31 Responses to There isn't anything I could say on tonight's election…

  • Gerard E. says:

    Powerful, eloquent words by Jay. Preceded by offering from the prophet Chesterton. My disappointment at a McCain loss is tempered by the thought that our President-Elect may utterly overwhelmed at this time. By one faction after another crying me first Mr. President no me first Mr. President. By a House Speaker who when she sees him, views a giant rubber stamp instead. By world bad guys seeking an opportunity to test the new POTUS-Elect. Minus the help of a gumflapping VP who predicted- wished for?- such a confrontation on September 19. As for the pro-life movement- it survived the Disco 70s. It survived the weirdness of the Slick Willie years. It now has more, and greater support from our esteemed bishops than at any time since Roe v. Wade. The movement and the GOP will just have to learn from each other- to get leaner, tighter, more focused before 2012. No more McCains with minimal ideological underpinning. No more concessions. As Tom Peters notes on Americano Papist, hold the Kmiecs and Cafardis to account if FOCA or other abominations against the unborn become law, de facto or de jure. Let the wheat split from the chaff. Let us go underground, plan, lick wounds, pray. Always looks darkest before dawn. Future babies are counting on us.

  • rob says:

    -It now has more, and greater support from our esteemed bishops than at any time since Roe v. Wade-

    Good point! That really is wonderful isn’t it? The country may not feel like it is going in the right direction, but the Church is in awesome shape with these great new bishops.

  • Policraticus says:

    Kmiec, Iafrate, Policraticus… all there efforts to prevent a pro-life candidate to win the presidency, they will be held accountable.

    Wow, I didn’t know I was as well known and influential as Prof. Kmiec. But I’m curious as to who’s going to hold me accountable, why, and how. Am I to be held accountable for the election of a candidate for whom I did not even vote?

  • Mark DeFrancisis says:

    “But I’m curious as to who’s going to hold me accountable, why, and how.”

    Tito is starting an AmeriCatholic League, in order to try to outdo even Bill Donohue.

  • fus01 says:

    “Wow, I didn’t know I was as well known and influential as Prof. Kmiec.”

    You aren’t. But, if it makes you feel better, I would prefer you were. Of course, I also wish Prof. Kmiec hadn’t decided book sales, NYT/LAT op-eds, and being one of the cool kids was a good trade for intellectual integrity in support of the pro-life movement. Instead, he has repeatedly used his status as a ‘Catholic’ to further his professional reputation. while advancing variations on Maro Cuomo’s ‘personally opposed’ stance to abortion. You, at least, have the integrity to call a spade a spade – Obama has promised to be a disaster for the pro-life movement. My hope is that it is about as reliable as his other campaign promises: not very.

  • blackadderiv says:

    I see little sense in trying to “hold people accountable” for their votes. If a person comes to view a prior vote for Obama with regret or decides not to vote for a similar candidate in the future, this is all to the good, but I do not thinking that being hectored about such votes by third parties is going to make Obama voters any more likely to do this.

  • fus01 says:

    Agreed BA, particularly with regard to Poli. As for Kmiec, I think it is important to point out that the ‘personally opposed’ line of argumentation he advanced is incompatible with Catholic teaching. Kmiec’s argument below is likely to be used again…and again…and again, and we should point out that it is inconsistent with the Church’s commitment to protecting human life:

    “Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space. This does not, of course, leave the right to life undecided or unprotected. Nor for that matter does the reservation of space for individual determination usurp for Caesar the things that are God’s, or vice versa. Rather, it allows this sensitive moral decision to depend on religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual’s voluntary embrace of one of many faiths.”

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kmiec17-2008oct17,0,2107469.story

  • j. christian says:

    Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively.

    On many matters I’d agree with that statement, but abortion is different. It’s the direct killing of another human life, and that is not defensible under the guise of pluralism.

  • Agreed BA, particularly with regard to Poli. As for Kmiec, I think it is important to point out that the ‘personally opposed’ line of argumentation he advanced is incompatible with Catholic teaching. Kmiec’s argument below is likely to be used again…and again…and again, and we should point out that it is inconsistent with the Church’s commitment to protecting human life.

    It’s also important to point out that neither Poli (who did not vote Obama) nor I (who did) agrees with the “personally opposed” line of reasoning pushed by Kmiec, Biden, Kerry, etc. I reject it.

    I don’t expect folks like Tito are capable of making such distinctions, though, and will carelessly continue to lump together everyone who did not vote for McCain and/or everyone who defended those Catholics who chose to vote for Obama.

  • Tito Edwards says:

    Michael I.,

    Stop with the backhanded insults.

    I said you all should be held accountable for swaying Catholics away from voting pro-life for the way you all twist Catholic teaching.

    Don’t commit calumny my friend.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    Opponents of abortion voting for the most pro-abortion president in our nation’s history is akin to advocates of civil rights back in the 60′s voting for George Wallace. Obviously Catholic Anarchist the struggle to make abortion illegal is very low on your list of priorities.

    And now we all get to be complicit in abortion through funding it since the candidate you voted for even opposes the Hyde amendment.

    “Does Sen. Obama support the Hyde amendment? Under what circumstances does he believe that Medicaid should cover abortions (all pregnancies, life- or health-threatening pregnancies, pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest, extreme fetal malformation)?

    Obama does not support the Hyde amendment. He believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman’s decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.”

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/12/21/sen-barack-obamas-reproductive-health-questionnaire

    With pro-lifers like you Catholic Anarchist, who needs pro-aborts?

  • Tito

    I did not insult you. You are obviously not able to make distinctions because you made none.

    I said you all should be held accountable for swaying Catholics away from voting pro-life for the way you all twist Catholic teaching.

    I didn’t sway anyone to vote any way at all. I did not endorse Obama or encourage anyone to vote Obama. What I did was tell the truth about both candidates. I shared my own reflections on whether or not I was going to vote and why I chose to vote. And I indeed voted pro-life. I am not pro-choice. That you continue to imply that I am shows you to be a liar or tremendously stupid.

    As usual, Donald is not worth a reply.

  • Michael,

    You may not like Tito, but when you say “I don’t expect folks like Tito are capable of making such distinctions” you are indeed delivering a “backhanded insults”.

    And I indeed voted pro-life. I am not pro-choice. That you continue to imply that I am shows you to be a liar or tremendously stupid.

    You certainly may not yourself be pro-choice, but it would not be accurate to say that you “voted pro-life”. You voted for a rabidly pro-choice candidate. Your intentions are your own, but your vote itself is pretty objective.

    Come now, would you honestly take someone seriously who said, “I have consistently voted against war, torture and capital punishment when voting for Bush as president and governor”? So don’t expect others to take your contention seriously.

  • I voted for a pro-choice candidate. But I voted pro-life.

    Let us understand our terms the way the Church understands them. Just for once. Can you do that for me?

    I don’t believe the Church formally uses the term “vote pro-life” at all, so I’m not clear what you mean.

    The Church teaches that you are not necessarily guilty of personally supporting abortion because of your vote — though I think any reasonable understanding of the Church’s teaching and the realities of the country at this time would clearly indicate you made an imprudent choice.

    However, a vote is simply a vote — an expression of preference that one particular candidate be the one (of the options given) to hold office. You chose that it was (for whatever reasons you managed to convince yourself of) better that pro-aborts run our government at least until the midterm elections. You voted pro-choice.

  • fus01 says:

    “I voted for a pro-choice candidate. But I voted pro-life.”

    You may have voted pro-choice with a hope that it would advance pro-life interests broadly understood, but you voted pro-choice. Voting for pro-choice candidates is voting pro-choice, regardless of your subjective intention. You can advance an argument about how you intended it to be ‘pro-life’ vote in a broad sense, however it must be acknowledged that this broad sense included supporting politicians who have pledged to defend and expand pro-choice policies.

  • Tito Edwards says:

    Michael I.,

    Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Woe to you that rue wise in your own eyes, and prudent in your own conceits.

    – Isaiah 5:20-21

  • Edward P. Koubek says:

    “I voted for a pro-choice candidate. But I voted pro-life.” Michael Iafrate

    Wow…this is definitely my new favorite quote. Wow.

    He’s got a point though. Voting for a guy who is okay with 6.3 million + babies being murdered legally since the beginning of the Iraq War is voting pro-life.

    Voting for a guy who voted that a baby may be left to die even when they survive an abortion attempt is voting pro-life.

    Speaking up for and praying for the unborn definitely means voting for the most pro-abort candidate in history. He makes a great point.

    Voting for a spokesperson of Planned Parenthood is voting pro-life.

    I wish the rest of you guys could just see this truth and understand.

    Solid quote. That’s definitely one I would only expect from a Saint, haha. Priceless.

    I guess when Obama signs the Freedom of Choice Act we can all get our “I voted pro-life/ Obama” signs out and hold them high in the air for everyone to see.

    Quote of the month. Solid.

  • Edward P. Koubek says:

    “I voted for a pro-choice candidate. But I voted pro-life.”

    I couldn’t help but say it one more time just for fun. Woo, i’m really Catholic now, haha.

  • S.B. says:

    The Church uses “pro-life” to mean, at a minimum, people who oppose abortion. Obama doesn’t oppose abortion. Therefore, Obama is not “pro-life.” The best case you could make is that Obama was somehow better on other issues tangentially affecting “life” in a way that supposedly outweighed abortion, but that doesn’t suffice to make Obama truly “pro-life.”

    Therefore, you did not vote “pro-life,” and it is a delusional lie to suggest that you did.

  • Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Woe to you that rue wise in your own eyes, and prudent in your own conceits.

    – Isaiah 5:20-21

    Tito: I did not call abortion “good.” Abortion is evil.

    The Church uses “pro-life” to mean, at a minimum, people who oppose abortion. Obama doesn’t oppose abortion. Therefore, Obama is not “pro-life.” The best case you could make is that Obama was somehow better on other issues tangentially affecting “life” in a way that supposedly outweighed abortion, but that doesn’t suffice to make Obama truly “pro-life.”

    Therefore, you did not vote “pro-life,” and it is a delusional lie to suggest that you did.

    Then it is likewise delusional for you to claim that you voted “pro-life” when you voted for John McCain. Neither candidate was truly “pro-life” in the Church’s understanding of the term. Do we really have to have this discussion again? Why distort what the Church says about the meaning of “pro-life”? Why reduce it to a mere sliver of its meaning? Ah, I know! Political convenience. Neat and tidy categories that keep your soul clean and in the clear.

    When I say “I voted pro-life” I am saying that I brought the Church’s teaching on the dignity of human life — in its fullness — to bear on my decision. I am aware that Obama is pro-choice and not pro-life in the fullest sense. Indeed, he is glaringly not pro-life on a very basic level. But so is John McCain whose policies on stem cell research and so many other issues are conveniently cast aside in your moral calculus. I guess some embryos are less important than others to you?

  • S.B. says:

    Then it is likewise delusional for you to claim that you voted “pro-life” when you voted for John McCain.

    That too is a delusional strawman on your part: I didn’t claim that I voted pro-life by voting for McCain. In fact, I didn’t even vote at all. You’re the only one distorting “what the Church says about the meaning of ‘pro-life’” by trying to claim that a vote for Obama was “pro-life.”

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .