Obama Appoints Anti-Catholic Bigot to Advisory Council

harry-knox

Hattip to Jay Anderson at Pro Ecclesia.  With a sense of irony I would admire under other circumstances, President Obama has appointed anti-Catholic bigot Harry Knox to the Advisory Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.  Mr. Knox is a gay-rights activist and detests the Catholic Church.  These stories here, here, here, and here have some interesting quotes from Mr.  Knox.

Now why would Obama, other than the fact that I am sure he agrees with him, appoint a man like this to a position where he is sure to be a lightning rod for criticism?  Here are some of the reasons I can think of:

1.  Poor staff work.

2.  Living inside of an ideological bubble where Knox is just repeating what everyone believes.

3.  A deliberate slap in the face to the Catholic Church.

4.  A belief that Catholics in this country will take any insults without kicking up a fuss.

5.  Total arrogance.

6.  With Notre Dame honoring him with a commencement address and an honorary degree, Obama might reasonably conclude that he has a stronger following among Catholics in this country than the Pope does, and that he can do whatever he wants and many Catholics in the US will cheer.

It’s going to be a very long four years fellow Catholics.  Hope and Change.

115 Responses to Obama Appoints Anti-Catholic Bigot to Advisory Council

  • It is incredible that you tag anyone who disagrees with the Catholic Church’s teachings on a given subject “anti-Catholic.” There is nothing “anti-Catholic” in Knox’s statements that you have cited. As you seem to be a disciple of Donohue in this little tendency of yours, I hope you understand why it is becoming more and more difficult to take any word you write seriously.

  • Mr McClarey,

    None of the quotes you provide succeeds in revealing the man as a bigot. He may disagree with the Church’s teachings on homosexuality,marriage and condoms, but that hardly puts him in the category of anti-Catholic bigot. Under your logic, half of the mainline Protestant clergyman and laity would bt anti-Catholic bigots.

    While these posts may make you momentarily relieve your desire to express yourself as being generally offended or outraged, they offer all heat and no light. And I surmise, based on the frequency of such posts, that the satisfaction they offer is only fleeing.

  • Couldn’t disagree with you more Mr. DeFrancisis. The man is a bigot. A man who calls an attempt to enforce Roman Catholic doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church “mind control” deserves no other title.

  • Mr. DeFrancis–

    “”The Knights of Columbus do a great deal of good in the name of Jesus Christ, but in this particular case, they were foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression,” Knox told the B.A.R. , referring to its role in the Prop 8 campaign.”

    According to Mr. Knox, the Catholic Church is “a discredited army of oppression.” Apparently our standards of what constitute bigotry differ, because that sure sounds like a pretty bigoted statement to me. Especially from one whom our President wants on his Advisory Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

  • “President Barack Obama has named to the federal government’s faith-based initiative a gay-rights activist who, last month, described Pope Benedict XVI and certain Catholic bishops as “discredited leaders” because of their opposition to same-sex marriage.

    Harry Knox, who is a newly appointed member of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is the director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual activist group.

    In addition to his remarks about the Pope, Knox also criticized the Catholic Knights of Columbus as being “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression” because of the Knights’ support of Proposition 8. The latter was a ballot initiative that amended California’s state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and passed in November 2008.

    Knox told CNSNews.com that he “absolutely” stands by his criticism of the pope.”

    It may not be bigotry, but it is certainly offensive.

  • Knox’s statement about the Knights of Columbus is 100% correct.

    Donald, is there some reason my comment has not been approved? I stayed on topic and I did not insult anyone.

  • Knox’s statement about the Knights of Columbus is 100% correct.

    Michael, I find your endorsement to be even more absurd than the comment itself. Do you care to explain how the Knights of Columbus are the are the foot soldiers of a discredited army? As a complete statement it seems to say a lot (and I would disagree with it), but once you start to unpack it by elements it’s clearly a thought based on emotion and imagination rather than anything remotely resembling reality or truth.

  • I should add, to me, it’s clearly a statement of hostility and an attempt to demonize the “other”. I would say it is indeed bigoted.

  • That statement is correct independent of Knox’s views on Proposition 8. The K of C (in the u.s. at least – the Canadian version has a different flavour) are indeed the foot soldiers of right-wing americanist Catholicism.

    Don – My thus far unapproved comment is no different than Mark’s. What are you afraid of?

  • I should add, to me, it’s clearly a statement of hostility and an attempt to demonize the “other”.

    I don’t see any evidence of “demonizing,” but sure, it’s “hostile.” The question is whether or not the hostility is justified. Something tells me you can get awfully hostile when the issue of abortion comes up…

  • Not just foot soldiers of a discredited army, but an “army of oppression.” The army of opression seems not to be the K of C, as they are merely foot soldiers, but rather the Church itself. Indeed it does seem that one can take it as a bigoted statement rather than a “100% correct” statement.

  • Love the first link: “obscure Catholic group.” The KofC as albino political assassins. Oooh. Scary. Never mind they usually have signs up announcing their presence when you drive into town, right next to the Rotary and Moose.

    All the better to dupe you with, my dear.

    I agree with Mr. Knox 100% percent about the KofC, too–at least here: “The Knights do a great deal of good in the name of Jesus Christ.”

    And anybody who can’t see the anti-Catholicism in the tired “mind control” trope is squeezing his eyes shut.

    I’m not going to say the man is a completely closed-minded bigot–his praise of the Knights argues against that–but he certainly is willing to traffic in the same terminology.

  • Catholic Anarchist, on weekdays I normally work between 10 to 12 hours at my “real” job. I try to check in now and then to comment and approve or delete comments, but how frequently I do this depends upon my day to day schedule.

  • That statement is correct independent of Knox’s views on Proposition 8. The K of C (in the u.s. at least – the Canadian version has a different flavour) are indeed the foot soldiers of right-wing americanist Catholicism.

    Like Phillip, it seems to me that he is considering the KofC as foot soldiers of the Catholic Church, not right-wing Americanist Catholicism. The arguments against this thing called homosexual marriage are grounded in Church teaching. To the degree that American Catholics accept or reject that, left-wing or right is of no consequence.

    If you have a problem with the KofC running an insurance company, collecting money for special needs children, building memorials for aborted children, voicing and lobbying politically for moral societal policies, it seems your real problem is with the Church, for it is She who informs us that these are all good things to do.

  • Michael I,

    what specific activity of K of C do you find objectionable? Your accusation seems awful vague.

  • There could be no clearer signal from Michael I. that leftist political beliefs take priority over anything that the Church teaches.

  • S.B.:

    Well, let the man answer first before pulling the trigger. I doubt you or I (as DGK at my parish’s council) will be particularly pleased with the response, but I think we should know where he’s coming from.

  • Catholic Anarchist, I deleted your last comment as it was off-topic. For future reference I will delete any comment from you in the future that has the phrase “What are you afraid of?” directed towards me. I have you in moderation because of your well-established habit of personal insult and off-topic wanderings that I will not allow in my threads, and schoolyard taunts will not alter my opinion. In response to your query I have approved all of your comments except the last one that you have made in reference to this thread. If an earlier comment on this thread was deleted, it wasn’t by me.

  • Catholic Anarchist, I approved a comment that I think may have been the earlier one you referred to. I assume it must have gotten caught in the spam filter as I didn’t notice it earlier.

    I stand by my contention that the man is a bigot for the reasons that I and others in this thread have pointed out.

    As for not taking the words that I write seriously, well obviously you do take them seriously since you make such strenuous efforts to refute them.

  • Let the man answer first? He already made his position clear: it’s “100% correct” to accuse the Knights of being “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression” merely because they opposed gay marriage in California. It couldn’t be clearer that Michael thinks the Church’s position is oppressive.

  • Actually, I suspect his objection may be directed to the patriotic aspects of the Knights. His comment at 11:28am distinguishes the Prop 8 activity.

  • There could be no clearer signal from Michael I. that leftist political beliefs take priority over anything that the Church teaches.

    I’m not sure how. My dislike of the K of C is precisely because of what the Church teaches.

    or future reference I will delete any comment from you in the future that has the phrase “What are you afraid of?” directed towards me.

    Why? Are you a man who fears nothing?

    Actually, I suspect his objection may be directed to the patriotic aspects of the Knights. His comment at 11:28am distinguishes the Prop 8 activity.

    Right. S.B. obviously missed that part of my comments.

    I oppose the patriotic activity of the Knights, their divinization of the american nation-state, and their tendency to buy into general american cultural conservatism and assuming that this is equivalent with the Catholic faith. The Knights demonstrate and encourage americanist Catholicism. As I said above, the Knights are indeed the foot soldiers of right-wing americanist Catholicism. I am encouraged that the Knights, at least in my part of the u.s., are struggling to survive as an institution. When I was a campus minister I received countless messages from them virtually begging me to help them recruit among college students. Perhaps this means that, although some young Catholics are drawn toward a “nostalgia” for a “traditional” Catholicism that they never experienced, they are decidedly not attracted to the americanist version of Catholicism (which is hardly “traditional”) peddled by the likes of the Knights, and by this blog for that matter. Some young Catholics may enjoy the aesthetics of “traditional” liturgical forms, for example, but they have a consciousness of “World Catholicism,” unlike the narrow, bigoted, patriotic (i.e. sectarian) Catholicism of the Knights.

  • Ah, I had missed that. Still, saying they’re an “army of oppression” is a bit rich.

  • Dale,

    Actually he said “right-wing americanist Catholicism.” That’s a little different than patriotism.

  • I approved your “I really despise the Knights of Columbus” comment Catholic Anarchist, an organization I am happy to say which is thriving in my parish.

    I deleted your other comment as off-topic and replete with personal insults, a twofer for you.

  • In regard to the Knights of Columbus Catholic Anarchist, the Holy Father disagrees with you apparently:

    http://www.kofc-ca.org/newsletters/supreme/20081023_KnightLine.pdf

    Color me shocked!

  • I concur with S.B., Michael I. clearly lets his politics overtake his Catholicism. No doubt about it. Slandering the KofC of all organizations is over the top.

  • Could someone explain the importance of yet another pro-abortion homosexual activist to the Obama administration?

    Surely it is preferable that M.r Obama nail his colors to the mast, rather than playing footsie with such as Lawyer Kmiec and the other Catholics for Obama who have spent much energy attempting to explain that Mr. Obama “isn’t that bad”.

  • I oppose the patriotic activity of the Knights, their divinization of the american nation-state,

    This is utter calumny. We do not “divinize” the American nation-state. Are we patriotic? Guilty as charged.

    and their tendency to buy into general american cultural conservatism and assuming that this is equivalent with the Catholic faith.

    Oh you mean things like supporting a culture of life fund in which we fight against those forces engaged in a ceaseless assault on the unborn? Creating programs designed to help and encourage fathers? Helping to beat back gay marriage in California? Yes, clearly only right-wing American Catholics are concerned with these issues.

    The Knights demonstrate and encourage americanist Catholicism.

    Yawn. Morning’s Minion says the same thing more creatively.

    As I said above, the Knights are indeed the foot soldiers of right-wing americanist Catholicism.

    Yes, you’ve said that twice in four sentences. Your professors must be amazed at your incredible ability to pad your arguments through repetition.

    I am encouraged that the Knights, at least in my part of the u.s., are struggling to survive as an institution.

    That’s funny. My experience is just the opposite. College councils are absolutely thriving. Also, I must say that I find it disturbing that you would revel in the (albeit non-existent) troubles of an organization comprised of Catholic men. In a culture that celebrates pornography, the assault of our traditional family values, and countless other evils, it’s curious that an organization that fights these trends would draw your ire. Unless of course you’re not much interested in fighting these cultural trends.

    Nah, that couldn’t possibly be the case.

    blah blah americanist blah blah blah right-wing blah blah blah amaricanist

    If your desire to side with an anti-Catholic bigot against an organization that will accomplish more than you ever will to advance a culture of life in this country weren’t so disgusting, it would almost be funny.

  • I don’t think Michael I. will care what the pope thinks here.

  • It’s interesting that the Knights are all about “defending the Pope” — except of course when his views come into conflict with the foreign policy of the united states of america. The K of C unapologetically supported the war in Iraq and completely ignored the Popes’ condemnation of that war. (I have copies of their magazine in which they do this.) Some respect they have for the Pope, eh?

    I don’t think Michael I. will care what the pope thinks here.

    I always care what the Pope thinks. But I disagree with him in this case. That should not be a problem for you, considering many of you disagree with the Pope when it comes to the defense of human life, such as in the case of war. In that case, you’re perfectly content disagreeing with him. Interesting that many of you are more interested in defending an all-male club of beer-guzzling, flag waving patriots than you are in defending the victims of the u.s.’s wars, supported by that same little club.

  • The K of C unapologetically supported the war in Iraq and completely ignored the Popes’ condemnation of that war. (I have copies of their magazine in which they do this.) Some respect they have for the Pope, eh?

    I always care what the Pope thinks. But I disagree with him in this case.

    Do as I scream about, not as I do.

  • Paul – 1) Surely you don’t believe that Catholics must agree with the Pope on everything that comes out of his mouth? 2) What kind of bizarre ecclesiology do you have that allows you to ignore the Popes’ teaching on the deliberate destruction of human life, and yet insists that I agree with him on his opinion on the merits of a Catholic organization that could very well die out in the next 10-20 years? Do I have to agree with him on his favorite beers as well?

  • The K of C unapologetically supported the war in Iraq and completely ignored the Popes’ condemnation of that war.

    And your evidence of that is?

  • S.B. – As I stated in the same comment that you snipped, I have the issue of their magazine (The Light of the Majestic Knightly Ones or whatever it’s called) that announces their support of then-President Bush and his war.

  • The Pope’s favorite piece of music, I hear, is Mozart’s Clarinet Quintet.

    We are thus all obliged to assent, as a matter of faith and morals, to its superiority over all other musical works.

    Burke is trying to push through a directive that all Americans are to buy a special Vatican edition of the work.

    And if certain bishops then decide to allow communion to those who intentionally fail to make such a purchase,or vote for Catholic political candidates who do not, he wants them immediately stripped of their posts.

  • Any place where we could see this magazine?

  • I don’t recognize the K of C in those gloating, caricature-studded screeds, Mr. Iafrate. Much less the self-satisfied dismissal of the undeniable good work done by flawed but good-hearted Catholic men trying to support their parishes and communities.

    Our council has an 83 year old member who can’t drive but attends every meeting and pitches in on fundraising for mentally impaired kids every year, standing out in the cold soliciting donations for the Boy Scout troop for special needs kids, the elementary school for MI/EI students and the charity providing for brain-injured infants and toddlers.

    If you want to sit at your keyboard and mock what he and others like him do every year because the Columbia and the leadership made a stupid statement on the war in Iraq, that’s fine. But understand the entirety of what you are trashing and hope dies in the 10-20 years.

    And then–this is essential–tell us what you are going to do to help pick up the slack if the K of C does wither away.

  • Any place where we could see this magazine?

    Yes. It’s in my apartment in my file of periodicals. I don’t plan on having the Catholic American cohort over anytime soon, though, so maybe you could use Google.

    I don’t recognize the K of C in those gloating, caricature-studded screeds, Mr. Iafrate. Much less the self-satisfied dismissal of the undeniable good work done by flawed but good-hearted Catholic men trying to support their parishes and communities.

    I don’t mock the good things that they do. But I think we might disagree on which things they do are “good” and which ones are “bad.” Whatever good they do is also being done by ordinary Catholics who don’t feel the need to be a part of a gender exclusive, flag waving, fish frying, Pledge-of-Allegiance-saving, let’s-play-dress-up, band of merry men. I don’t see them doing anything particularly special that the Church can’t do without such absurdities, and most especially without such uncritical, irrational support for american war-making.

  • Watch out Michael. You might get the 4th degrees after you…

  • What kind of bizarre ecclesiology do you have that allows you to ignore the Popes’ teaching on the deliberate destruction of human life,

    First of all, I doubt tremendously that the KoC had an official position regarding the war. Certain writers in Columbia may have expressed pro-Iraq war opinions, but I tend to doubt that there was an organizational mandate, other than general support for the troops. Also, we’ve been down this road many times, but you are beign incredibly deceptive when it comes to Church “teaching” and the Iraq War, but there’s really no point in going down that road once again. I do find your selectivity when it comes to heeding the words of the Bishops and the Pope sad, but amusing in a sort of way.

    Yes. It’s in my apartment in my file of periodicals. I don’t plan on having the Catholic American cohort over anytime soon, though, so maybe you could use Google.

    Generally speaking it is the duty of the person making the argument to provide the proof. This must be yet another quality that endears you to your committee.

    Dale has already spoken about how your distortions of what the Knights do and who they are to be wide of the mark. They are more revealing about what kind of Catholic you are than what the Knights are as a group. Again, you take the side of anti-Catholic bigot. More’s the pity for you.

  • I don’t mock the good things that they do. But I think we might disagree on which things they do are “good” and which ones are “bad.” Whatever good they do is also being done by ordinary Catholics who don’t feel the need to be a part of a gender exclusive, flag waving, fish frying, Pledge-of-Allegiance-saving, let’s-play-dress-up, band of merry men. I don’t see them doing anything particularly special that the Church can’t do without such absurdities, and most especially without such uncritical, irrational support for american war-making.

    As I recall one of the good things that the Knights do is that they are by the largest single donor in the world to the pope’s personal charity fund, which the pontiff uses to dispense help throughout the world. So regardless of one’s theory that others might do whatever good they do, it is apparently the case at this point in time that they don’t.

    I’m curious whether Michael is actually aware of the reason for being of the knights, which actually has little to do with flag waving, dress up, fish fries or even (though one should not overlook the importance of malt and hops in life) beer. The Venerable Father Michael J. McGivney founded the knights as a fraternal organization for Catholic men in order to bring men (and specifically heads of households) together in solidarity to care for each others’ dependents when members died or became disabled. In the immigrant slums of the 1880s this was an incredibly important task, as the loss of husband/father could plunge a whole extended family into total poverty.

    Fraternal care for members and other people in the parish who are in need remains one of the primary purposes of the Knights, with a call going out in every meeting as to whether anyone knows of any brother knight who is in need. So although the original pooling of resources to care for widows and orphans of members has morphed over the years into a set of life insurance tools, the Knights also continue to do huge amounts of work in their local communities and around the world.

    In the 2007 fraternal year the Order gave US$ 144,911,781 directly to charity (1.1 Billion in charitable contributions in the last 10 years) and performed over 68,695,768 man hours of voluntary service.

  • It’s in my apartment in my file of periodicals. I don’t plan on having the Catholic American cohort over anytime soon, though, so maybe you could use Google.

    There’s no evidence for your assertion, then. Outside of your own word, that is, which isn’t worth very much (you habitually exaggerate the positions supposedly taken by people that you despite).

  • Mark,

    Mark DeFrancisis Says:
    Thursday, April 9, 2009 A.D. at 10:14 am

    The Pope’s favorite piece of music, I hear, is Mozart’s Clarinet Quintet.

    We are thus all obliged to assent, as a matter of faith and morals, to its superiority over all other musical works.

    Burke is trying to push through a directive that all Americans are to buy a special Vatican edition of the work.

    And if certain bishops then decide to allow communion to those who intentionally fail to make such a purchase,or vote for Catholic political candidates who do not, he wants them immediately stripped of their posts.

    It would seem you’re inferring that the cause of musical perfection is at the same level as the cause of eliminating the wholesale slaughter of unborn children. If I miss your meaning here please clarify.

  • There’s no evidence for your assertion, then. Outside of your own word, that is, which isn’t worth very much (you habitually exaggerate the positions supposedly taken by people that you despite).

    I’m not sweating it! A quick Google search will generate documentation for anyone who is not stuck in a state of denial.

  • I did a quick search–couldn’t find anything other than the support by the KCs of the troops, fundraising for Catholics in Iraq, financial support for families of soldiers killed in action, etc., including a special exhibit they put together in 2003 called “Pope John Paul II: A Passion for Peace” at their museum, highlighting John Paul II’s peace messages and including objects such as “a commemorative peace lamp the pope gave to Cardinal Vinko Puljic of Sarajevo in 1997, during the height of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina; a rosary made by Polish political prisoners out of iron nails; and a Nativity set given to the pope by Yassir Arafat.” Sounds pretty war-mongery.

    Maybe I’ll try again later. Perhaps he who whistles far and wee with his capitalization skills when it comes to his native country can help?

  • I suspect that the disconnect is that the evidence available via google doesn’t look like chearleading the war to anyone here except Michael. Many would consider writing about the work of Catholic chaplains, helping the families of soldiers who are on deployment or have been killed, etc. as simply being the sort of things that Catholics ought to do.

  • No, it won’t. A google search for “Knights of Columbus” and “Iraq” turns up a bunch of stories about how they’re helping families of soldiers killed in action, or sending Christmas care packages . . . . that kind of thing. To be sure, someone of your sympathies would sneer at helping families of soldiers too, but even so it’s not the same as “napologetically supported the war in Iraq and completely ignored the Popes’ condemnation of that war.”

    So you have yet to prove that point. (If it’s as easy to prove as you say, what’s taking you so long?)

  • As far as I know the Knights have taken no stand on the Iraq war. My guess is that if the Knights had been polled individually they might have been more supportive of the war than the general American population but not much more. Most Knights I know, I’m one although to my discredit not very active other than paying my membership dues, tend to be socially conservative, but after that their political views are all over the lot. The Knights have always been strong against abortion and, recently, against gay marriage, but other than that their political stances have been very few.

  • Our council has an 83 year old member who can’t drive but attends every meeting and pitches in on fundraising for mentally impaired kids every year, standing out in the cold soliciting donations for the Boy Scout troop for special needs kids

    Now you’ve done it, Dale.

    If there’s anything that provokes the ire of the Catholic Anarchist more than the all-male club of beer-guzzling, flag waving patriots known as the KoC, it’s the all-male club of soda-guzzling, flag waving, America-divinizing patriots known as the Boy Scouts.

  • Since it is generally impossible to prove a negative, once again the onus to prove one’s case is on the person making the charge. So, either mr. iafrate is lying about, or, to put it perhaps more charitably, distorting the contents of these articles, or as the above commenters have noted, mr. iafrate has a different understanding as to what such “unapologetic support” really entails.

  • I guess Michael’s claim wasn’t quite so easy to prove after all . . . that’s the danger of overstating your case.

  • I’m a Sir Knight and I have not supported the war in Iraq or the management of the war in Afghanistan in any shape or form.

    My council does community service and goes to an Episcopal church on Fridays to feed the homeless. We are active in helping with the liturgy and a host of other things. We tend to stay out of the political arena, unless it is a fundamental issue of life and/or marriage, i.e. issues Catholics cannot disagree on and legitimately remain Catholic.

    I think such an attack on the Knights of Columbus is a very vague generalization because it represents nothing about my experience with the Knights or myself, as a Knight. Matter of fact, I am very suspicious of suggestions that any recourse of action or sentiment that goes against current positions of the Democratic Party platform is a political attack. Perhaps, some do seek the opportunity, but I think to read that much into it, is just silly.

  • While Michael’s slanderous attack inexcusable, it raises the point that Catholic organizations should be extra cautious and not endorse causes which are not unquestionably morally correct.

  • While Michael’s slanderous attack inexcusable, it raises the point that Catholic organizations should be extra cautious and not endorse causes which are not unquestionably morally correct.

    There is nothing “slanderous” about pointing out the FACT that the Knights of Columbus expressed views, as an organization, that were completely at odds with orthodox Catholicism when it came to the Iraq War.

  • Of course, putting “FACT” in all-caps does nothing to rectify the unfortunate situation that Michael has done nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that his accusations are true. His contemptuous attitude has gotten way ahead of his truth-telling capacities, as is so often the case.

  • S.B. – [Shrug] So you’re an incompetent user of Google. Not my problem. I ain’t sweating it. You people made a career out of defending the Iraq War and yet you oppose the thought that the K of C would support the Iraq War, in the face of the obvious, more than you would oppose the suggestion that your grandma had a same-sex lover. Forgive me if I’m not interested in playing games with you.

  • Michael I,

    instead of just shouting louder, don’t you think you’d convince more people of the correctness of your statement by simply supporting it with a reference?

    Also, your assertion that the K of C as an organization supported the Iraq invasion is dubious to be honest, but when you claim:

    hat were completely at odds with orthodox Catholicism when it came to the Iraq War

    This goes even further, to avoid being guilty of slander, you’d have to demonstrate that the K of C position (if in fact it were true that it was a position) was not just in error on prudential questions, but in fact explicitly based on an error of doctrine. Considering that the Church at no time asserted herself that one could not in good conscience support the war a tall order indeed.

  • So you’re an incompetent user of Google.

    Man, I wish I could just sit in on that dissertation defense in 10-15 years.

    Professor: Mr. Iafrate, you didn’t provide any proof in your assertion in chapter five that medieval Catholics were made up of a lot of “queeros.” Can you explain why you came to that conclusion.

    michael: You can look it up. You have google.

    Professor: Errr, yes, but you should try to substantiate your claims more clearly, like when you claim that the Knights Templar used to perform rain dances in the middle of the Sahara. I have never heard that. What source are you using.

    michael: I read it in some book I have on my bedroom floor.

    Professor: And what book would that be . . .

    michael: I dunno. I ain’t inviting you over to read it.

    Professor: Well, yes, but I wasn’t about to make that request. I just suggest you provide more than one footnote per chapter, especially when they all say, “Look it up yourself. Idiot.”

    michael: I can’t help it if people are too stupid to use google.

    Professor: Rrrriiiiiight.

  • Zummer – I appreciate your concern, but thankfully my committee and I both know the difference between a dissertation and a blog that I could care less about. I’d be happy to email you an invitation to my dissertation defense, though, whenever it takes place.

  • Catholic Anarchist, all you have to do is to post a link to whatever you contend proves your contention that the Knights of Columbus as an organization endorsed the Iraq war. You made the assertion, you have the burden of proof to establish the validity of the assertion.

  • blog that I could care less about.

    Hmmm. And yet you post an awful lot of comments here. Strange behavior if this blog doesn’t mean that much to you.

    Anyway, as Donald said, and I’ve said before, the burden of proof is on you. If you can’t back up the point you’ve made with actual proof, then it becomes readily apparent that you have made a great distortion with your original charge. Perhaps the reason that people’s google searches have come up empty is because the silver bullet, so to speak, simply doesn’t exist.

  • I could find nothing about the K of C supporting the Iraq War via Google or Yahoo. However, Yahoo results do confirm that the K of C are indeed the foot soldiers of right-wing americanist Catholicism.

    http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkkRbPeNJTUUBqc1XNyoA?p=%22foot+soldiers+of+right-wing+americanist+catholicism%22&y=Search&fr=my-myy&fr2=sb-top

    If it’s on the Internet it has to be true.

  • Michael — several people, besides me, have “googled” your assertion and come up completely empty . . . the only results are stories about the Knights donating money to help wounded soldiers, and the like. None of us have the obligation to spend hours tracking down a story that, so far, exists only in your imagination. If you want to be seen as anything but a serial exaggerator, you have the responsibility to prove your own claims. And if you don’t have time to prove your claims, then you should try to show a little more prudence about sticking yourself out on a limb.

  • If it’s on the Internet it has to be true.

    As I indicated above, my reference for this claim is the K of C’s own publication, hard-copy, not internet. I have it somewhere in my files, from back when I was working in a parish and had to deal with these people and their supporters constantly. I’d be surprised if the same article were not available online.

    Of course, the online references you cite, on the K of C “supporting the troops” can indeed be seen as supporting the war. As you know “supporting the troops” is often just a cover for supporting the war, and actions taken to “support the troops” are indeed ambiguous.

  • Michael I,

    so what you’re referring to is a local situation then, not anything at the national level? In that case your original assertion is perhaps false, or, at the very least culpably imprecise.

    So you would define “supporting the troops” as in, providing aid and comfort, and hoping for their safe return to be opposed to Catholic doctrine? Which doctrine exactly would that be?

  • so what you’re referring to is a local situation then, not anything at the national level?

    No, I am referring to the statements of the K of C in the united states, as a whole. As I recall, the issue also included comments from the superemo Knight (whatever his name is) when Bush spoke and did his little war dance for them. The Supreme Knight Rider expressed the K of C’s support for Bush and his policies.

    As for “supporting the troops,” as I said, that phrase is profoundly ambiguous. It can mean a variety of things. It can mean what you said above, it can mean supporting the war (but cloaking it in “supporting he troops” rhetoric), or it can mean what I mean when I say I “support the troops”: I support bringing them home, and I support them leaving the military. Often it means “shut up about the war, if you criticize it you don’t ‘support the troops.’”

  • You keep saying, “as I recall,” and continue to provide no proof of your assertions. So until you can actually provide substantive proof beyond, “I think I kind of remember some person wearing this hat that said something that was definitely supportive of the Iraq War but I don’t know because it’s in a magazine that’s on the floor in my car trapped underneath an umbrella and my de-icer but you can go look it up even though no google search actually comes up with any existence of said article,” then we’ll pretty much all assume you’re full of bull droppings.

    It can mean a variety of things.

    In other words, it means what I say it means. Gotcha.

    By the way, how many comments do you intend on making on a five-day old thread on a blog you couldn’t care less about?

  • …then we’ll pretty much all assume you’re full of bull droppings.

    As I said a few times already – I ain’t sweating it!

  • In other words, it means what I say it means.

    Well, yes. It means whatever the person saying it means by it. Exactly right.

    I have been told by some people, for example, that if I protest the war, then I don’t “support the troops.” To them, “supporting the troops” means supporting the war.

    I could go on, but I think you know what I’m talking about and simply get off on arguing with me.

  • Michael I,

    I have been told by some people, for example, that if I protest the war, then I don’t “support the troops.” To them, “supporting the troops” means supporting the war.

    This is a non-sequitor.
    a then not b
    does not follow that
    b then not a

    I highly doubt that they anybody says that supporting the troops is supporting the war, but that “protesting the war” was not being supportive of the troops, there being a substantial difference between that and opposing the war but not not taking action to undermine the troops once they are committed. In either case I don’t believe protesting the war necessarily means you are undermining the troops, but many of the actions of war opponents that I’ve witnessed would, such as expressing a desire that they be defeated.

    I also don’t believe that it’s supportive of the troops to consider the men who are killing them to be “patriots” when in fact they are engaging in unlawful actions as the legitimate government of Iraq has requested the continued presence of US troops. This position would be hypocritical if one applauded the provision of US troops in similar situations such as Somolia, Bosnia, or Sudan.

  • …such as expressing a desire that they be defeated.

    Riiiiiight. So many anti-war protesters express a desire that u.s. soldiers be defeated. Straw man.

  • Michael I,

    So many anti-war protesters express a desire that u.s. soldiers be defeated. Straw man.

    How so? I indicated that I have witnessed such a desire expressed at various protests, but did not apply it to all cases of protest. Do you say there are NO anti-war protesters who express a desire for the defeat of US troops and/or express sympathy for the opposing force? This is nothing new and was well documented during the Vietnam War. Have you heard of “Hanoi Jane”?

    To be clear, I don’t say it’s unreasonable to argue that any anti-war protest once US troops are committed is not supporting the troops, I just don’t find it compelling (although they all at least accidentally undermine the troops). My argument is that there are particular types of anti-war protests which essentially undermine the troops.

    Why did you choose to pull one part of my statement out of context?

  • Do you say there are NO anti-war protesters who express a desire for the defeat of US troops and/or express sympathy for the opposing force?

    These are two entirely different things.

    My argument is that there are particular types of anti-war protests which essentially undermine the troops.

    Such as?

    Why did you choose to pull one part of my statement out of context?

    I chose to comment only on one part of your statement, not to take part of it “out of context.” If in doing so I distorted your position somehow, then feel free to show me how.

  • If it’s fair and correct to not assume that someone who is against any given war doesn’t “support the troops”, then I suppose it would be equally fair and correct to not assume that someone who “supports the troops” favors any given war.

    Or doesn’t that apply to groups who partake in other evils like frying fish, drinking beer, and wearing old fashioned clothes?

  • Michael I,
    Matt:
    Do you say there are NO anti-war protesters who express a desire for the defeat of US troops and/or express sympathy for the opposing force?

    Michael:
    These are two entirely different things.

    Yes, and both serve to undermine the troops by rendering aid and comfort to the enemy. Obviously I am sympathetic to all human suffering, but that’s entirely different from calling the enemy “freedom fighters” and wishing them to be successful in their goals.

    My argument is that there are particular types of anti-war protests which essentially undermine the troops.

    Such as?

    Posing for photographs wearing the enemy’s uniform and simulating the operation of their anti-aircraft weapons typically used to shoot down American bombers. Calling American soldiers “baby-killers”, denying them a right to presumption of innocence, criticizing them for defending themselves against enemy actions, blaming them for killing civilians which the enemy is using as shields.

    I chose to comment only on one part of your statement, not to take part of it “out of context.” If in doing so I distorted your position somehow, then feel free to show me how.

    You pulled 1/2 of one sentence, then used it to support a false accusation of strawman. That’s out of context.

  • Now, I’ve seen everything.

    A charitable organization such as the Knights of Columbus being maliciously denounced as an discredited army of oppression — merely because they subscribe to and stand up for the Teachings of the Church — not only by anti-catholic bigots, mind you, but those supposedly Catholic!

    Perhaps if the Knights of Columbus advocated the murderous butchering of unborn babies from their mothers’ wombs and proclaimed homosexuality as part of a sacred institution, ‘virtuous’ Catholics such as these would declare the Knights of Columbus an army of saints!

    Shame on You!

    Shame on You All!

    Now, Catholicism has become so perverted by individuals such as these that they bear merely a monstrosity of the genuine Faith!

  • If it’s fair and correct to not assume that someone who is against any given war doesn’t “support the troops”, then I suppose it would be equally fair and correct to not assume that someone who “supports the troops” favors any given war.

    Exactly. Which is why, in order to evaluate the position of the K of C, one would have to consult a range of statements, such as their official publication which includes pieces by the grand supremeo knight talking about how the Knights support Bush and his policies.

    Perhaps if the Knights of Columbus advocated the murderous butchering of unborn babies from their mothers’ wombs and proclaimed homosexuality as part of a sacred institution, ‘virtuous’ Catholics such as these would declare the Knights of Columbus an army of saints!

    Interesting that you assume that I am pro-choice, e.

  • their official publication which includes pieces by the grand supremeo knight talking about how the Knights support Bush and his policies.

    I suggest it may be time for posts like this of Michael’s to be censored as he continues refusal to back them with any evidence. This last one is particularly heinous because it makes a specific accusation which should be very easy to demonstrate by an exact quote and reference to on or offline content.

    I think that we can all agree if this were an accurate characterization it would be a serious error on the part of the Supreme Knight, as it is completely outside the proper mission of the Knights and would be an impediment to that mission.

  • Interesting, too, that you should side with anti-catholic bigotry rather than recognizing the Obama administration for what it truly is and how several of its own policies actually stand remarkably opposed to Church Teaching.

    Instead, you continue to harp on the failures of the Bush administration merely to deflect any acknowledgement of such truths concerning this world’s alleged messiah.

    Rather, you would engage in calumny concerning a charitable organization and, in fact, rabidly attack it to even the detriment of the incredible work it does not only on behalf of the Church but many of the helpless and needy.

    I suppose such betrayal of genuine Catholic values would have one do that.

  • Michael I. gives the game away with his jeer about fish fries, beer drinking and dress up, doesn’t he? At bottom, it’s about the middle class leftist intellectual’s well-documented disdain for those uncool, embarrassing lower middle and blue collar Catholics and their irksome patriotism. Many leftist eggheads who claim to revere The People actually don’t like people all that much, particularly if said people don’t acknowledge the superior wisdom of leftist eggheads.

  • Interesting, too, that you should side with anti-catholic bigotry rather than recognizing the Obama administration for what it truly is and how several of its own policies actually stand remarkably opposed to Church Teaching.

    I have blogged plenty about Obama’s obvious opposition to Church teaching. I do not side with “anti-Catholic bigotry,” but I am not quick to point fingers at it where it does not really exist, unlike yourself and many of the writers on this blog. You make Catholics look foolish when you point to any disagreement with Catholic teaching and call it “anti-Catholic.”

    Instead, you continue to harp on the failures of the Bush administration merely to deflect any acknowledgement of such truths concerning this world’s alleged messiah.

    I’m not attempting to “deflect” anything. Obama has more in common with Bush than he does in opposition.

    Rather, you would engage in calumny concerning a charitable organization and, in fact, rabidly attack it to even the detriment of the incredible work it does not only on behalf of the Church but many of the helpless and needy.

    Of course the K of C does some good charitable work. I said so above. But that does not mean we should not be critical of their ideological support for american war making. We must oppose that aspect of what the K of C does.

    At bottom, it’s about the middle class leftist intellectual’s well-documented disdain for those uncool, embarrassing lower middle and blue collar Catholics and their irksome patriotism. Many leftist eggheads who claim to revere The People actually don’t like people all that much, particularly if said people don’t acknowledge the superior wisdom of leftist eggheads.

    I see. You divide the world into a leftist middle-class vs. patriotic lower class/blue collar binary. How convenient. As if middle and upper class people are never nationalists. As if blue collar people cannot have progressive and/or radical politics. Most of the K of C people I have come into contact with are not blue collar folks. How does Jeb Bush fit into your binary, Donna?

  • …the FACT that the Knights of Columbus expressed views, as an organization, that were completely at odds with orthodox Catholicism when it came to the Iraq War.

    There are a couple things wrong with Michael’s whole line of argument here.

    First off, while I think it would be inappropriate for a Catholic organization such as the Knights of Columbus to have an official position for or against a war, I think Michael errs significantly in saying that supporting the Iraq war is completely at odds with orthodox Catholocism.

    The KofC should not have an official position in favor of the war because it is not its function to hold positions on that kind of issue — but while individual Catholics should give serious consideration to the stated opinions of John Paul II, Benedict XVI and many members of the USCCB on the justice of the US war in Iraq, I don’t think it would be accurate to say that considering the war to be just would be contrary to orthodox Catholicism.

    That said, it’s odd that Michael has time to post a dozen or more comments on this threat on the topic, yet doesn’t have time to cite a specific article title or publication date for the issue of Columbia which he claims stated support for the Iraq war.

    Plus having dealt with Michael on the issue for some years, I strongly suspect that his definition of “supporting” may be something rather more expansive than “officially stating that the war is just”. For instance, when the previous bishop of the US military chaplaincy retired, Michael loudly expressed hope that the Church would cease supporting the US “war machine” by refusing to appoint another bishop to that see. However, the pope promptly did so.

    If providing opportunity for US soldiers in theater to receive the sacraments is “supporting the US war machine” in Michael’s book, then clearly he has a pretty expansive definition of the term. And I don’t think we can find it shocking if the work which the KofC does falls afoul of his standards.

  • If providing opportunity for US soldiers in theater to receive the sacraments is “supporting the US war machine” in Michael’s book, then clearly he has a pretty expansive definition of the term. And I don’t think we can find it shocking if the work which the KofC does falls afoul of his standards.

    I have no doubt that I have a “more expansive” view of what it means to support u.s. war making than many of the folks here.

  • “I do not side with anti-catholic bigotry…”

    That’s an awfully strange remark especially coming from someone who expressly concured with the very remarks of an anti-catholic bigot who uttered as much concerning a charitable organization who happened to stand for and defend Church Teaching, for which it specifically happened to be despised and even denounced for so doing.

    Or did you not say at the very top of this thread that: “Knox statement about the Knights of Columbus is 100% correct”?

    At any rate, why don’t you cease with all this disingenuous dribble already since your comments throughout the thread betray your actual position & true intentions.

  • Michael I: I’m still waiting to see exactly some evidence of the K of C’s “ideological support for American warmaking.” John H. did a Google search and came up with nothing nefarious. Of course, we must remember that to someone with a vehemently anti-American viewpoint such deeds as donating money to the families of killed and wounded U.S. soldiers may indeed qualify as nefarious activities. As I recall, Michael I. slammed Blessed Fr. Cappodanno, a candidate for sainthood, for ministering to wounded and dying soldiers on the battlefields of Vietnam.

    No, I don’t “divide the world into leftist middle-class/blue collar binary.” I was referring to leftist middle class intellectuals, a much smaller sub-section of the universe. You are the one who made the snobbish comment about about fish fries and beer drinking. I have no doubt that there are more middle class and even wealthy people in the K of C than there were when my old man was a member, since there are more middle class Catholics as a whole. (Although I was always under the impression the Knights of Malta were, in my father’s words, “your upper crust Catholics.” Maybe he was wrong.)

    I attended grad school myself, at GWU in DC, and came across more than a few middle class leftwing intellectuals who combined love of The People with the utmost disdain of the white trash Wonder Bread eaters out in PG County. I’m not the only one who has noticed, though. Christopher Lasch (no conservative) wrote a book about how progressive disdain for the blue collar and lower middle classes helped turn them into “Reagan Democrats.” (I used to own it; I believe it’s called “Progress and Its Dicontents.”) The scorn and contempt many academics clearly had for the people I had been born and raised among certainly led me to reconsider my political leanings.

  • My mistake: the book by Lasch is entitled “The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its’ Critics.”

  • Or did you not say at the very top of this thread that: “Knox statement about the Knights of Columbus is 100% correct”?

    You are a confused person. Disagreement with the Catholic Church’s position on a particular issue does NOT make one “anti-Catholic.”

    The scorn and contempt many academics clearly had for the people I had been born and raised among certainly led me to reconsider my political leanings.

    I am critical of some academics’ contempt for “blue collar” people as well. It’s actually an issue that is becoming central to my work. My comment about “fish fries and beer drinking” should not be understood as a snobbish or class-related statement. As I said, I do not consider the K of C to be solidly “blue collar” at all, not even in West Virginia where I am from. I do no have contempt for a certain class of people. I have contempt for death dealing politics wherever it can be found, in whatever class.

    Are you saying that the fact that some academics have a contempt for blue collar people turned you into a republican? That’s an interesting conversion story. I wish, though, that you’d be a little more thoughtful about your political option and less reactionary.

  • Michael, believe me, I thought long and hard about my political beliefs as I moved from left to right. It was a process that took about 4 years and the snobbery of left wing intellectuals was a pretty minor part of my conversion, actually. Much more important in my eyes was the gradual realization that the Left had gotten it wrong on, well, just about everything. Another example of the arrogance of the Left: only they think deeply about politics, everyone on the right simply “reacts.” They can’t believe that intelligent, thoughtful people can ponder the evidence and come up with conclusions that *gasp* differ from theirs.

  • Actually, I wrote a little bit about my “conversion” – I passed from left/liberalism through libertarianism on the way to conservativism – if you or anybody else is at all interested:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/02/13/the-death-of-liberaltarianism/#comments

  • Michael’s beliefs are totally reactionary: He sees something he doesn’t like (Knights, capitalism, etc.), and has a kneejerk reaction.

  • Actually, I wrote a little bit about my “conversion” – I passed from left/liberalism through libertarianism on the way to conservativism – if you or anybody else is at all interested

    I did the exact opposite.

    Except I would never make the ridiculous claim, for example, that the Right has “gotten it wrong on, well, just about everything.”

    Michael’s beliefs are totally reactionary: He sees something he doesn’t like (Knights, capitalism, etc.), and has a kneejerk reaction.

    I suppose you recognize that sort of behavior because you react that way anytime abortion comes up.

  • Now how did we get from “Obama appoints anti-Catholic bigot” to a rant about the alleged militarism of the Knights of Columbus?

    I don’t recall ever having heard the K of C express an official position for or against the Iraq war. It’s entirely possible that whoever was Supreme Knight at the time the war began in 2003 wrote a personal opinion column in “Columbia” magazine expressing support for President Bush’s actions, or that the editor or assistant editor of the magazine did so. That is NOT, however, the same as the organization itself taking a pro- or anti-war position.

    Perhaps the notion of the K of C’s as “militaristic” stems from the ceremonial swords, hats, and capes worn by Fourth Degree Knights at official functions. However, Fourth Degrees are not necessarily representative of the organization’s membership at large. My father, brother and father-in-law are or were all K of C’s; my dad has been a Knight for more than 60 years, served as grand knight of his council and gave countless hours to its events, facilities, etc. However, he never had ANY interest in becoming Fourth Degree, and neither did my brother or my father-in-law. It was just not their style.

  • Now how did we get from “Obama appoints anti-Catholic bigot” to a rant about the alleged militarism of the Knights of Columbus?

    I’m pointing to the right wing reactionaries here.

  • No Catholic Anarchist you are merely attempting to divert attention from the fact that the man you voted for appointed an anti-Catholic bigot. I think this will be a very long four years for the entire nation, but perhaps longest for you Obama supporters.

  • Micheal, perhaps you can let us know what points you think conservatives have gotten right.

    That is, after you give us that link to any articles showing the K of C endorsed the Iraq War. We’re still waiting for you to prove your accusation and our Google skills are apparently just not up to yours.

  • No Catholic Anarchist you are merely attempting to divert attention from the fact that the man you voted for appointed an anti-Catholic bigot.

    By this “logic” you would have to condemn “the man you voted for” this past election too, because he chose an “anti-Catholic” as a running mate. George W. Bush surely chose “anti-Catholic bigots” to serve in his administration as well.

    I think this will be a very long four years for the entire nation, but perhaps longest for you Obama supporters.

    How lazy of you to dismiss me as an “Obama supporter” when you know my politics and you know my specific position on Obama. But intellectual laziness is what we have come to expect from you.

    Micheal (sic), perhaps you can let us know what points you think conservatives have gotten right.

    For one, their belief in small government. Sadly, though, they are not radical enough on this point, and woefully inconsistent as, if they are really interested in freedom, they should then oppose other forms of unfreedom and totalitarianism such as capitalism. Two, many conservatives (surely not all) are anti-abortion. I won’t say “pro-life” because that’s obviously not true, from a Catholic perspective.

  • The old “tu quoque” argument . . . my four year old is already a master of that one. Hopefully he’ll grow out of it.

  • Catholic Anarchist, I realize Dick Cheney is a demon figure for the inhabitants of the fever swamps of the far left, but he is not an anti-Catholic bigot. Perhaps you would like to support your contention with the quaint concept known as evidence.

    As for Bush appointing anti-Catholic bigots, names and evidence please.

    Once again of course this is merely an attempt on your part to avoid criticizing the man you supported for appointing a person who obviously detests the Church. Good fortune attempting to keep this up as a defense of Obama over the next four years.

  • Here is a link to remarks by Cheney to Pope Benedict during his visit last year.

    http://www.catholicdigest.com/article/cheney-remarks-departure-of-pope

    “Your Holiness, on your first apostolic visit to the United States, you’ve encountered a nation facing many challenges, but with more blessings than any of us could number. You have met a people of resonating faith who affirm that our nation was founded under God, who seek his purposes and bow to his will. You have seen a country where the torch of freedom, equality and tolerance will always be held high, a country where you, a herald of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, will always be welcome.

    To our diverse country, you have brought a universal message of hope and salvation. You have spoken to Americans with eloquence and feeling, and for so many, these have been days of reflection and personal renewal.

    Whether in your presence or listening across great distances, millions have found in your words hope against despair, certainty amid confusion and strength for journeys of their own.”

    Really Catholic Anarchist, “anti-Catholics” need to be made of sterner stuff!

  • Heh, Cheney seems to be far more respectful and appreciative of the Holy Father than a number of Catholics I’ve encountered lately. Go figure…

  • Michael I.,

    It seems you’re the one that’s confused.

    The fact that you ’100%’ agreed with Cox’s anti-catholic comment concerning the Knights of Columbus due to their unwavering stand on the sanctity of marriage pursuant to Church Teaching (and really had nothing to do whatever with the war) is proof of how you would be more than willing to side with anti-catholic bigotry of any sort and in any form even if it should mean betraying Church Teaching just to advance your leftist agenda.

  • Michael,

    Whatever the ills of capitalism, how is it ‘totalitarian’? You’re free to not participate if you wish.

  • Actually, michael never clarified exactly what he meant by this:

    That statement is correct independent of Knox’s views on Proposition 8. The K of C (in the u.s. at least – the Canadian version has a different flavour) are indeed the foot soldiers of right-wing americanist Catholicism.

    “Independent” is an odd word choice here, if michael really disagrees with Knox that declining to recognize gay marriage is oppressive. “Independent” is usually used to indicate that one reason for believing something IS valid, but there are other “independent” reasons to believe it as well. So here, michael seems to be implying that the Knights are indeed a “discredited army of oppression” for opposing gay marriage, but that the Knights are also a “discredited army of oppression” for other “independent” reasons as well.

  • Catholic Anarchist, I realize Dick Cheney is a demon figure for the inhabitants of the fever swamps of the far left, but he is not an anti-Catholic bigot. Perhaps you would like to support your contention with the quaint concept known as evidence.

    Are you losing your mind? Did you forget about the 2008 election already? I was refering to Sarah Palin.

    As for Bush appointing anti-Catholic bigots, names and evidence please.

    Bush himself opposes Catholic just war teaching, refused to meet with Vatican representatives, and believes that abortion is just fine in cases of rape and incest. By your logic, he must be anti-Catholic.

    Once again of course this is merely an attempt on your part to avoid criticizing the man you supported for appointing a person who obviously detests the Church.

    I don’t avoid criticizing Obama. I am very critical of Obama.

    You’re free to not participate if you wish.

    Um, really?

  • Palin, an anti-Catholic bigot Catholic Anarchist? I thought you had mistyped because that struck me as so ludicrous that I could not believe you were making that argument. As in the case of Cheney Catholic Anarchist, I request that you give me evidence to support your contention.

    As to President Bush and abortion I will bow to the opinion of John Paul II:

    “I also continue to follow with great appreciation your commitment to the promotion of moral values in American society, particularly with regard to respect for life and the family.”

    http://www.medaloffreedom.com/PopeJohnPaulIIMedalPresentation.htm

    If Bush had my view regarding abortion there would be no exceptions. That his view is light years better than the current law was plain to the Pope as it is to every person fighting against abortion. As to the President you voted for, well the next abortion he is opposed to will be his first.

    As to the war, the President differed with the Holy Father on whether Iraq was a just war. However Cardinal Ratzinger explained in another context that this was not the same as opposing the Pope on abortion:
    “3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

    http://priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

  • As in the case of Cheney Catholic Anarchist, I request that you give me evidence to support your contention.

    For the second time, I didn’t mention Cheney. You did.

  • Palin is “anti-Catholic”? What a silly claim.

  • Palin is “anti-Catholic”? What a silly claim.

    I said according to Donald’s logic Can’t any of you people read?

  • Of course we can Catholic Anarchist, and what we have read from you in this thread are endless obfuscations to avoid your dealing with the simple fact that you voted for a man who appointed an anti-Catholic bigot. You refuse to criticize either the bigot or the man who appointed him. All your outrage is directed at those of us who point out this, for you, very inconvenient fact.

  • When did Palin say that an orthodox Catholic group was a “discredited army of oppression”? Or anything remotely resembling that sort of talk? That’s what it would take for Palin to be “anti-Catholic” according to Donald’s logic.

    Not that I expect you to be able to come up with any evidence.

  • When did Palin say that an orthodox Catholic group was a “discredited army of oppression”? Or anything remotely resembling that sort of talk? That’s what it would take for Palin to be “anti-Catholic” according to Donald’s logic.

    Not that I expect you to be able to come up with any evidence.

    Perhaps you could consult with MM at Vox Nova about this.

  • Like you, MM doesn’t care about the facts when it seems more pleasurable and useful to demonize a political opponent. In any event, do you have a specific post in mind? Stop hiding the ball.

  • You still don’t get it, do you?

  • I get that you like jerking people around, i.e., making up accusations, and then mocking people for not being able to prove a negative.

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

Enter your email:

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