Sebelius and Specter Respond

Wednesday, August 5, AD 2009

Save_Freedom_of_Speech

Hattip to the ever reticent Lads and Lasses at the Lair of the Catholic Cavemen. Yesterday I had a post celebrating the warm reception that Secretary Sebelius and Senator Specter received at a town hall meeting.  Now the indispensable Iowahawk has thoughtfully penned here, a response to the voters for Secretary Sebelius and Senator Specter.  No doubt they will be duly appreciative of his efforts, and Iowahawk will probably enjoy his time on the no-fly list.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Sebelius and Specter Respond

Well, at Least Spell my Name Right

Tuesday, August 4, AD 2009

Inform

Hattip to DrewM at Ace of Spades HQ.  This from the White House Blog:

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected].”

I trust that some of the Obama supporters who frequent our site will draw the attention of the White House to a few of my posts regarding ObamaCare on this blog.  When you do please remember that the last name is spelled McClarey, not McCleery, McClaren, McClary, etc.  Thank you!

Update I: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has some pointed comments here about the sheer political stupidity of the White House making this public call for informants.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Well, at Least Spell my Name Right

  • Hey, maybe the Obama admin will revise the Homeland Security alerts, now that we know we have nothing to fear from terrorists. Maybe something along these lines:

    Level Red: The Great Leader is more popular than Jesus, the Beatles, and Michael Jackson combined. This is how it should be.

    Level Green: A few grumblings are heard from disgruntled rednecks in fly-over country. Nothing to worry about, really, but keep your eyes open.

    Level Orange: Uh, oh. The peons are doing a lot of grumbling and booing at town hall meetings and there’s a quite a bit of seemingly fishy information (cunningly planted by Fox News) out there on the Net. Couric, CNN, HuffPo, you know what to do.

    Level Purple: Lord, the fish is now a great big dead rotting whale on the WH lawn. Comrades Dowd and Krugman, fire photon torpedoes!

    Level Gray: We’re screwed. We have now crossed the River Styx and are in Jimmy Carter territory.

  • Thank you Donna! That was the funniest bit I’ve read on the net today!

  • There will be some who quickly point out that Bush did the same thing at times. He DID, for instance, ask that truckers keep an eye out for the unusual in their cross country treks.

    But theres a whale of a difference between trying to stop terrorist acts and trying to ferret out political dissenters.

  • Huh… wonder if I can do a diving expedition to the KOS kids’ playground and send in some of their defenses….

  • Pingback: Obama Homeland Security Alerts « The American Catholic
  • I have an idea: who wants to join me in flooding that email address with “flags” about the fishy positions Obama’s been taking with regards to abortion’s role in this health care plan?

    If we flood it, we can take it and Obama’s Big Brother mentality down.

  • It’s been almost 24 hours since you posted this and I’m disappointed. I was hoping to see a trackback saying, “Dan McCleary at the Catholic American has a good post about…”

  • Don’t know about anyone else, but this was about the 15th post on my RSS feed about the snitch program.

  • And I’m reporting them all to my Staatssicherheit commander!

  • When you do please remember that the last name is spelled McClarey, not McCleery, McClaren, McClary, etc.  Thank you!

    Isn’t one “Mc” the same as any other? *wink*

It Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Guy and Gal

Tuesday, August 4, AD 2009

Ah, it does my heart good to see Senator Arlen Specter (D.Pa) and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services exposed to the verbal anger of the public!  Now why is that?

Well as to Snarlin’ Arlen, he was for decades a pro-abort Republican and now is a pro-abort Democrat.  My reaction when he jumped parties earlier this year was good riddance.  He jumped parties of course because he was an almost certain loser to pro-life Pat Toomey in the Republican primary.  The hilarious thing is that Specter will face a Democrat primary challenge from Congressman Joe Sestak who announced his candidacy yesterday.  If he survives the primary challenge he faces an up-hill fight against Toomey.  In a Quinnipiac poll on July 22, Specter leads Toomey by a single percentage point 45%-44%.  This is a devastating poll for an incumbent facing a well-known challenger.

As for Sebelius, she is a fanatic pro-abort, as I detailed here, and a close political ally of the late Tiller the Killer.  Just before her confirmation it came out that she had received three times the donations from Tiller than she had claimed.    Of course this is only the tip of a large ice berg of campaign funds that Tiller used to aid Sebelius as this letter here from Tiller indicates.  Her ties to Tiller were outlined by Bob Novak last year here. When confronted about Tiller she was always in full ” Tiller?” mode:

Yep, I can watch these two being booed with a fine enjoyment!  Schadenfreude?  Indeed!

Continue reading...

36 Responses to It Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Guy and Gal

  • I too take some comfort in knowing the likes of Specter and Sebelius are being challenged. However, my real delight was in the substance of those two clips from the town hall meeting. They demonstrate the common sense of the common man, and the futility of trying to stump it. The common man may not be slick or sophisticated like those who desire to lord over them, but he is far wiser because he chooses to deal with reality rather than delude himself.

  • Agreed Rick. This was the classic case of two con artists suddenly learning to their dismay that “the marks” of their con weren’t quite the rubes they thought!

  • Like Hitler watching the Reichstag.

  • I’m confused… Your theory is that Donald will burn down the administration and then get himself elected chancellor of the US in a tight three way election?

    Or is it some sort of vague aspersion that although the Democrats may be bad, the Republicans are infinitely worse?

  • It’s funny that MZ is getting his “talking points” from a website where the main contributor (Marshall) in 2005 openly stated that the social security reform package should be “demagogued” to death. So now it’s four years later and suddenly the left is upset about passionate rhetoric and instilling fear as a method of squashing reform. Convenient.

  • That being said, the comparison to Hitler in this context is revolting, but it’s MZ so it’s not surprising that he said something intentionally inflammatory. His hair shirt has to be chafing.

  • I could be wrong, but didn’t M.Z. vote for Obama?

    Also remember that when people start comparing Republicans or Conservatives to anything Nazi or Hitler, that’s a strong indication that they are losing (or have lost) the argument.

  • Oh, I get it… The point is supposed to be that the booing is orchestrated and therefore doesn’t count. (And the Nazis are simply thrown in for extra rhetorical spice.)

    Of course, the booing could be orchestrated. These things happen. Goodness knowns, given the much greater preponderance of bored students on the liberal side of the aisle we’ve been dealing with this for decades. But given that support for the health plan has dropped solidly in the polls, it’s hardly surprising if adverse reactions are seen regardless of whether they’re orchestrated or not.

  • Does that mean we can call liberals communists when they use the same tactics?

  • I thought that’s how you say communist in American?

  • We have no idea whether or not the lady in the audience who spoke up was there to be a disruption or was there due to her own concern. Nothing in what she said would indicate that she was trying to be a trouble maker – unless of course, one considers challenging the wisdom of the ruling elite as being such.

    Oddly enough it was Specter’s own words, voluntarily given, that were damning. Anyone who thinks it is good or appropriate to ram through legislation of such magnitude without studying what effects it may have or to do it so it can’t be scrutinized really has no business making such decisions. Alas, I know we elected them, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to keep them in check.

    Personally, I’m suspect of any decision made by someone who would classify abortion as health care. Even if the proposed reform was mostly a good and workable idea, I’d be against it because of the inclusion of abortion. One absolute mandate of the justification of the state is to defend innocent life – not take it. While the state has a duty to the common good, properly understood, forcing people to buy health insurance and creating alternative insurance organizations is not mandatory – especially when the state considers abortion health care and a right and starving the infirm to be a private matter. These moral and intellectual faults make for horrible foundation to build “health care” upon. It is easy to see how euthanasia and the disabled could easily become marginalized by these people.

  • Hey, what ever happened to dissent being patriotic?

  • Phillip,

    It’s ok to dissent if you’re an extremist liberal. It’s not ok if you’re an ordinary American.

  • I encourage people on the Left to engage in the fantasy that these eruptions of citizen rage taking place at townhall meetings are simply the work of some grand right-wing conspiracy. Reassure yourselves that all is well, that Obama and the Democrats in Congress are on the right course, and that there is absolutely no chance that in 2010 angry voters will be clambering over each other to register their displeasure at the polls.

  • I seem to remember that just last week at VN they were claiming that conspiracy theories are a characteristic of the right but not the left. Huh.

  • Like Hitler watching the Reichstag.

    It’s a bit early in the day for the sauce, MZ.

  • Art Deco,

    M.Z.’s a teetoler, he drinks only Kool-Ade.

  • Donald,

    There is absolutely no chance of any change™ occurring in 2010.

    For example, ACORN at this time are combing cemetery’s to register new voters in order to prevent change™ from happening.

    They’ve even began discrediting Tea Party protesters as ‘right-wing-tea-baggers’ with Janeane Garofalo leading the cheers.

    What next? Cow-towing to dictatorships that imprison innocent Americans such as the two journalists in North Korea or the three hikers in Iran? So we can be sensitive to our enemies, but damn American voters for voicing their disagreement with government run health care?

  • It was a stupid comment, but let’s not go overboard on the inside baseball jibes.

  • I’m actually enjoying all the comments. True, I’m saddened for our nation and what’s left of the right.

  • Darwin,

    This gentleman’s explanation you may find more persuasive.

  • Consider it community organizing.

  • True, I’m saddened for our nation and what’s left of the right.

    We know, MZ. All those uppity people speaking back to their superiors. They should know better.

  • MZ,

    Not really.

    All,

    My apologies. Resume pummelling.

  • On a side note, I’m amused that some on the progressive side are claiming to be shocked (shocked!) that criticisms voiced at “town hall meetings” are not sufficiently learned from their point of view.

    Does anyone really imagine that getting a bunch of random voters to ask politicians questions about a complex and contentious topic will produce learned questions — or answers for that matter? “Town hall” meetings to discuss anything other than how to run a local town are unlikely to result in deep analysis from either the citizens or the politicians involved. To get upset that it’s not your pat and simplistic arguments being aired seems odd.

  • Are you pawning yourself off Paul as the everyman?

  • MZ:

    Yes, MZ. Clearly walking by the SEIU headquarters every day on my lunch break is finally getting to me.

  • The rift between the common people and the know-it-all’s widens…

  • From the comment MZ linked to:

    “These town hall shut downs have been orchestrated by the same Washington lobbying firm that was behind the tea parties. I assume those of who who don’t depend on Fox know that by now.”

    I rejoice that such a complete misreading of the current situation is what passes for analysis on the Left. Of course the proposals of Obama and the Democrats in Congress can’t really be unpopular with the public; this all has to be orchestrated by a sinister right wing cabal.

  • Hillary Clinton nailed it over 15 years ago as a “vast right-wing conspiracy” Donald.

    Why people are incapable of making up their own minds without help from “others”.

    Frankly, if this is what the White House offers as an objective analysis, then President Obama is in for a real awakening come 2010.

  • Hmmm Republicans lead by 5 points on the Rasmussen generic Congressional ballot:

    “Support for Republican congressional candidates has risen to its highest level in recent years, giving the GOP a five-point lead over Democrats in the latest Congressional Ballot and stretching the out-of-power party’s lead to six weeks in a row.
    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

    Democrats held a six- or seven-point lead on the ballot for the first few weeks of 2009. That began to slip in early February, and from mid-April through June the two political parties were roughly even. Republicans have held a lead on the ballot since the last week in June, the first time they’d been on top in well over a year.

    Women who have consistently favored Democrats now prefer the GOP by a 40% to 39% margin. Men continue to favor Republicans over Democrats 47% to 36%.

    Voters not affiliated with either party prefer Republicans two-to-one – 43% to 22%.”

    Well Rasmussen must obviously be in the pay of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Of course that doesn’t explain why NPR shows Republicans ahead on their generic Congressional ballot poll by one point. Even the full mooners of the Left will have some difficulty portraying National Public Radio as in any sense right-wing.

    There is a long way to go of course until November 2010, but this is a crucial time for recruiting candidates and raising war chests, and this type of news gives a big boost to the GOP and a big problem for the Democrats.

  • Oh, I’m sure Toomey’s campaign manager danced a jig around the office when he (or she) saw that clip. PA voters are going to see the sound bite helpfully provided by Arlen “I don’t actually read the bills” Spector over and over in the fall.

    Look, in your own personal life you know you’re a darn fool if you don’t bother to read important documents you put your name to, whether they’re mortgages, leases, wills, insurance policies or what have you. Every responsible adult understands that what’s in the fine print might come back to bite you. And yet we have the surreal spectacle of our lawmakers pushing for a momentous change – and yet they haven’t even read the bill (or else it hasn’t been written yet, so they don’t know the specifics.) And yet we’re just supposed to trust them to do the right thing? This is ridiculous.

  • Pingback: Sebelius and Specter Respond « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Pelosi, Are Senior Citizens “Well Dressed Nazi’s”? « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: We Are Americans, Not Europeans « The American Catholic

Government Funded Health Care Open Thread

Friday, July 24, AD 2009

In light of Zach’s stellar posting which generated over 240 comments ranging from anarchism to Oscar Romero and which inspired a posting by Michael Denton.  These comments, although informative to a certain extent, may have detracted from the original intent of the posting.  Henceforth in regards to said activities being done on Zach’s posting concerning Representative Chris Smith, I am starting a new tradition here at American Catholic, the open thread.

So feel free to comment to your hearts delight that isn’t related to any other postings on this website.

The comments policy is still in place so don’t forget to treat each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Enjoy.

Marxist Health Care

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Government Funded Health Care Open Thread

  • I do not oppose a health care bill that extends coverage beyond the narrow concerns protected under Medicaid, Medicare, and SSI. I object to bloated bills that have not been read. I object to rushing to publish a bill, any bill, for purely political reasons. I object to “stealth” measures to hide within larger bills truly controversial legislation like FOCA. I object to the blackmail that this process creates, diminishing debate and deliberation to little more than key points, without the detail necessary to analyze the effects. Most of all, I object to a President, ANY President, telling the legislature what kind of legislation to pass, what it should do and say, and when it shall be completed. This is bullying and strikes as the core of the Separation of Powers.

    In the instant debate, I am THRILLED to see this rush to cobble together a bill delayed. Now, maybe, we can come up with something that specifically addresses the issues as hand without delving into issues that should be addressed as separate bills.

  • G-Veg,

    I agree to most of your points except the need for government run health care. Which both violates subsidiarity and distributism.

  • I forget who pointed out. Appropos of your cartoon, it appears the right has an unhealthy obsession with anal penetration, specifically anal rape.

  • M.Z.,

    What gnostic class can I take to follow your line of thinking?

  • Tito,

    I love you, man, but you are better than a post with that cartoon as its header.

  • Frankly, the cartoon was a lot more innocuous than M.Z.’s rather inflammatory response to it.

  • Why does it violate subsidiarity?

  • The principle of subsidiarity is that matters should be handled at the most local level as possible and if it cannot adequately at that level be taken care of, it can move up to the next point. The problem is, I think most Democrats will argue, is that the states do not have the resources to address the matter sufficiently because it is fixing a regional problem within a intricately more complicated problem. So, I don’t think one can simply say it violates subsidiarity as if that is some obvious objective fact that cannot, rightly or wrongly, be disputed.

    All Democratic proposals aside. I have read criticism after criticism, but I have read very little by way of solutions to the problem. I have seen what I think are credible starting-points amending parts of the system, but nothing comprehensively to address the whole of health care in America, while restraining the government. If this were really a serious problem, I’d almost expect a solution. The closest thing I’ve seen is the Patients Choice Act which has earned about every stripe of Republican criticism and has incorporated by and large waves of Democratic ideas.

    I think the *structure* of the health care markets is deeply flawed and I don’t see them re-structuring unless it is via the legislative process. I’m sure we won’t agree on details. But it seems opposition to Democratic health care proposals almost always opposition (indirectly) to reform, which ends up not happening — to the total chagrin of the people who need it the most.

  • Eric,

    Were the Federal Government to provide a straightforward and unrestricted subsidy to state, county, and municipal government determined according to a formula taking into account population and per capita income, the principal structural impediment to state authorities acting as medical insurers would be removed. Why not leave general income redistribution, macroeconomic stabilization (e.g. unemployment compensation), and public works implicated in moving people and goods across state lines to the center and other services to the periphery?

  • Pingback: Hey Pelosi, Are Senior Citizens Well Dressed Nazis? « The American Catholic
  • Eric,
    I have read very little by way of solutions to the problem.

    have you checked out the Republican proposals? John McCain’s policy is a great starting point. I believe it’s the brainchild of an actual physician.

    Here’s the key points without getting into the nitty gritty:

    1. Tort Reform – liability insurance and payouts for exorbitant claims account for 20% of healthcare costs.

    2. Equal Access – eliminate preferential tax treatment of employer sponsored plans vs. private plans. Accomplished by eliminating the employer’s deduction, and giving a tax credit to all Americans with which to purchase health care as they see fit.

    3. Open Market – allow individuals and employers to purchase any plan authorized by any state.

    4. Encourage Health savings and catastrophic INSURANCE coverage instead of pre-paid health care.

    These actions will drive down the cost of health care while maintaining the motivators for continued advancement and excellence.

    Now, you can never again say haven’t heard any alternatives.

8 Responses to Democrat Economy

  • Why “Democrat” economy? As Arlen Spector said, the Republicans essentially support this bill, but are afraid to put their fingerprints on it.

  • Arlen Spector, besides being a RINO, is a liar. This monstrosity is the Democrats’ gift to the nation. Besides Spector, and the Maine RINOS, the Republican party was unified in its opposition.

  • While one ought to roll eyes at superstition, I’d say that the Friday 13 passing of this trillion-dollar bag of pork-rinds is a bit of a morbidly funny harbinger. I am also glad it passed (first, because it was inevitable and second, because its inevitable doom may seal the ultimate downfall of the Left, even as the Left enjoys its shining little “moment,” at least right now).

    More horrific is the complete lack of innovation that surrounded this grand Democratic scheme to solve (or at least blunt) the crisis. Obama the new, new Visionary (for that is indeed the specific image he cultivated, sold, and rode-upon into office). Some “vision.” This bill is not only the most pedestrian, predictable, and typically uninspired Leftist folly right out of the tattered playbook, it is the fattest.

    This kind of “same old, same old” is far more ridiculous than the “past eight years same-old” that Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the other dwarfs have been whimpering about. Is anyone amazed at how the leftist imagination is so easily titillated and indoctrinated, en masse, by the most generic clouds of stardust? No. People may rightfully decry Bush and his myriad difficulties, but with the passing of this bill, the Obama Cult has officially become the greatest hoodwink in American history.

    None of that matters, now. We’re in for it. Obama plans to address the housing crisis on Wednesday. More drab policy-wonking and ineptitude. The horror is that so few Americans have even a shred of a clue that there is no solution to this largest segment of the crisis. Nothing can be done, short of having allowed (and continuing to allow) the big banks to utterly collapse and find a way to prop-up the smaller banks that did not have the means to engage in the pervasive lending abuses of the giants, and thus make it easier for the crashed banking infrastructure to reset itself even a tiny bit.

    That, at least, would put ~some~ sort of a dent in the fact that over 70 percent of those in the market for a house can never qualify for a loan now (even if 20 percent of that 70 actually DO qualify), with housing prices not even at the nadir, yet, and inventory all the way to the moon. Letting the offending banks and lenders fail and giving incentives to the smaller, up-and-coming banks would have helped put that 10-20% of qualified buyers back on the map. Even getting 5% of those who still truly qualify (but who cannot get a loan to save their lives) back on the map would have had a salvific impact. A superb pilot-light in the darkness. That would have been a real stimulus, right there. A genuine stimulus.

    But no one gets this. Few, at least. America doesn’t get it. I’ve been in lending and real estate for almost 20 years, in California. I can attest that Americans haven’t a proverbial clue and our representatives (touchy Republicans and dingbat Democrats alike) are evading the primary issue, on top of the Democrats’ execrable compounding of the issue. Everyone knows this stimulus is going to fail and that even its pithy scraps of assistance won’t register a blip for years. To secure their paradigm, Obama and the Democrats betrayed the nation and cobbled together this piece of garbage as quickly as possible (under the “we need it as swiftly as possible” mantle) at the expense of bipartisanship and the future. Certainly, a six-month attempt at coming-up with something truly innovative and potentially successful would have been wise. But that’s not on anyone’s agenda, in the beltway.

    How this administration can dare uphold even a mere pretense of being innovative and visionary is, at best, a joke, now. With the passing of this cobbled-together, typically uninspired-yet-exorbitant stimulus, the Obama presidency has already become an apocalyptic disaster. A massive failure. Truly: everything to come from him over the next four years is going to be so much fiddling amid the conflagration.

  • I’m not sure if the stimulus will help that much in the current economic environment. Economies go through cycles and recession is part of the cycle. I read a good article on the history of cycles at, I think,

    http://www.recessioninfocenter.com

  • I was looking at a chart of the DJIA for the last four years, it’s interesting to note that it was on a steady rise until November 2006… since then it has been declining.

    What happened in Nov 2006 that could possibly account for this?

  • What happened in Nov 2006 that could possibly account for this?

    Hmmmm,…., I seem to recall that there was an election that month,….,

  • Pingback: Stimulus or expansion? | Delusions of Grandeur
  • Pingback: National Bankruptcy « The American Catholic

Now This Is An Archbishop!

Friday, January 30, AD 2009

archbishop-burke

Hattip to our commenter Phillip.  When Raymond Burke was Archbishop of Saint Louis he was a tireless advocate of the unborn and also tireless in taking to task those who supported abortion.  His elevation to be head of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature in Rome has not diminshed his zeal for the pro-life cause.  In an interview in October of last year he stated that the Democrat party risked transforming itself into the party of death.

Continue reading...

36 Responses to Now This Is An Archbishop!

  • Huzzahs to Archbishop Burke!

    We really need to rid ourselves of such documents like Faithful Citizenship and the Seamless Garment. They do nothing for particular bishops that choose to hide themselves behind official-looking USCCB documents and not stand up for the Truth. They want to remain popular amongst their worldly friends. Other bishops simply disdain the pro-life position altogether because it doesn’t sync up with their favorite party, ie, the Democratic Party (or as Archbishop Burke calls them, the future party of death).

    Too many times has the USCCB and many of their documents been used as a parallel magesterium to justify their liberal agenda’s. It’s gotten to the point where the word “pastoral” is turning a dirty word. A code word for, “the hell am I going to tow the line of the teachings of Jesus, I have compassion! I dare not teach the Truth!”

    In the end, the bishops of each diocese need(s) to step up to the bat and get away from the USCCB.

  • The USCCB- now an inefficient entity in the manner of GM, Citi, too many city and state governments. GIGO here- garbage in, garbage out. Years of blah blah blah statements by the entity clearly contributed to the Catholic majority who voted for the Presidential candidate with the clear, unyielding pro-abortion bias. USCCB was useful during the post-JFK years- the ascending of ethnic Catholics into Americano Mainstream. It incorporated the Don’t Make Waves sentiment of most Americano Catlicks- get along go along don’t be too bold about speaking out. Thus the blah many of our priests deliver posing as Sunday homilies. Thus a culture deprived of the clear, solid teaching that the Church provides on these and other matters. Thus the rhetorical dancing of Cardinal McCarrick, retired D.C. archbishop, surrounding Liveshot Kerry’s fitness to receive Holy Communion. Nuanced beyond anyone’s ability to deduce, as it turns out. The conference is largely a welfare state of career laypeople moving the bishops into moderate-lib standings. I work for the welfare state in PA. I cannot tell you clearly if my position will be intact six months hence. Perhaps we should provide this kind of not so gentle persuasion to the USCCB and its support team. In tough economic times, the USCCB may be a luxury that the Church in the U.S. of A. cannot afford.

  • Gerard E.,

    Amen brother. Amen.

  • Gerard E.,

    How about puting up a pic on your ID. You comment enough to decorate our sidebar.

    Maybe a saint.

  • T- can I use the template for Huckleberry Hound, my childhood idol?

  • Gerard E.,

    You can use whatever you want, just as long as small kids can view it.

  • “But they’re not. The economic situation, or opposition to the war in Iraq, or whatever it may be, those things don’t rise to the same level as something that is always and everywhere evil, namely the killing of innocent and defenceless human life.””

    Some guy in another thread asked my opinion on Archbishop Burke’s statement on Faithful Citizenship. As a Catholic who wholeheartedly agrees with the Seamless Garment vision of what “pro-life” means, I actually agree with the basic idea that Burke expresses. He is right: not all “social justice” issues are of equal weight. He is right that the killing of innocent and defenseless human life is a unique category. The problem comes in when he and other Catholics assume that the unborn are the only innocent and defenseless persons being killed in the world today. Some would extend that to the elderly and the dying, of course. When Burke excludes, for example, “the war in Iraq,” does it not occur to him that 1) innocent and defenseless people are dying by the hundreds of thousands in the war and 2) if the war is unjust, as the Church declared over and over, then the killing involved necessarily involves “innocent persons,” persons who are innocent of whatever the claims are that lead to the war. Even economic matters involve the killing of innocent people; not, perhaps, in the direct, fast way that abortion or bombings do, but the slow death of hunger and poverty. These persons, too, are innocent and defenseless.

    So I agree with Burke, but only to the extent that his argument is not used to exclude painfully obvious cases of the killing of innocent persons for which american Catholics are responsible.

    We really need to rid ourselves of such documents like Faithful Citizenship and the Seamless Garment.

    You obviously have already done the individualist Catholic thing and have rid yourself of those documents, because you have repeatedly expressed your hatred of them. Respectfully, please leave the rest of us who take seriously the Church’s teaching on these matters alone.

    Too many times has the USCCB and many of their documents been used as a parallel magesterium to justify their liberal agenda’s. (sic)

    As I have pointed out to you before, the statements of the USCCB are part of the teaching exercise of the Church, and are thus part of the Magisterium, albeit with a particular kind of authority. You cannot simply dismiss them by charging that they are used as a “parallel Magisterium.”

    You can use whatever you want, just as long as small kids can view it.

    God forbid children read this blog!

  • Michael I.,

    The USCCB is not a parallel magisterium and nowhere do we as Catholics have to be adherents. Only to Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium are Catholics obliged to taking instruction from, not some episcopal national conference.

    God forbid children read this blog!

    You read this blog don’t you? 😉

  • Michael,

    He is right that the killing of innocent and defenseless human life is a unique category. The problem comes in when he and other Catholics assume that the unborn are the only innocent and defenseless persons being killed in the world today. Some would extend that to the elderly and the dying, of course. When Burke excludes, for example, “the war in Iraq,” does it not occur to him that 1) innocent and defenseless people are dying by the hundreds of thousands in the war and 2) if the war is unjust, as the Church declared over and over, then the killing involved necessarily involves “innocent persons,” persons who are innocent of whatever the claims are that lead to the war. Even economic matters involve the killing of innocent people; not, perhaps, in the direct, fast way that abortion or bombings do, but the slow death of hunger and poverty. These persons, too, are innocent and defenseless.

    This is were you and the rest of your social justice liberal friends are off base, and being misled by a false notion of the “Seamless Garment”. Abp. Burke, and the Church are very clear that it is “deliberate” killing of innocent life which is intrinsically evil and can never be defended, and that it is especially heinous in the case of abortion and euthanasia.

    YOU know that the documents bear this out, yet you continue, to obstinately reject these teachings and repeat disseminate your error among the faithful.

    Matt 5:19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

  • The USCCB is not a parallel magisterium and nowhere do we as Catholics have to be adherents.

    Of course they are not a parallel magisterium. They are part of the Magisterium. I set you straight on this some time ago, citing JPII on the matter. Did JPII not sink in? Is JPII a parallel magisterium too? Have you “rid yourself” of everything JPII said that you don’t like?

  • Abp. Burke, and the Church are very clear that it is “deliberate” killing of innocent life which is intrinsically evil and can never be defended, and that it is especially heinous in the case of abortion and euthanasia.

    The Church does not limit the deliberate killing of innocent human life to abortion and euthanasia alone.

    YOU know that the documents bear this out, yet you continue, to obstinately reject these teachings and repeat disseminate your error among the faithful.

    I know the documents well and I do not reject anything about them.

  • Michael I.,

    I highly doubt that the USCCB is part of the Magisterium and the way you interpret I don’t find that wording anywhere.

  • Did you read what I posted some time ago in our discussion on this very blog on this topic?

  • Michael I.,

    If I did I forgot about it.

    Post me the link to your comments or just tell me the document that you are referencing by JP2. Or just post it here in its entirety.

  • Michael J. Iafrate,

    Matt: Abp. Burke, and the Church are very clear that it is “deliberate” killing of innocent life which is intrinsically evil and can never be defended, and that it is especially heinous in the case of abortion and euthanasia.

    The Church does not limit the deliberate killing of innocent human life to abortion and euthanasia alone.

    Ummm… why are you throwing out red herrings? I said it was especially heinous.

    YOU know that the documents bear this out, yet you continue, to obstinately reject these teachings and repeat disseminate your error among the faithful.

    I know the documents well and I do not reject anything about them.

    SO you acknowledge that:
    1. The deliberate killing of innocent life is intrinsically evil, however the unintentional killing, or policies which may result indirectly in loss of life is not.

    2. Abortion and euthanasia are the most serious forms of killing because they attack they target the most innocent and defenseless?

    3. Economics and other prudential matters as to how best to deal with poverty, hunger, maintaining peace, are subject to a variety of opinion as to how best to deal with them.

    If you do, please stop disregarding these teachings in order to try and further your personal inclinations.

    Finally the USCCB is not endowed with doctrinal authority in matters of faith and morals, so it is not magisterial as such. The college of bishops in communion with the Holy See constitute the magisterium.

    This document may help you to conform your understanding of the place of the national councils of bishops in the Church.

    http://benedettoxvi.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_22071998_apostolos-suos_en.html

  • Michael I.,

    What Matt “Mark” McDonald said.

  • I believe I posted excerpts from Apostolos Suos. You, and others, are absolutely right to recognize the limited nature of the authority of statements by Episcopal Conferences. But you are wrong to imply that we should “rid ourselves” of them. The authority of a particular document varies depending on a number of criteria. If the document expresses the position of the universal magisterium (as opposed to a local expression of the magisterium) then its authority obviously has more weight. From the passages below, it seems that the acknowledgment of the “limited” nature of the authority of local magisterial teaching is not meant to give the faithful in that area an “out,” so to speak, but to prevent one local church’s teaching from simply being transferred to another, i.e. from saying that the teaching of the u.s. bishops has authority for the church in France, for example.

    It is important to distinguish between different parts and levels of magisterial teaching, and I don’t think you are doing so. It sounds to me like you are using “magisterium” to refer only to papal teaching, when in fact 1) “magisterium” refers to the teaching office of the pope and the bishops 2) there is “universal” magisterial teaching as well as localized expressions of magisterial teaching.

    As far as Faithful Citizenship goes, if you are intending to “rid yourself” of its teaching authority, it seems to me the burden of proof is on YOU to show how its exercise of the teaching office (magisterium) is in disharmony with that of the universal magisterium.

    Some relevant passages:

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_22071998_apostolos-suos_en.html

    21. The joint exercise of the episcopal ministry also involves the teaching office. The Code of Canon Law establishes the fundamental norm in this regard: “Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority, the Bishops in communion with the head and members of the college, whether as individuals or gathered in Conferences of Bishops or in particular councils, are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the faithful must adhere to the authentic teaching of their own Bishops with a sense of religious respect (religioso animi obsequio)”.(79) Apart from this general norm the Code also establishes, more concretely, some areas of doctrinal competence of the Conferences of Bishops, such as providing “that catechisms are issued for its own territory if such seems useful, with the prior approval of the Apostolic See”,(80) and the approval of editions of the books of Sacred Scripture and their translations.(81)

    The concerted voice of the Bishops of a determined territory, when, in communion with the Roman Pontiff, they jointly proclaim the catholic truth in matters of faith and morals, can reach their people more effectively and can make it easier for their faithful to adhere to the magisterium with a sense of religious respect. In faithfully exercising their teaching office, the Bishops serve the word of God, to which their teaching is subject, they listen to it devoutly, guard it scrupulously and explain it faithfully in such a way that the faithful receive it in the best manner possible.(82) Since the doctrine of the faith is a common good of the whole Church and a bond of her communion, the Bishops, assembled in Episcopal Conference, must take special care to follow the magisterium of the universal Church and to communicate it opportunely to the people entrusted to them.

    22. In dealing with new questions and in acting so that the message of Christ enlightens and guides people’s consciences in resolving new problems arising from changes in society, the Bishops assembled in the Episcopal Conference and jointly exercizing their teaching office are well aware of the limits of their pronouncements. While being official and authentic and in communion with the Apostolic See, these pronouncements do not have the characteristics of a universal magisterium. For this reason the Bishops are to be careful to avoid interfering with the doctrinal work of the Bishops of other territories, bearing in mind the wider, even world-wide, resonance which the means of social communication give to the events of a particular region.

    Taking into account that the authentic magisterium of the Bishops, namely what they teach insofar as they are invested with the authority of Christ, must always be in communion with the Head of the College and its members,(83) when the doctrinal declarations of Episcopal Conferences are approved unanimously, they may certainly be issued in the name of the Conferences themselves, and the faithful are obliged to adhere with a sense of religious respect to that authentic magisterium of their own Bishops. However, if this unanimity is lacking, a majority alone of the Bishops of a Conference cannot issue a declaration as authentic teaching of the Conference to which all the faithful of the territory would have to adhere, unless it obtains the recognitio of the Apostolic See, which will not give it if the majority requesting it is not substantial. The intervention of the Apostolic See is analogous to that required by the law in order for the Episcopal Conference to issue general decrees.(84) The recognitio of the Holy See serves furthermore to guarantee that, in dealing with new questions posed by the accelerated social and cultural changes characteristic of present times, the doctrinal response will favour communion and not harm it, and will rather prepare an eventual intervention of the universal magisterium.

  • Michael I.,

    The national episcopal conferences are disciplinary organizations and not defined doctrinally or dogmatically.

    I’m completely entitled to my opinion that they should be severely limited in scope, not part of the Magisterium, and possibly even eliminated.

  • Michael I,

    You, and others, are absolutely right to recognize the limited nature of the authority of statements by Episcopal Conferences. But you are wrong to imply that we should “rid ourselves” of them.

    We are completely within our rights as Catholics to judge that the USCCB is not a good organization, and it’s fruits have shown this. There is no doctrine or dogma that prevents us from opposing it’s continued existence.

  • SO you acknowledge that:
    1. The deliberate killing of innocent life is intrinsically evil, however the unintentional killing, or policies which may result indirectly in loss of life is not.

    Yes, I agree with this, but you are talking about two abstract categories. It is far from clear where to draw the line in many cases. Of course abortion is deliberate. Accidentally hitting someone with your car when you slide on ice is unintentional. The massive amounts of “collateral damage” involved in the u.s. bombing of Iraq involves both intentional and unintentional killing. Even those cases where the killing is claimed to be “unintentional” by the u.s. govt’ is often bogus because care is not taken to prevent preventable killing from occurring, and in such cases responsibility is greater. If I have a gun in my home and I am careless with how I handle the gun and recklessly use it without regard for who will be hurt, I am responsible even if I could somehow claim that shooting someone was “unintentional.”

    In short, the intentional/unintentional distinction is sometimes obvious. Most of the time it is not obvious.

    2. Abortion and euthanasia are the most serious forms of killing because they attack they target the most innocent and defenseless?

    Abortion is certainly a special category and is in some sense the most grave form of killing, absolutely. I’m not sure about the categories “most innocent” and “most defenseless.” When it comes to killing, the Church thinks about “innocence” in terms of whether or not there is some justification for killing the person (i.e. self-defense), not in terms of the person’s general moral state. Bombing an entire city, for example, IS killing innocent people in the sense of killing people when there is no justification for doing so, not in the sense that everyone in the city is sinless. It sounds to me like you are using “innocent” in the latter sense.

    3. Economics and other prudential matters as to how best to deal with poverty, hunger, maintaining peace, are subject to a variety of opinion as to how best to deal with them.

    Of course I agree with this.

    If you do, please stop disregarding these teachings in order to try and further your personal inclinations.

    I’m not disregarding any of it. The seriousness with which the Church takes the killing of human beings is deep and complex. It is much deeper and more complex than you are willing to admit.

  • I’m completely entitled to my opinion that they should be severely limited in scope, not part of the Magisterium, and possibly even eliminated.

    You are in disagreement with JPII and Paul VI.

  • I’m completely entitled to my opinion that they should be severely limited in scope, not part of the Magisterium, and possibly even eliminated.

    You are in disagreement with JPII and Paul VI.,

    While JPII and Paul VI, at least publicly have not called for the elimination of or severe limitation on the episcopal conferences…. they most definitely have suggested that to believe such is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

  • “not suggested” that is.

  • Michael I.,

    What Matt “Mark” McDonald said.

    I sincerely enjoyed the conversation and you certainly got me thinking (hard). Unfortunately I need to leave for confessions and Mass at the beautiful Holy Rosary Church (5:15pm on 3617 Milam St, Houston, TX 77002 — for those that are near and want to receive Jesus).

    Have a great weekend!

    In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,

    Tito

  • May I point out the use of the word “unanimous” with reference to the statements of such as USCCB. There is no single authority – no pope – in the USCCB.

    And I have heard-tell that many of the statements are drawn up by the employees of the conference. They are a kind of committee agreement. [NB: the committee color is mud].

    The teaching authority of the bishops – of each bishop – is limited to his diocese.

  • And I have heard-tell that many of the statements are drawn up by the employees of the conference.

    This is the same with many papal statements.

  • But papal statements must be approved by one authoritative person: the pope.

  • Mr. Iafrate, you wrote:
    if the war is unjust, as the Church declared over and over, then the killing involved necessarily involves “innocent persons,” persons who are innocent of whatever the claims are that lead to the war.

    Uh, no. As the CCC n.2309 notes, after explaining the conditions for a just war: “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” In other words, while the conditions are absolute, there is some leeway in their application, which moreover is the task of those in government. IOW, the Church doesn’t get to make the call.

    Also, you claim people are dying by the hundreds of thousands in the war

    Iraq Body Count lists just under 100,000 civilian deaths for the nearly 6-year period of the war, working out to approx 17,000 per year. Even assuming that all these were deliberate — certainly not true — more infants are murdered by abortionists, in the US alone, in a single week than the civilians killed in the Iraq war in a year.

    And that’s not taking into account the particular conditions that Pope John Paul says makes abortion especially grave.

    The reversal of the Mexico City Policy means that US Aid money will be funneled into abortion-promoting organizations, with the certain result that more babies than ever will be killed abroad.

  • In other words, while the conditions are absolute, there is some leeway in their application, which moreover is the task of those in government. IOW, the Church doesn’t get to make the call.

    The Church reserves the right to “make the call” on EVERYTHING. We do NOT give that kind of authority to the state.

    Funny, how in another thread you were saying to leave certain things to the Church and not the state because the state shouldn’t have that power. Here you are arguing just the opposite.

    Christ and his Church are the only authority for Catholics. Not the state.

    Even assuming that all these were deliberate — certainly not true — more infants are murdered by abortionists, in the US alone, in a single week than the civilians killed in the Iraq war in a year.

    So what? Does this make the deaths of human beings due to an UNJUST WAR less serious? Of course not.

  • Michael,

    necessarily involves “innocent persons,” persons who are innocent of whatever the claims are that lead to the war.

    this is not true at all. An unjust war could involve only the killing of men involved with serious evil, their deaths may be unjust, but that doesn’t make them innocent. The justness of a war does not prevent innocent’s from being killed at all. Even enemy soldiers may be innocent of any sin, and yet they are justly killed if that is the only possible means of neutralizing them as a threat.

    The Church reserves the right to “make the call” on EVERYTHING. We do NOT give that kind of authority to the state.

    This may be true, but she did not take this step in this case, the comments by the Holy Father and various bishops are not in any way given as absolute and definitive. They would never do so without knowing what the president knows.

    Funny, how in another thread you were saying to leave certain things to the Church and not the state because the state shouldn’t have that power. Here you are arguing just the opposite.

    Now you’re arguing with the Church??
    “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”

  • Michael,

    one more thing, a question. Do you believe that the Iraq war is a moral equivalent to the holocaust of abortion?

    The reason I ask, is that every time the subject of abortion comes up, you bring up the Iraq war… every time.

  • An unjust war could involve only the killing of men involved with serious evil, their deaths may be unjust, but that doesn’t make them innocent. The justness of a war does not prevent innocent’s from being killed at all. Even enemy soldiers may be innocent of any sin, and yet they are justly killed if that is the only possible means of neutralizing them as a threat.

    You are completely missing my point regarding what it means when the Church talks about killing innocent persons.

    Killing “enemy” soldiers in a war that does not meet just war requirements is still MURDER even if it is justified by the state as a “means of neutralizing them as a threat.” What part of the Church’s authoritative just war teaching do you not understand, or rather, REJECT?

    Do you believe that the Iraq war is a moral equivalent to the holocaust of abortion?

    I agree with the judgment of the Vatican and the USCCB (and the rest of the worldwide Catholic communion, apart from nationalistic american Catholics) that the Iraq War did not meet just war requirements. Thus, the killing taking place in that war is unjustified and, thus, murder. I believe that the killing involved in the holocaust of abortion is also, obviously unjustified, and thus, murder. So yes, because I stand with the Church’s judgment on the Iraq War, I think they are equivalent in the sense that they are both murder. They are not equivalent in a technical sense because they involve different types of killing and different types of political options which contribute to them.

    The reason I ask, is that every time the subject of abortion comes up, you bring up the Iraq war… every time.

    I didn’t bring it up. Burke did. I was referring to his statement.

  • Michael J. Iafrate,
    An unjust war could involve only the killing of men involved with serious evil, their deaths may be unjust, but that doesn’t make them innocent. The justness of a war does not prevent innocent’s from being killed at all. Even enemy soldiers may be innocent of any sin, and yet they are justly killed if that is the only possible means of neutralizing them as a threat.

    You are completely missing my point regarding what it means when the Church talks about killing innocent persons.

    Killing “enemy” soldiers in a war that does not meet just war requirements is still MURDER even if it is justified by the state as a “means of neutralizing them as a threat.” What part of the Church’s authoritative just war teaching do you not understand, or rather, REJECT?

    Nothing in your response contradicts what I said, nor does anything in my statement contradict Church teaching. It was your original statement that the justness of a war affects the innocence of any particular casualties, which it does not.

    Do you believe that the Iraq war is a moral equivalent to the holocaust of abortion?

    I agree with the judgment of the Vatican and the USCCB (and the rest of the worldwide Catholic communion, apart from nationalistic american Catholics) that the Iraq War did not meet just war requirements. Thus, the killing taking place in that war is unjustified and, thus, murder. I believe that the killing involved in the holocaust of abortion is also, obviously unjustified, and thus, murder. So yes, because I stand with the Church’s judgment on the Iraq War, I think they are equivalent in the sense that they are both murder. They are not equivalent in a technical sense because they involve different types of killing and different types of political options which contribute to them.

    Ok, I’m sorry if you didn’t understand the question. Let me define what I mean by “moral equivalence”. I don’t mean that they are the same thing in a technical sense, it is that they are the morally equivalent, meaning neither is more or less morally evil. Let me use an example that might help. 6 million jews were killed in the shoah, merely for the fact they were jewish. I believe that is far worse than say, when North Korea invaded South Korea, where hundreds of thousands died, it is less evil in that it’s intentions where not sppecifically to cause those deaths, that most of the deaths were armed military personnel, and the easiest one, it was a small percentage of those who were killed in the shoah. I believe it would be morally repugnant to minimize the shoah by comparing it to a relatively lesser evil.

    So, do you consider the holocaust of abortion (40 Million worldwide annually) to be morally equivalent to the Iraq war (WHICH IS BY THE WAY…. OVER)?

  • Again, you are completely missing my point regarding what it means when the Church talks about killing innocent persons.

    I don’t mean that they are the same thing in a technical sense, it is that they are the morally equivalent, meaning neither is more or less morally evil.

    So, do you consider the holocaust of abortion (40 Million worldwide annually) to be morally equivalent to the Iraq war (WHICH IS BY THE WAY…. OVER)?

    Yes, they are morally equivalent. Numbers do not enter into it on the level of moral equivalence. Perhaps it might on the level of practical political action, but that is another question. I would also point out that the Shoah is also over, so even if the Iraq War were “over” (and it’s obviously not — what the hell are you smoking?) I’m not sure what the point is. When something is “over,” that means we should take it less seriously? Obviously not, or you would not invoke the Shoah as part of your argument.

  • Michael,

    Yes, they are morally equivalent.

    That’s what I figured you’d say.

    Iraq War were “over” (and it’s obviously not — what the hell are you smoking?)

    What have YOU been smoking? It’s over. Iraq has had several election cycles, they are largely responsible for security, the US has started to withdraw to bases in order to complete the transition and leave the country.

    When something is “over,” that means we should take it less seriously?

    No, but those babies are still being murdered daily, and we ought to take it more urgently (even if you believe it’s somehow no more heinous than the Iraq war, in contradiction to the words of Abp. Burke and the Holy Father).

Democrats "For Life"

Thursday, January 29, AD 2009

In many ways, I am a natural Democrat. I do not have a problem, in principle, with large government or higher taxes that increase wealth distribution. I was against the War in Iraq. I favor amnesty for illegal immigrants (or at least I favored many of the plans we were assured were  ‘not amnesty,’ which looked a lot like amnesty). I favor health care reform, including higher taxes, as long as the policies in question have a strong empirical foundation. While I have concerns about taking on large amounts of debt, I do not have a principled objection to the recent stimulus package (provided it actually is a stimulus package).

But I can’t call myself a Democrat.

Continue reading...

37 Responses to Democrats "For Life"

  • John Henry,

    One day I won’t disappoint you. I was pro-life, an atheist, and a Democrat and I’ll die pro-life, Catholic, and a Democrat…well the last part is not so certain, but at this point, I can’t see it going the other way.

    Pray for Bob Casey, Jr. I admired him; he has disappointed me in the last year.

  • Maybe you’ll vote for me? I can always be hopeful.

  • John Henry,

    we can argue about those other things any time….but on this matter…Great post. I may not understand Catholics who lean as you do, but I have a great respect for you not being an apologist for the “party of death” as so many others have done.

  • “Maybe you’ll vote for me? I can always be hopeful.”

    Eric – We can both hope that happens. I think the party primaries are the biggest hurdle for a pro-life Democrat (depending on the region).

    Matt – I’ll try and start some arguments on the other topics in the next few weeks.

  • The good news is that you don’t have to identify with any political parties whatsoever. If only more Catholics realized this…

  • I am a natural Republican as you are a natural Democrat John Henry. Whenever my party has put up a pro-abort against a pro-life Democrat I have unhesitatingly voted for the Democrat. Some issues are much too important for the usual rules of partisan politics to apply.

    Casey the Lesser isn’t even a shadow of his late father, a Democrat I would have voted for in a nanosecond if I had ever had the opportunity.

  • I pretty much vote pro-life, so the majority of my votes in all levels of government have gone to the Republican Party. (Of course there’s only so much at certain levels of government that a pro-life politician can enact change)

    With that said, I would vote for an Eric Brown as long as he holds onto a pro-life position.

    Ironically, the majority of my donations have been to the Democratic Party, but those are for pro-life candidates in a faraway state.

    🙂

  • You need to take a look at Democrats for Life of America http://www.democratsforlife.org/ They supported many pro-life Democrats in the last election and helped many of them get elected.

    We need to get the Democratic Party to realize that it does not have to be pro-abortion in order to be different from the Republicans. Just caring about people and the environment is enough to differentiate Democrats from the GOP!

    If enough pro-life Democrats vote and financially support candidates, we can influence the Democratic Party to be more pro-life.

  • Bill,

    Did you read the link above? Bob Casey, Jr. is a member of “Democrats for life “. It’s a trojan horse operation.

    just caring about people and the environment is enough to differentiate Democrats from the GOP!

    This kind of ridiculous and baseless assertion is what’s wrong with politics. Just because we don’t think that being on the dole is good for a man, or that we ought to use creation responsibly rather than not at all, doesn’t mean we don’t care for people or the environment.

  • Wow! The collection of political stands you support in the name of being a Democrat suggest an inadequate philosophical understanding of where those stands lead.

    You say:

    I do not have a problem, in principle, with large government or higher taxes that increase wealth distribution. I was against the War in Iraq. I favor amnesty for illegal immigrants (or at least I favored many of the plans we were assured were ‘not amnesty,’ which looked a lot like amnesty). I favor health care reform, including higher taxes, as long as the policies in question have a strong empirical foundation. While I have concerns about taking on large amounts of debt, I do not have a principled objection to the recent stimulus package…

    If you believe in liberty, you are a Catholic. If you are a Catholic, you believe in the fundamental dignity of the human person made in the image and likeness of God. You believe in free will, given to the human person by his Creator, and respected by his Creator. Your political views should be in harmony with your faith, which means you will reluctantly accept certain limitations by government on authentic freedom. Those limitations are recognized as privations necessary due to our fallen nature. They are a concession to our sinfulness. Thus, we accept certain limitations on our freedom to support the defense infrastructure that provides collective security from external threats. We support, albeit with deep regret that we must accept the associated loss of liberty, an internal police infrastructure to provide collective security from internal threats.

    Every government act is at the expense of individual liberty. No true Catholic can support increased government, but he sometimes must accept it. Taxation is the taking of something from one person and giving it to another person. Government cannot make anything, only take and redistribute. The sharing of personal goods described in the Book of the Acts is voluntary. It is an act of charity, not force. When members of the group try to participate in the group but seek a special advantage (Annanias and Saphira), they demonstrate economic rent-seeking and pay for their dishonesty with their lives. So no thinking Catholic can support socialistic approaches to the problems of our fallen world. Go read Rerun Novarum and other writings of the latter part of the 19th century to learn how the Magisterium clearly explained the proper response to modern political structures. When those political institutions conflict with human dignity and liberty, they are to be opposed.

    Jesus tells us to to obey the laws and the governors of the land. Obeying the law is not in conflict with charity, so you are not against poor Mexicans if you oppose amnesty for illegal aliens. The problem with amnesty for illegal aliens is the problem with amnesty generally. Why should it be granted for these lawbreakers and not granted for all lawbreakers at all times? This past week, we got a new Secretary of the Treasury because we granted him amnesty from his tax cheating a few years ago. When you are in trouble with the tax authorities, will you be able to mention Timothy Geithner? Or Charlie Rangel, another tax cheat who was granted amnesty?

    As a Catholic, you are not limited to empiricism. On an empirical basis, Jesus Christ was either a nut or a dangerous rabble-rouser. As the high priest said, it was expedient to have him put to death. We know, however, Jesus Christ was the Way. We know that what looks like bread and wine is truly the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, despite the empirical evidence to the contrary.

    When a Catholic looks at health care reform, he should look at it in terms of freedom and charity. Catholic hospitals offered real health care to people in need before the government inserted itself in the industry. Perhaps the most Catholic reform of health care is to remove the government so that people are free to be charitable with their time and money. Taxation of every kind and regardless of the stated purpose, is a loss of freedom which should be opposed at all times and in all places by Catholics.

    Regarding political party affliliation, there is no Catholic party. Christians, Catholic or otherwise, must know their faith and the political posture most consistent with their faith. Then they must find the political party with the principles most consistent with their faith. At times over the course of American history, the pro-freedom party has changed names. Likewise, the pro-life party. In the most recent decade, one could argue that outside the issue of abortion, there has been little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Both parties have been quick to take your money and your freedom, though the details have differed a bit.

    Catholics who want to participate in the political process will have to determine their priority. Is their faith the primary lens through which they view the world, or is it politics? If it is the former, there is no easy political affiliation. If it is the latter, perhaps they are not as Catholic as they claim.

  • One day I won’t disappoint you. I was pro-life, an atheist, and a Democrat and I’ll die pro-life, Catholic, and a Democrat…well the last part is not so certain, but at this point, I can’t see it going the other way.

    If you land yourself on a ballot over here in Williamson County, let me know and I’ll sign up for Republicans For Brown — we may not agree on other issues, but serious pro-life Catholicism deserves some solidarity.

  • I pretty much vote pro-life, so the majority of my votes in all levels of government have gone to the Republican Party.

    You mean you vote against abortion, not that you vote pro-life.

  • Michael,

    If you consult a dictionary, you’ll find that the definition (common usage) of the term ‘pro-life’ is ‘anti-abortion’.

  • Michael,

    John Henry is correct of course, but no matter what you want to include in pro-life…. he does not vote PRO-ABORTION as all of the Catholics supporting Obama did.

    Love to hear your response to Abp. Burke…

  • Matt – There is a distinction between voting for a candidate because of a position, and voting for a candidate despite their position. A person votes pro-‘something’ when they support a given politician’s policies on that particular issue. A person votes despite-‘something’ when they do not. Faithful Catholics supporting Obama did not vote ‘pro-abortion”; they voted for him despite his abortion stance.

  • John Henry,

    I’m only using Michael’s own medicine on him. Also, I think in effect my statement is logically consistent.

    Bob votes for Obama
    Obama is Pro-abortion
    therefore Bob in effect voted pro-abortion

    Now, Bob may not have voted for Obama because he is pro-abortion, but the effect is the same.

  • John Henry,

    You have the patience of Job.

  • If you consult a dictionary, you’ll find that the definition (common usage) of the term ‘pro-life’ is ‘anti-abortion’.

    I think I discussed this with you over at VN, or somewhere else, but my view is that Catholics should not settle for “common” definitions of terms like “pro-life.” Our understanding of the word is much more broad and inclusive.

    Faithful Catholics supporting Obama did not vote ‘pro-abortion”; they voted for him despite his abortion stance.

    I appreciate you recognizing this and for correcting the erroneous view of Mark McDonald.

    You have the patience of Job.

    I agree.

    Love to hear your response to Abp. Burke…

    I’ll check out the post at some point and perhaps I’ll have something to say about it.

  • Michael,

    I think I discussed this with you over at VN, or somewhere else, but my view is that Catholics should not settle for “common” definitions of terms like “pro-life.” Our understanding of the word is much more broad and inclusive.

    If you want to re-define pro-life, it changes nothing. There is no discord between opposing government expansion, a strong defense, and fighting Islamic-fascism that is contrary to the Church’s teaching on a “whole life ethic”, Catholics can have a diversity of opinion on the best way to protect life. What they can’t have is a diversity of opinion on, is whether abortion should be legal or not.

    Faithful Catholics supporting Obama did not vote ‘pro-abortion”; they voted for him despite his abortion stance.

    I know it ties your stomach in knots to hear this Michael, but there is a logical inconsistency to your position. Obama is pro-abortion, you voted for Obama, therefore you voted pro-abortion. At the end of the day, the dead babies are dead because of your vote, that you did not desire it may subjectively mitigate your culpability, but it does not effect your responsibility.

    I’ll check out the post at some point and perhaps I’ll have something to say about it.

    Ya, I guess Abp. Burke, is not really on your RADAR…. Hey. maybe you should have his picture added to the banner over at VN!

  • If you want to re-define pro-life, it changes nothing.

    I’m not suggesting we “redefine” what pro-life means. I’m suggesting we Catholics understand the perm pro-life in the Catholic sense of the word, not according to the definitions of the u.s. culture wars or the republican party.

    Obama is pro-abortion, you voted for Obama, therefore you voted pro-abortion.

    George W. Bush was in favor of abortion in the cases of rape and incest and to protect the life of the mother. According to your logic, you voted both pro-life and pro-choice. You also voted for a war that the Church opposes and you voted in favor of torture which is an intrinsic evil. Are you willing to say that you voted pro-torture? (Perhaps you actually ARE pro-torture. Would not be surprised.)

    At the end of the day, the dead babies are dead because of your vote, that you did not desire it may subjectively mitigate your culpability, but it does not effect your responsibility.

    Dead babies are not dead because of my vote. They are dead because they were aborted by particular human beings. Look, I am well aware of my culpability on the issues of abortion, war etc. Of course I’m responsible, but not because of a particular vote, but because I am an american citizen. You, too, are responsible for abortion.

    Ya, I guess Abp. Burke, is not really on your RADAR…

    Ecclesial matters of various kinds are “on my radar.”

    Hey. maybe you should have his picture added to the banner over at VN!

    Email us with your suggestion.

  • Michael J. Iafrate,
    George W. Bush was in favor of abortion in the cases of rape and incest and to protect the life of the mother. According to your logic, you voted both pro-life and pro-choice.

    Now, I’ll first say that I did not vote as I am not yet a US Citizen. However, I will take the criticism because I publicly supported George Bush. Yes, in effect I did “vote” pro-life and pro-choice. And given the disproportionately pro-abortion stance of the alternatives, this is permitted under moral law.

    You also voted for a war that the Church opposes

    No, that war was not envisioned in 2000, and was already a ‘fait accomplit’ in November 2003, furthermore, the “Church” did not oppose it, various bishops and the pope, carefully speaking to allow a diversity of opinion, and without the knowledge possessed by the political leaders did oppose it.

    and you voted in favor of torture which is an intrinsic evil. Are you willing to say that you voted pro-torture? (Perhaps you actually ARE pro-torture. Would not be surprised.)

    No, I did not vote for torture, because I am not aware of any practices, authorized by the Bush administration would be considered torture, nor is torture intrinsically evil.

    At the end of the day, the dead babies are dead because of your vote, that you did not desire it may subjectively mitigate your culpability, but it does not effect your responsibility.

    Dead babies are not dead because of my vote. They are dead because they were aborted by particular human beings. Look, I am well aware of my culpability on the issues of abortion, war etc. Of course I’m responsible, but not because of a particular vote, but because I am an American citizen. You, too, are responsible for abortion.

    Obama’s policies will fund abortions, he is responsible for them…. and so are you…. because you supported him. Of course, all Americans to a more remote extent bear some responsibility… if they haven’t done everything in their power to stop abortion…

  • No, I did not vote for torture, because I am not aware of any practices, authorized by the Bush administration would be considered torture,

    Have you been living under a rock?

    …nor is torture intrinsically evil.

    Your Church teaches that it is.

  • Matt,

    There is a culture of death that pervades America, and we all are responsible.

    The factors that lead into the degradation–if not utter destruction– of human life are many, and, rather than attempt to divide and determine degrees of individual or group responsibility, we are called to do otherise. This is especiallly so in the area of voting, which is much more complex than you surmise and only a fraction of what responsible citizenship involves/entails.

    In our having been claimed be Christ, we are called to take on Christ’s features and his love, embracing to Cross as THE example of how to counter death with life; hatred with charity; division with communio.

    Abortion, war, torture and economic exploitation will not end through a finger-pointing blame-game, but only with the LOVE which is capable of transforming all, a love that takes on ALL as though it were its responsibility alone.

  • Michael,

    Matt: No, I did not vote for torture, because I am not aware of any practices, authorized by the Bush administration would be considered torture,

    Michael: Have you been living under a rock?

    Have you? Demonstrate otherwise.

    Matt:…nor is torture intrinsically evil.

    Michael: Your Church teaches that it is.

    Not. I’ve demonstrated this is not true, at least not definitively, no point in rehashing it.

    By the way, you are bringing up lesser issues as if to treat them on the same level as abortion and euthanasia… dangerous territory.

  • Wow! The collection of political stands you support in the name of being a Democrat suggest an inadequate philosophical understanding of where those stands lead.

    Excellent post, Sidney. John Henry’s stated positions on these particualr issues are diametrically opposed to Catholicism and the teachings of Christ. They simply can’t be honestly reconciled.

  • Well, now that I’ve been accused of having ‘an inadequate philosophical understanding’ of my own positions, of supporting policies ‘no thinking Catholic can support,’ and being ‘not as Catholic as I claim’ by Sidney, and of holding positions ‘diametrically opposed to Catholicism’ that ‘can’t be honestly reconciled,’ by Felice, I suppose I’ll have to respond at some point to some of the criticisms articulated above. But this post was not intended as a defense (or even a discussion) of those positions, and so that will have to wait.

  • John Henry,

    But this post was not intended as a defense (or even a discussion) of those positions, and so that will have to wait.

    that’s what I thought too, as tempting as it was to take a potshot.

  • This question is directed mostly at Michael and Mark, since they seem to represent the Catholics who have found “grave reasons” to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Please know that I’m sincerely trying to understand how you came to this position.

    First, let me say that I *do* understand your premise, that being pro-life entails much more than simply being anti-abortion. Was it Barney Frank who made the (unfair, I think) remark that being pro-life means believing the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth? This is obviously a straw man. But it’s true that there’s a disconnect in the pro-life cause if we are anti-abortion and simultaneously callous about other forms of killing that are at best negligent about taking human life or at worst deliberately unjust about it.

    Having said that, let’s throw out a hypothetical example. Forget abortion for a moment, and let’s say that your ideal candidate is a guy like Obama in every way, except he supports policies of infanticide. He says it should be legal for women to kill their newborns within the first several weeks of life or so, if they’re too much of a burden. Not only that, but the best statistics we have show that about 3,000 or so mothers decide to act on this policy every day. My question is, do you still vote for this guy because he opposes the Iraq war, etc.?

    I doubt there’d be many voters at all for such a person. That’s because the vast majority of Americans have a disconnect about life inside and outside the womb… *But Michael and Mark, we’re not ‘most Americans.’* We’re Catholic, and we know better. We realize abortion for what it is, and we don’t make the qualitative distinctions and equivocations that most of unthinking Americans make about this issue. So we see it as 3,000 innocent lives taken unjustly every day. Are we at least in agreement on this point, or do you see a qualitative difference?

    Continuing: I also realize that the pro-life calculus is not simply a numbers game, a matter of weighing “which policy kills more?” If every life is sacred, then obviously *any* unjust killing is a sin in the eyes of God. Even though it’s not simply a numbers game, the mere fact of magnitude and proportionality *must* enter into the equation somehow, right? What would be the “grave reason” to vote for someone when the numbers aren’t even in the same order of magnitude?

    There is dispute in the numbers, of course. I don’t believe for a second the “hundreds of thousands” of innocents killed in Iraq. Look at the civil war in Sri Lanka, which has raged in densely populated areas for more than 25 years… Even in that country, which is only slightly less populous than Iraq, you don’t see more than 100,000 killed, civilian and military combined. It doesn’t pass the smell test at all. This is not to question your opposition to the Iraq War or to say that no innocents have died as a result, but I think it’s fair to claim that the numbers just don’t add up. And even if they did, we’d still be far behind the abortion numbers.

    Again, please understand why so many of us are confused. The premise you claim is a valid one, but the actual reality of doesn’t bear out. I think that’s why it’s so troubling. No one — religious or not — would vote for a guy advocating a 3,000 infant-a-day murder spree. No one.

    Why you, then?

  • “Well, now that I’ve been accused of having ‘an inadequate philosophical understanding’ of my own positions, of supporting policies ‘no thinking Catholic can support,’ and being ‘not as Catholic as I claim’ by Sidney, and of holding positions ‘diametrically opposed to Catholicism’ that ‘can’t be honestly reconciled,’ by Felice, I suppose I’ll have to respond at some point to some of the criticisms articulated above. But this post was not intended as a defense (or even a discussion) of those positions, and so that will have to wait.”

    I am afraid John Henry that quite a few Catholics, right or left, cannot resist the temptation to attempt to enlist the Church in support of their political positions. I do not doubt their sincerity when they do this. For myself, I think the political issues on which the Church has spoken clearly over time are rather few. I think opposition to abortion is one of those few issues. In regard to most other political issues I try to be careful, as you do I believe, to debate them as political issues and not to contend that the Church mandates that all Catholics adhere to the position I favor.

  • Sidney,

    If you believe in liberty, you are a Catholic. If you are a Catholic, you believe in the fundamental dignity of the human person made in the image and likeness of God. You believe in free will, given to the human person by his Creator, and respected by his Creator. Your political views should be in harmony with your faith, which means you will reluctantly accept certain limitations by government on authentic freedom. Those limitations are recognized as privations necessary due to our fallen nature. They are a concession to our sinfulness. Thus, we accept certain limitations on our freedom to support the defense infrastructure that provides collective security from external threats. We support, albeit with deep regret that we must accept the associated loss of liberty, an internal police infrastructure to provide collective security from internal threats.

    Every government act is at the expense of individual liberty. No true Catholic can support increased government, but he sometimes must accept it. Taxation is the taking of something from one person and giving it to another person. Government cannot make anything, only take and redistribute.

    Though I can generally win “I’m more conservative than you” games, I think you’re dead wrong on this — and indeed not reflecting a conservative approach to authority as the Church has understood it throughout the centuries.

    The key point, to my mind, is the section I’ve highlighted. You’re right, of course, that the human person is made in the image of God and enjoys free will as a part of that innate human dignity. However, I think you go off the tracks when you assert that this means there should be minimal restrictions on free action. Recall that the Church has traditionally taught that freedom consists of being able to do that which is right without being compelled — not being free to do what is wrong. Indeed, John Paul II wrote on several occasions that freedom is freedom to do the good — while sin is enslaving. Or to put it as we used to in the less apologetic days before the 1960s: “Error has no rights.”

    Now this certainly does not mean that we must support an all encompassing state. The demands of human dignity and subsidiarity will leave us plenty of room to prefer local or informal institutions to solve major social needs. But we can’t let ourselves go into a total libertarian free fall of seeing all obligation as evil. Scripture hits an almost terrifying balance on this: Christ and the early Church certainly never forced anyone to give their resources to help others — yet in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Christ describes someone condemned to everlasting suffering simply for not providing sufficient help to the poor man out doors.

    In the history of the Church, tithing was in most times and places mandatory — and all to often (though I’d tend to see this as an abuse leading to problems) it was combined with taxes to the local lord and all collected at once.

    So while I doubtless agree with you on a preference for smaller and more local institutions, I think it’s important that we remember that this is actually a pretty new thing in the history of the Church. And indeed, our libertarian view of liberty is mostly the result of post-Enlightenment skepticism about our ability to agree as a society on what “the good” is, and thus the insistence that we back off and let everyone define the common good for themselves. It may be a good thing, in a highly morally corrupt society like our own, but it’s not necessarily the ideal, nor is it the only approach that a Catholic can take. Most Catholic rulers in history have done quite the opposite.

  • DC,

    Very, very timely, sensitive,fair and well thought out response.

    Kudos!

  • I don’t get to say this often, but ditto what Mark DeFrancis said.

  • Paul,

    How about a pic for your ID?

    Go to this link: http://wordpress.com/signup/

    Sign up and follow the directions there. You don’t need to create a blog to create a username. Scroll to the bottom of the screen and you’ll see what I mean.

    Good luck!

  • Tito,

    I already have a wordpress blog (I’m the crankycon, in case you didn’t scroll over the name). Not sure why my pic doesn’t show up.

  • Paul,

    I knew you were the CrankyCon, but I never made the connection that you use a WordPress account. Oops!

  • Oh DarwinCatholic…100% support.

  • Pingback: Socialism, Catholicism, & the Common Good « The American Catholic

Obama taps pro-life Catholic for DNC Chair? — Guess again.

Tuesday, January 6, AD 2009

“A Pro-Life DNC Chair!”, crows an apparently elated Michael Sean Winters in America, at the news that President-elect Obama has tapped the Virginian governor for DNC chair:

I never thought I would live to see the day. If anyone had any doubts about Barack Obama’s willingness to listen to pro-life Democrats, his selection of Virginia Governor Tim Kaine to head the Democratic National Committee should settle those doubts. Obama means business.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Obama taps pro-life Catholic for DNC Chair? — Guess again.

  • What Kaine said can be seen here. Indeed, in his own words, he is not in favor of overturning Roe, and should not be counted as a pro-life Catholic.

  • Here is a politician who straddles the fence like the rest. What he supports has not stopped nor will it stop the killingof the unborn til Roe vs, Wade is gone. Its like claiming to be a little being a “little bit” pregnant.

Is the Country Moving Left? St. Thomas style….

Tuesday, November 25, AD 2008

Thanks to commenter Tim for the question, and my sincere apologies to St. Thomas Aquinas:

Objection 1: It seems that the country is moving to the left. In the recent election, the Democratic party picked up seats in both houses of Congress and won the Presidency.

Objection 2: A disproportionate number of younger voters voted for the Democratic party in the recent election.

Objection 3: The polling on social issues such as same-sex marriage has moved dramatically leftward over the past thirty years.

Objection 4: The recent bailouts will result in expanded government intervention in the economy.

On the contrary,

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Is the Country Moving Left? St. Thomas style….

  • Pingback: Is the Country Moving Left? St. Thomas style…. « The American …
  • Some “progressives” are already telling other “progressives” to shut up and stop whining as to how Obama, as a result of his appointments, seems quite a bit more “moderate” than he did during the campaign. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/23/obama/

    Rather than a move to the Left, with Cook County Illinois Democrats now running the nation, I anticipate a move to the trough. The main characteristics of most elected officials in Cook County have been a strong interest in political patronage and an insatiable desire to get rich through “public service”. Obama and his forty plus thieves are now in charge of the treasury and the results should be hilarious and completely predicatable.

  • “predicatable.” should be predictable.

  • 1. Reply to reply to objection 1- the nation swings back and forth between the left and the right. It will do same for forseeable future. Check 2010 midterms for progress report.
    2. Young voters selected a hip cool candidate who actually uses an ipod rather than- as Jonah Goldberg suggested- the one who resembles the angry old man who regularly shouts, “you kids get off my lawn!” But they still didn’t turn out proportionate to their size. If you rely on them to get elected, you’re nutz.
    3. Two words- Prop 8. Still law unless the 4 libs on the Supremes pull Anthony Kennedy in their direction.
    4. Notice how the Congressional brethren went home for Turkey Day without goodies for GM, Ford, Chrysler. Stories of AIG execs on wild spending sprees do not make Joe and Jane Taxpayer very happy. Then the issue of cause and effect. If they were to make a difference, Secretary Paulson, why can’t we get mortgages any easier? Don’t ask Hank. Still can’t get his shoe out of his mouth.

  • I am not really using the wins and losses of the blue team or the red team as my benchmark as to where this country is headed. I get confused too easily when talking about republicans and democrats and what they are about or not about etc.

    My point is, with respect to social issues, what is the consensus today as compared to where it stood 20, 50, 100, 200 years ago? What is “socially acceptable” now compared to then? I don’t have a lot of hard data to back up my beliefs, really. True, I didn’t live 50, 100, or 200 years ago, so I have to rely on my understanding of history and my understanding of human nature–so I guess you could sort of say I just “feel it in my bones” but I see a liberalizing, a “loosening-up” if you will of social mores. And I have a really hard time seeing social mores “tightening up” within our existing political framework, polling data notwithstanding.

    With respect to economic policy, as long as there is a sizable middle class then you will see a pendulum. But when the day comes–and it is coming–that the lower classes significantly outnumber the middle and upper classes, you won’t see quite so much of a pendulum anymore. This doesn’t mean that the blue team and the red team won’t still fight it out, but the fight between the blue team and the red team will be carried out over issues that were previously fought over only within the blue team. For instance, don’t you think that ultimately the issue isn’t going to be about WHETHER there should be universal healthcare, but over the various details? I doubt anything too dramatic will happen in our lifetime, however, so please don’t regard me as some kind of alarmist or crazy doomsday type guy.

    Isn’t that already happening? Yes, there is still substantial resistance to abortion and gay marriage etc., but how long will the battle really be about WHETHER these things should be allowed, and for the mainstream won’t ultimately become a question of the details? Again, I am not saying I approve or not of either practice.

    So to say that the country moves to the left is not to say that the red team is not going to beat the blue team at some point in the future. I would suggest that the country is *ultimately* moving to the left, and that it is inevitable. But I can’t prove it, since I won’t live long enough. I can only read Polybius and see if I can find a pattern as he thought he did.

One Response to Chicago Style

  • Much of what our voting brethren failed to consider this Tuesday. Uh oh stomach hurting again but I started typing here so I’ll finish it. Rahm is your basic hardcore political streetfighter. Seen with derision when GOP partisans show it but got oohs and aahs from MSM. As though Obama would select a non-loyalist as his principal gatekeeper. Also keeps Crazy Uncle Joe squared safely away in White House attic. Will let him downstairs only for parties, holiday celebrations, and Redskins games no doubt.

17 Responses to While some herald a new era for "reproductive rights"; a Catholic for Obama muses: "was it ever about abortion?"

  • “Pro-lifers need to reach out to Obama, knowing well that he will not agree with them on some fundamental issues”

    Yes, like the issue that makes them pro-lifers. If only we had possessed such wisdom at other times:

    “Abolitionists need to reach out to Jefferson Davis knowing well that he will not agree with them on some fundamental issues”

    “Capitalists need to reach out to Joe Stalin knowing well that he will not agree with them on some fundamental issues”

    “Jews need to reach out to Hitler knowing well that he will not agree with them on some fundamental issues”

    Pro-lifers reaching out to Obama is as pathetic as it is stupid. Obama’s Minion doesn’t give a hang about abortion and never has.

  • The Vatican did reach out to the CSA, and the CSA finally did agree to end slavery. Just saying.

  • “… the CSA finally did agree to end slavery.”

    Actually, the CSA wasn’t around to “agree to end slavery”. The USA ended slavery when it passed the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

  • “The Vatican did reach out to the CSA, and the CSA finally did agree to end slavery.”

    2,000,000 Union soldiers ended slavery.

  • I’m no Civil War scholar, but is it accurate to say that the CSA “agreed to end” slavery? Certainly, very late in the war, it agreed to lselective liberation in return for military service, but only when their backs were against the proverbial wall anyway. If they’d been ready to give up slavery to start with (indeed, not even that — just face its gradual diminishment) there wouldn’t have been a war in the first place.

    I understand and to a limited extent sympathize with those who see the South as having been right as regards states rights. But it’s an odd defense for those who somehow put hope in the newly elected administration — given that said administration strongly endorses the power of the Federal Government to force tolerance of moral abominations upon unwilling states.

  • The Confederate Congress on March 13, 1865 passed a law authorizing the use of slaves as troops. http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/csenlist.htm

    This was a twenty second before midnight measure when every rational Confederate knew they were facing military defeat. The Army of Northern Virginia surrendered on Palm Sunday April 9, 1865.

    The Confederate Constitution forbade the Confederate Congress from impairing the right to own slaves: “(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

    The Confederate Act specifically required the consent of the owner before a slave could be enlisted and spelled out that there would be no change in the status of the slave as a result of his enlistment:

    “SEC 5. That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners, except by consent of the owners and of the States in which they may reside, and in pursuance of the laws thereof.”

    Enlistment of black troops was a last desperate act of the Confederacy to win the fight for independence and thereby to preserve slavery. The Confederacy agreed to end slavery in the same way that the Texans in 1836 agreed to relinquish the Alamo to Santa Anna.

  • The irony here is that when people object to the analogy of abortion to slavery in the antebellum South, they typically aren’t doing so because they think it is unfair to the antebellum South.

  • “Obama’s Minion doesn’t give a hang about abortion and never has.”

    Exactly. The problem isn’t that these Catholics who voted for Obama really believed what they said about abortion, i.e., it cannot be won but can be reduced through dialogue with Obama. The problem is that these self-professed Catholics do not have a problem with abortion. Apparently they have a problem with Sunday Mass and regular confession, too. What on earth keeps them Catholic beyond the name?

    It’s about clear and authoritative teaching. And they’re not hearing it from their catechists/bishops. Bidens, Pelosis and other Catholic public figures are causing scandal, and their own bishops are tolerating it. It becomes very easy for the average Catholic to then conclude that the matter is far from grave and certain.

    What was it that the Lord said about scandals and the lukewarm?

  • Let’s accomodate Obama on abortion: cue to hysterical laughter. As though values and principles can be sold like the khakis on sale this weekend at Your Favorite Department Store. Ms. Keenan- funny how so many feminist & pro-abort leaders have Irish or Italian last names, musta broken away from The Church- isn’t very accomodating. John McCain was accomodating during his presidential campaign. John McCain returned to the Senate on Wednesday. Time for the purification process. In the Church, in the GOP, in the pro-life movement. Not pretty or easy. Might be the best thing to happen to us in any or all of these categories.

  • Jeff,

    He says that He will take our lampstand away… aka we will be the dustbowl of history… St. John discusses this in Revelation.

  • I would have thought that the writing on the wall is clear, but please correct me if I’m wrong. Abortion is not just a life issue, but an economic one, as well. To some small extent, I can understand people feeling the need for abortion in case of rape, incest, and the extreme case of either the baby dies, or both die. But a vast majority of abortions are performed for essentially economic reasons. Abortion interferes with career, can’t afford a baby, still in high school, and so on. So let me spell out what I say, and anyone who wants can jump on me.

    1) Abortion is the choice of the material over human life. The material is not just financial, but sexual.

    2) A blanket law making abortion legal in call cases gives justification to the primary cause of all abortions, i.e. rampant promiscuity.

    3) Rampant promiscuity gives rise to many ills, such as STDs, but also one of the biggest problems facing us now: single parent households.

    4) Not only are such households typically below the poverty line, but the children from those households are at much higher risk of drug use, abuse, criminal behavior, and dropping out of school, thus increasing the economic woes of the lower class.

    Furthermore, it seems highly doubtful that better economic conditions will help reduce the number of abortions. As I said before, abortion is about choosing the material over a human life. I suppose that suggesting that if a person had the opportunity to a slightly larger slice of the pie while still keeping the baby, it might prevent that person from having an abortion. But it seems to me, rather, that for such a person, the opportunity for an even larger slice of the pie if she doesn’t keep the baby won’t prevent her from having an abortion, anyway.

  • Jeff Tan, Gerard E., Bret Ramsey, and Ryan Harkins,

    Excellent analysis and commentary. I couldn’t agree more with your thoughts.

  • What does the pro-life movement have to be part of either party?

    What about praying and fasting for President-elect Obama to have a change of heart (maybe like St. Paul – it is the Year of St. Paul) and courage to stand up to his own party leaders on matters of the sanctity of life (abortion, ESCR, euthanasia and death penalty), of marriage, and of expanding the war in Afghanistan? If he is as reasonable and open to the views of pro-lifers as his Catholic proponents claim him to be, then I’m sure he will appreciate those prayers.

    What about us supporting at a local level pro-life politicans (democrates and republicans) who are willing to take the abuse from the pro-abortion side? The reason we have few to no strong pro-life politicans on the national scene is because of the lack of local support. Maybe we should be encourage people to support pro-life PACs to get this candidates some vissibility and support.

    And then there is supporting women who face crisis pregnancies. Have your parish adopted a ciris pregnancy – financially and with volunteer hours. Pro-life groups like Feminists for life who work on educating college-woman about abortion and managing unplanned pregnancy in college. Planned Parenthood called Feminist for life one of the more dangerous movements against them because it strikes at the core. They have get materials and speakers. Have them speak at all the christian universities. There is STILL so much we can do if we pray and work without ceasing.

  • Katerine,

    Well said. I believe most, if not all, of us pro-lifers are of the same mind. I hope that many, like myself, are working at the grassroots level. I certainly support any party, either Republican or Democrat, if they are serious about the sanctity of life.

    What you said needs to be told over and over. We need to behave as Christians not only during Mass on Sunday’s, but each and every day. It is a way of life.

    We certainly will do our part. And praying for Presiden-Elect Obama’s conversion is at the top of the list. Like you said, it is the year of St. Paul after all.

    In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,

    Tito

  • Do you all know about the the 40 days for life campaign which just ended? It was a cross-country effort, in many cities, 24-hour vigils in front of clinics, priests coming with the host exposed, Masses being offered, and in that forty days, at least 441 babies were saved, and several workers at the clinics quit.

    We must changed hearts through prayer and we must support women who are caught in seemingly hopeless situations where they must choice between their child and their education, their boyfriend, their family, and/or their job.

  • Katerine,

    You are my sister in Christ!

    I participated in 40 days for life with faithful prayers.

    We need to continue changing hearts and minds.

    If we change the culture, we can change the law of the land.

    In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,

    Tito

Obama Broken Promises, A Continuing Series

Thursday, November 6, AD 2008

crying-jackass

Shazam, as Gomer Pyle used to say in the Sixties!  The Iraqi government claims that Senator Obama has reassured them that he will not precipitously withdraw troops from Iraq, and it appears that the end of 2011 might be a target date.  To my anti-war friends on the Left I suggest that if I were in your shoes I would not hold my breath about US troops being removed from Iraq even before the 2012 election.  You were useful to Obama to win this election, but you will be of little use to him now that he is President.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Obama Broken Promises, A Continuing Series

  • Did Obama actually promise, absolutely and regardless of the consequences, to remove all troops from Iraq by a certain date? If so, then I could see this as a broken promise. Otherwise, it’s a bit of a stretch to characterize this statement of Obama’s a broken promise. First, Obama campaigned, especially once he sealing the deal, not as an anti-war candidate, but as a pro-war candidate who thought the War on Terror should be fought elsewhere around the globe. He wants to increase American military power in the world. Second, and more to the point, Obama cannot really promise a specific date for withdrawal because too many factors outside his control effect his ability to see it through. Pushing back the deadline from what he earlier envisioned seems in keeping with his pragmatism and temperament. If peaceniks supported him thinking he was anti-war, that’s their folly.

  • Kyle it’s been a moving target for Obama. Early in the campaign he talked about immediate withdrawal. Then it was by the end of 2008.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/12/politics/main3253449.shtml

    Then it was 16 months. In this story he talked about two years.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/22/obama.mideast/index.html

    Now we are at 3 years. I don’t think he ever has had any intention of withdrawing all troops from Iraq and I agree with you that the support of the anti-war left for this fellow was the sheerest folly as, I predict, they will painfully discover in the coming years, especially if we invade Pakistan.

  • Or when Ahmadingdong decides that downtown Tel Aviv would look so charming as smoking ash and acts accordingly.

  • …I agree with you that the support of the anti-war left for this fellow was the sheerest folly as, I predict, they will painfully discover in the coming years, especially if we invade Pakistan.

    Yes, folly for sure. And indeed, what Senator Obama had proposed before would have been disastrous, so let’s be thankful that at least as far as the withdrawal from Iraq goes he’s being sensible now – though his views on Pakistan are quite troubling. However, I don’t think there will ever be a painful day of reckoning with his supporters regardless of what he does. I think a fair amount of opposition to the Iraq conflict was merely partisan politics, and I think if, Heaven forbid, Obama opens hostilities in Pakistan there will be little grumbling from the left, and most likely calls for us to get behind president, etc. I don’t look for much to be said about Iraq during the Obama years, and when it is spoken of it will be positive coverage of what is being accomplished, etc. – something they (MSM and Dems) have refused to do thus far.

Video: Senator Obama Praising Jeremiah Wright

Saturday, November 1, AD 2008

Kerry Picket of NewsBusters posted a 1995 video of Barack Obama talking about his book, “Dreams From My Father”.  In it Senator Obama says of Reverend Jeremiah, “wonderful man” and “the best of what the black church has to offer“.  In the video excerpt Senator Obama gives high praise and further positive commentary to the bigot Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Video: Senator Obama Praising Jeremiah Wright

  • S_T_A_L_E_ D_E_S_P_E_R_A_T_I_O_N_!

  • Oh no! He said LIBERATION!

    So do the documents of the Catholic Church.

  • Listen to the words of Obama (hear them yourself at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpzHQ_PC1uI).

    “I’ve got to give a special shoutout to
    • my pastor
    • the guy who puts up with me
    • counsels me
    • listens to my wife complain about me.
    • He’s a friend, and
    • A great leader (not just in Chicago but all across the country).”

    But who is Jeremiah Wright?
    • Pastor of Trinty United Church of Christ, the church that gave a lifetime membership to the racist, anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, who has said that “Hitler was a great man” and ”White people are potential humans; they haven’t evolved yet.
    • A man who encourages blacks not to say “God bless America” but rather “God damn America.”
    • A man who INSPIRED Barack Obama TO TEARS (according to Obama’s own book) with an epiphany at the first sermon of Wright that Obama heard. In this sermon Obama spoke that Wright spoke of “white folks’ greed runs a world in need.” Clearly Obama (despite his disingenuous disclaimer) was fully aware of Wright’s anti-white rants from the FIRST SERMON HE HEARD.

    Can America really afford a President, who is so enthralled with a man who “counsels” him, is a personal “friend” and a “great leader.” Yet he was fully aware of the fact that the man he praised so was actually a vehement racist.

  • We know so little about Senator Obama it’s frightening that he’s close to being President of the United States.

  • I’d take Wright over a neo-conning clergyman any day.

  • I wouldn’t take either.

    I’m so glad I’m Catholic.

  • I wouldn’t take either.

    Riiiight. You prefer neo-conning lay persons. I get it.

    I’m so glad I’m Catholic.

    Yes, it’s nice being safe and perfect and right, isn’t it?

  • Michael I.,

    Yes, you know me so well.