Remember Catholics for Kerry?

eric-mcfadden2

Hattip to Jay Anderson at Pro Ecclesia and The Catholic Report.  Eric McFadden was the founder of Catholics for Kerry, a group which proudly proclaimed that Catholics should support John Kerry notwithstanding his support for abortion.

After the election McFadden went on to bigger and better things when he was appointed by Ted Strickland, pro-abort Democrat governor of Ohio, in February 2007 to head the Ohio Office of Faith Based Initiatives.

McFadden resigned from that position in October of 2007. 

McFadden also served as head of Catholic outreach for the Clinton campaign in 2008.  And here we have him making the first comment in this thread, carrying water for pro-abort Obama.

Then we have McFadden writing a public letter attacking Supreme Knight Carl Anderson of the Knights of Columbus for reminding Catholics that Obama and Biden hold views on abortion diametrically opposed to the Catholic Church.

Yesterday he was arrested and charged with running a prostitution ring for 6 years in Columbus, Ohio.

You know, try as I might I am having a hard time being shocked by this story.  After continually attempting to rally support for pro-aborts running for the highest office in the land, and doing so under the banner of a Church that views abortion as an abomination, being involved in prostitution during the same time period doesn’t seem like that big of a step to me.

Update 1:  Cue the “It’s a small world after all” theme.  McFadden did an interview with Doug Kmiec last year.

Update 2:  Disturbing allegations regarding McFadden from blogger Carol McKinley.

Update 3:  Hattip again to the ever eagle-eyed Jay Anderson of Pro-Ecclesia:

Geniuses at The Huffington Post see the words “faith-based” and assume McFadden is a Republican. The original post said “Ohio GOPer Arrested for Running Hooker-Review Site”. Upon learning of their mistake, however, the title was changed to “Ohio Pol Arrested for Running Hooker-Review Site”. Got that? NOT “Ohio Dem”, but “Ohio Pol”.

Be sure to read the comments, which are a hoot. They all pretty much take on the tone of “Another Republican Christianist hypocrite … Oh, wait. You mean he’s one of ours? Never mind. Prostitution should be legal anyway.””

Update 4:  Jay Anderson at Pro Ecclesia stays on top of this story with more from blogger Carol McKinley detailing contacts she says that she had with members of the staff of Governor Strickland of Ohio regarding Eric McFadden.

41 Responses to Remember Catholics for Kerry?

  • Donald,

    Respectfully, I think there is an enormous difference between deciding that Obama/Kerry/Clinton is the lesser of two evils, and being involved in a prostitution ring.

    Of course, there is a difference between doing a ‘lesser of two evils’ analysis, and attacking the Knights of Columbus while serving as head of Catholic outreach. But I think it would be better not to imply a link between that and running a prostitution ring either.

    It is a disappointment and a scandal that this Catholic guy (who apparently was fairly well-known, although I had never heard of him) was involved in this, and the post almost suggests that you are trying to use it to score points. I do not want to accuse you of that, but the post nonetheless seems in bad taste to me.

  • Actually John Henry I think what he was doing in supporting pro-abort candidates for President and encouraging Catholics to do likewise with transparently sophistical arguments was far worse morally than running a prostitution ring. At least no one in a prostitution ring usually dies, while death is the inevitable result of every abortion. We will have to agree to disagree.

  • I’m with Donald. There’s not such a big jump between prostituting yourself and … well … prostituting yourself.

  • The man has an odd idea of what Catholic “outreach” means.

    I don’t mean to change the subject, but NRO also reported on something more surprising to me than the fact that a pro-abort Catholic has been behaving disgracefully: The Holy Father is a fan of “Steppenwolf.” (The novel, not the band.) I’ve associated the novel with drugged out hippies and so avoided reading it, just as I purposely steered clear of “Stranger in a Strange Land” and “Trout Fishing in America.” But if Benedict sees some merit in it, perhaps I should give it a chance.

  • Sorry … that should be “There’s not such a big jump between prostituting others and … well … prostituting yourself.”

    But let’s also not forget that, at this point, we’re talking about allegations.

  • Important point Jay. McFadden allegedly ran a prostitution ring. His guilt or innocence on that charge will be decided in court.

  • I guess I have conflicting thoughts because I think, to oversimplify the world for a moment, there are three basic types of Catholics that support Democrats:

    1) The good Catholics who decide that Democrats are the lesser of two evils. I outlined here why I think Catholics can decide this in good faith: http://the-american-catholic.com/2008/12/03/if-you-should-disagree-with-your-brother-even-70-times-70/

    2) The indifferent Catholics. Many people who self-identify as Catholics do not take the Church’s teachings into account at all when voting. They vote Democrat (or Republican) without even considering the issues in light of the moral considerations outlined by the Church.

    3) The professional ‘Catholic’ frauds (e.g. Frances Kissling, Gary Wills, etc.) who hold themselves out as Catholics to gain notoriety, and then promptly disavow the basics of what it means to be ‘Catholic’. At various points, I think Kmiec has ventured into this territory, particularly when he was mis-representing Obama’s record and going on and on about how abortion is an issue in which we need space for people (not including fetuses) to make their own decisions. Hopefully with some time for reflection and the end of the political season, he will not progress any further down that road.

    I have a great deal of sympathy for group 1, but not much sympathy at all for group 3. I start out with the assumption that people are in group 1. If this guy is actually in group 3, then I don’t mind the implication as much.

    I think most Democrats reading this blog would be in Group 1, so I was concerned that the post might be interpreted as an indictment of all Catholic Democrats, rather than just people who claim to be Catholics in order to promote Democratic politics.

  • Oh…the wish for magic reigns with a certain poster here…hoping that saying something often enough will make it so…

    A vote for a pro-abortion politicial as the lesser of two evils does not make one a pro-abortionist. Especially when the alternative was George Bush.

    Keep on repeating your mantras, as you recede further into your ideological nooks…

  • Donna,

    Steppenwolf is a great novel. I actually took a whole course on Hesse and Mann in my undergraduate days. Give it a try…

  • We are close in our views John Henry. I think clearly Mr. McFadden is in the number three category. He has trotted out the fact that he is Catholic in order to help give cover for the pro-abort Democrats that he has supported and has made a career out of doing so. That is far different from a Catholic who is either indifferent to his faith, or who votes for a Democrat not because he supports abortion but in spite of it for some grave reason. Like Archbishop Chaput I find it hard to imagine another issue so grave, but I accept the possibility.

  • “Oh…the wish for magic reigns with a certain poster here…hoping that saying something often enough will make it so…”

    Mr. DeFrancisis, I think you will find that the reasons you voted for pro-abort Obama, anti-war, universal health care, etc, will not be realized while his determination to advance the pro-abort cause will be.

  • Mann, yes, especially Joseph and His Brothers. Hesse on the other hand is only good for curing insomnia.

  • I see your point, John Henry, and I agree.

    I have long held, like you, that folks in your category 1 should not have their good faith questioned just because they see Kerry/Obama/Clinton as the lesser of two evils, especially when John McCain is all that’s offered as the alternative.

    That said, I would place Mr. McFadden in category 3.

  • Donald,

    I’ll go with my chances, especailly since the likelihood of McCain’s leadership’s actually getting in a 5th SC judge against R v. W was next to nil.

    The Republicans have been batting .000 in the above regard, and I determined that McCain would be no different.

  • Mark,

    I wouldn’t say Roberts and Alito are ‘batting zero’. Reagan and Bush I had terrible records. But W, despite his many failings, put two justices on the court who are very likely to scale back or overturn Roe if given the opportunity (i.e. one more justice). We’ll never know for sure, but I’d be lying if I thought the odds were better than 50/50 that McCain would have appointed the fifth vote though, even absent a Democratic Senate.

  • McCain was not even my 15th choice for Republican standard bearer. However, compared to Obama, he was Mr. Pro-life himself. Politics is always a comparative endeavor and on my most important issue, abortion, Obama was clearly on the other side. I do truly believe Mr. DeFrancisis that you on the Left will be heartily disappointed with Obama. I think Obama will do whatever it takes to maintain his current popularity and taking the country in a Leftward trajectory is not the way for him to accomplish that. I suspect that he will be like Bill Clinton without the sex scandals: a fairly conventional liberal Democrat who will be risk adverse. The signs all point that way. We will know more after Obama encounters his first crisis, which I suspect may be an attack by Israel on the Iranian nuclear facilities.

  • I’m with John Henry on W’s picks for the SC. That is one of his redeeming acts as POTUS.

  • A certain logical pattern emerges with this cat. If A then B. If A I beat the drum for Demo candidates and B say they’re okey-doke when it comes to abortion and C I write a scathing letter to top K of C poobah and D run a house of ill repute I clearly connect the dots. Sorta reminds me of the new Dunkin Donuts enterprise about 10 minutes away from my abode. Which allows the customer to pump gas, buy a couple of cream donuts, pour a cup of Joe, purchase the local Dead Tree Journal or half gallon of milk or Slim Jim- all at one site. One stop shopping as it were- first the night of pleasure, then the medical procedure to allegedly clean up the mess. Quite the economy of scale. Too bad for him that it went kablooey.

  • John Henry,

    Being charitable, I’d suggest adding another category of Catholic who somehow votes Democrat. That category would be the elderly who has voted for Dems since FDR. I know my mother-in-law and my God-mother are both good, decent Catholic women. However, both continue to vote Democrat without acknowledging it is tantamount to advancing the greatest evil in our time.

    Mark,

    Whatever allows you to sleep at night. You can claim that McCain may not have been guaranteed to appoint a pro-life justice. And that is partly right, but only because you can not have a litmus test for decency. However, when Ginsberg, Stevens etc. retire I can guarantee you that Obama will manage to appoint a pro-abortion justice because for some reason it is allowable to have a litmus test for evil. It is intellectually dishonest for you to disparage Bush’s SC nominees because you don’t KNOW for certain their position on Roe v. Wade since if they stated a position on that legal issue they would have never been confirmed. Also, not sure if you realize this, but George Bush was not the alternative. Beyond that, Bush isn’t exactly evil (or the lesser of two evils) regardless of what you’ve deluded yourself into believing.

    Separately, regarding the characher who was arrested . . . . we can wait until he is tried and convicted or gets off on a technicality to draw any conclusions about him. It would be easy to try to make a connection between his alleged behavior and the sort of politician he tends to support, but truth is there are miscreants and derelicts within each parties tent. Both sides are certain the other side has more crooks.

  • I’m sorry, I just don’t see why we would try to convince ourselves that it’s defensible to be in category 1-3 or the FDR Democrats. Nobody who takes their faith seriously can be unaware that the Democrats have been co-opted by the abortion lobby since Roe vs. Wade. Since the abortion lobby owns the Democrat party they ARE the party of death. Now, one can argue whether the Republicans are the party of life, or slightly better than neutral on the matter, there is no reasonable argument that they are as bad as the Dems.

    We should pray for those who vote for the party of death with good intentions, but there is no defense of their actions.

    God Bless,

    Matt

  • “Now, one can argue whether the Republicans are the party of life, or slightly better than neutral on the matter, there is no reasonable argument that they are as bad as the Dems.”

    True. The Democrat Party, with certain honorable exceptions, is the party of abortion. I would argue that on the national level abortion is the one non-negotiable issue for the Democrats. Pro-life Democrats deserve our praise and encouragement, but the party as a party is as pro-abort now as it was pro-slavery prior to the Civil War.

  • Donald,

    I’ve often wondered about pro-life democrats that go along with their party, giving it the power to do what it will to destroy innocent life. Even when you elect a pro-life Democrat to the House, you are voting for Nancy Pelosi as the speaker of the house and furthering the cause of widespread abortion. As long as abortion is a plank of the party, I don’t see how one can even support a pro-life democrat (except perhaps against a pro-abortion republican).

    God Bless,

    Matt

  • Matt,

    It’s hilarious how I am asked how I can sleep at night and given God’s blessings, by the same person, in the span of some 100 words.

    But I’ve gone over too many times in too many placesthe reasoning in my prudential judgments in my votes for Kerry and McCain to repeat it again here, .

    Even though J.H. did not vote for Obama, he layed out a hypothetical line of reasoning that leads to a vote for Obama, within the parameters of Faithful Citizenship and other Church teachings, that was starkingly similar to mine.

    Look it up in this blogs archiv, if you still so care.

  • Mark,

    It’s hilarious how I am asked how I can sleep at night and given God’s blessings, by the same person, in the span of some 100 words.

    It’s not hilarious at all, nor is there a contradiction. Asking you how you sleep at night is not the same as wishing you were in hell, when I ask for God’s blessing on you it’s perhaps to He will show you the error of voting for pro-abortion politicians. In any event, I don’t think you should take this personally. If YOU don’t feel your argument is worth posting here then don’t, I have no problem with it.

    Let’s be honest here, everyone in their “sensus fidei” knows it’s wrong to support abortion and those that support abortion, you can use all the “legalese” you want to try and make it “feel” ok. That’s exactly how the supreme court introduced the universal abortion regime.

    God Bless,

    Matt

  • Gerard,
    One-stop shopping, indeed. I was just wondering while reading the post if he wasn’t supporting pro-abort candidates just so he could keep his girls marketable.

  • Incorrigible One,

    There is way too much simplication and conflation in your comments for me to respond here.

    Sophia,
    Mark

  • ‘Sophia, Mark’ Are we to interpret the sign-off as ‘wisdom from Mark’?

  • John Henry,

    “Wishing you wisdom,”… as in “Peace,” = “I wish you peace”. :)

    Please understand that a certain interlocutor here was privvy to much, much discussion about ‘Faithful Citizenship’ on another blog last year. No matter how many times distinctions were drawn, the response was still the same…

  • Mark,

    I thought you’d be afraid to get into it.

    Sleep well and God Bless,

    Matt

  • Matt,

    You are such a daunting opponent, I must say.

    What type of cereal do you eat it the morning? And how old are you? The courage and stamina you exude are quite impressive.

    I bet the brainier and brawnier men in the Catholic world love homosocial bonding with you. I am simply not up to the challenge.

    In awe,
    M

  • Mark,

    you really are pathetic.

    I will pray for you.

    God Bless,

    Matt

  • Matt,

    In your prayers, don’t forget to ask that I receive especially that cardinal virtue courage.

  • Matt,

    If you could refrain from directly insulting people on these threads, I would appreciate it.

  • Mark,

    Courage, Prudence and Temperance for good measure…

  • Matt and Mark, I think that’s enough back and forth. I will delete any futher comments in this thread which I perceive to be personal insults directed at someone else who is commenting.

  • I deleted your comment Matt as to who started the personal attacks. I am merely interested in stopping them, and they will stop.

  • Donald,

    it was a reasonable response to John Henry’s attempt falsely isolate me as the instigator when I responded to the attack. Perhaps, in the interest of fairness you could remove this post as well.

  • Reasonable or not Matt, I’ve decided that this thread and my posts in general on this blog are not going to get bogged down with this type of back and forth. I gave fair warning at 12:17. Anything prior to that I will not touch. Anything after that comes under my rule that ideas are to be debated but fellow commenters are not to be personally attacked. Flame wars are not going to be tolerated by me.

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

Enter your email:

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