 1969, and has been docked (and seemingly doomed for the junkyard) on the Delaware River in Philadelphia.

[T]he United States’s mid-century modernism both influenced and helped popularize a newer, fresher, more forward-looking aesthetic.  

So why the need for speed? Per the S.S. United States Conservancy, the S.S. United States was developed to be a "super ship" as part of a Cold War–era Pentagon project; it could transform into a troop carrier, "able to transport 15,000 military service members 10,000 [nautical] miles without refueling" and reach 38 knots, or 44 miles per hour, at sea.  

When the S.S. United States sails again, it will join Cunard’s RMS Queen Mary 2 as the only true ocean liners still on the waves. 

GOP Debate: Marco Rubio Was a Disaster

I will confess that I did not watch the Republican debate last night.  Instead the husband and I co-hosted a Mardi Gras themed party at our home as a post-wedding couple that were adore.  Suffice it to say that I feel as wrung out as I used to feel after Mardi Gras festivities in Mobile, Alabama - the home of America's first and longest running Mardi Gras celebration - years ago.  By all accounts, I missed an epic take down of Marco Rubio by Chris Christie.  I view Rubio in someways as dangerous as Ted Cruz when it comes to his extremism and frightening references to religion.  There is a great run down of the Rubio/Christie exchange at Slate.  Here are some highlights:

Sen. Marco Rubio is a gifted politician and talented communicator. But he’s faced a repeated attack in his six years on the national stage—that his smooth charisma conceals a man of little substance. That, on a fundamental level, he’s not ready for the Oval Office. And on Saturday night, Rubio gave substance to the charge in a remarkable exchange with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at the eighth Republican presidential debate.

It began with a question. The moderators asked Rubio to list accomplishments in his record that have prepared him for the presidency. Rubio cited work on foreign policy and issues such as veterans affairs before moving to well-worn rhetoric meant to counter these experience questions by tweaking a popular conservative notion about Barack Obama. “Let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing,” he said. “He knows exactly what he’s doing. 
Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world.”

And in this implicit analogy, Rubio is the Republican Barack Obama who will make a “systematic effort” to make America unique again. “When I’m president of the United States,” he continued, “we are going to re-embrace all the things that made America the greatest nation in the world, and we are going to leave our children with what they deserve: the single greatest nation in the history of the world.”

It’s a good line, designed for applause. But this time, Rubio had pushback, in the form of Christie.

Behind in national polls and struggling for air in a crowded field, Christie has focused on his experience—as an executive—to make the case to New Hampshire voters and Republicans nationwide. And against Rubio’s disdain for experience, he scoffed. “You have not been involved in a consequential decision where you had to be held accountable,” Christie said. “You just simply haven’t. And the fact is—when you talk about the Hezbollah sanctions act that you list as one of your accomplishments, you weren’t even there to vote for it. That’s not leadership. That’s truancy.” He finished with a swipe. “I like Marco Rubio, and he’s a smart person and a good guy, but he simply does not have the experience to be president of the United States.”

In this debate, the candidates could respond to one another, and Rubio countered with a swipe at Christie’s record on fiscal management, accusing the governor of worsening New Jersey’s debt problem. And then he did something strange. He slipped back into his line about Obama.

“But I would add this,” Rubio said. “Let’s dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is trying to change this country. He wants America to become more like the rest of the world,” ending in the same place he had finished just a few minutes earlier.

Immediately, Christie pounced, locking eyes with the camera as he slammed Rubio for the strange repetition.

“You see, everybody, I want the people at home to think about this—this is what Washington, D.C., does,” said Christie. “The drive-by shot at the beginning with incorrect and incomplete information, and then the memorized 25-second speech that is exactly what his advisers gave him.” He continued, moving from a body slam to a pile drive. “See, Marco, the thing is this: When you’re president of the United States, when you are a governor of a state, the memorized 30-second speech where you talk about how great America is doesn’t solve one problem for one person. They expect you to plow the snow. They expect you to get the schools open. And when the worst natural disaster in your state’s history hits you, they expect you to rebuild their state, which is what I’ve done. None of that stuff happens on the floor of the United State Senate.”

Rubio tried to respond. He tried to jab Christie for his absence from New Jersey from the storm. But his hits wouldn’t land. He was too flustered.

At this point, Rubio could have ended the exchange with silence. Instead, he went back to his talking points. He repeated himself about Obama.

Christie cut him off. “There it is! There it is. The memorized 25-second speech. There it is, everybody.” The fight was over. Rubio was shook. Later in the night, Rubio would fall into that rhetoric again, unable to break from his stump speech.

Eventually, aided with questions on foreign policy, Rubio recovered. But even with a strong finish, it’s hard to say he ended in a good place. Rubio didn’t just embarrass himself; he undermined the core argument for his campaign—that we overrate experience and underrate vision and resolve. And worse, it was on video: a short clip to show on news networks or cut into a negative advertisement. “Rubio’s repeat” will have a long life on daytime cable and late night comedy, an awkward, brutal, cringeworthy display of political failure.

Rubio needed a win on Saturday. He needed to show Republicans that Iowa wasn’t a fluke, that he could consolidate support and charge ahead of Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz. Instead, at best, he gave a mixed performance, with good answers overshadowed by one of the most uncomfortable moments of the entire Republican debate season.

It’s far too much to say that it will cost him the nomination. But it could push him down the ladder in New Hampshire and create renewed chaos in the nomination fight, as candidates such as Jeb Bush, Christie, and Gov. John Kasich rise, and Trump—largely unscathed—holds his spot on top.