Who Is the Buddy of the GOP Establishment?

Friday, April 29, AD 2016

 

cbs_lucifer_cruz

 

One of the frustrating thing about this campaign for sentient observers is the absurd claim of the crony capitalist Donald Trump to be an outsider running against the establishment.  John Boehner, former Speaker of the House, put paid to that notion yesterday:

A few months ago I asked a Washington insider for the scoop on Ted Cruz. His first words were, “No one likes Ted.” Well, John Boehner certainly doesn’t:

The longtime Ohio powerhouse had not been very outspoken on the race since retiring last year, but he held little back when asked about the Texas senator and underdog GOP presidential candidate during a forum at Stanford University.

“I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life,” he said, according to The Stanford Daily.

Boehner also called Cruz “Lucifer in the flesh.” Trump, on the other hand, he described as a “texting buddy.”

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Who Is the Buddy of the GOP Establishment?

  • Darkly amusing, isn’t it?

  • Boehner – RINO and CINO.

  • After 40 years a registered Republican (that’s after being a South Chicago born 3rd son of Catholic Democrats whose older brother was the VP of Will County Young Democrats who introduced John Kennedy to the Joliet town center rally in 1960) I registered out of the Democrat Party as a “non partisan” because of the Democrats support of legal abortion. When the Republican Party adopted a Right to Life constitutional amendment, I registered Republican to support their principled position. last year, 40 years later, I registered out of the GOP because of disgust with the lose of principles the Congressional GOP leadership exhibited after we voters gave them the leadership positions in Congress to fight Obama and his dictatorial actions as President, which they said they would do if they won the majority. Well, we gave them the majority, first the House, second the Senate, but they never would fight for what they said they would when running for reelection. The only person who did fight Obama was Senator Cruz. I had to re-register as a Republican this year in order to vote for Cruz in the CA primary this June 7th because it is a closed election for Republicans, i.e., only registered Republicans can vote in the CA Republican Primary.

    John Boehner’s resent public comments about Cruz is the best evidence that Ted Cruz is the best and only man running who will change what is happening in Washington D.C. That is why the Republican leadership despises Ted Cruz. Cruz, given the power of President, will force the Republicans in Congress to fulfill their campaign pledges to their constituents or they will not get reelected. They will be replaced with men and women that Cruz endorses.

    We Catholics need to back Cruz to win back our freedom of religion rights and to have a very knowledgeable person in the White House to fill Scalia’s vacancy plus those of 2 or more Supreme Court vacancies in the next 4 years, to be sure our original Constitutional Rights will be protected for decades to come. He will also push and sign an anti-funding bill ending taxpayer support of Planned Parenthood saving the lives of hundreds of thousand of unborn babies we say we believe God created . A Democrat president, no matter who it is, would pack the court with more anti-constitutional judges, like the 4 on there now, and they will destroy our Constitution and the unborn will never get their rights back to be born.

  • Opps, a bit of confusion in what I just wrote concerning when I registered out of the Republican Party, and prior to the that, the Democratic Party I was “born into.” I left the D party in ’74, and was registered “non- partisan” while working in a grass-root pro-life political organization electing pro-life Congressmen all of whom were Republicans. I registered Republican because of their principled position in adding a RTL Constitutional Amendment to the GOP platform. I stayed registered Republican up until March of 2015 when they controlled both the House and the Senate but wouldn’t fight Obama and the Democrats on anything. I re-registered Republican last month when I was notified by the Register of Voters office in O.C. that not being in the GOP Party I won’t be allowed to vote for their Primary. The CA GOP Party has closed their primaries to only registered Republicans.

  • I do find it odd that a billionaire is not somehow part of the “elite,” that the GOP “dumps” Boner as speaker and replaces him with Ryan, who is just as bad, and thinks sentient people won’t notice, and Ted, while being vilified by fellow GOPeratives, still has a Goldman Sachs wife but is an “outsider.”

    Appears to me they are all insiders to some degree or another. Perhaps Ted is less of one, but there is no politician who can be trusTED.

  • A “Goldman Sachs wife”?
    Horrors, is she supposed to be a librarian? A model? A community organizer? Stay-at-homes aren’t allowed, we know, and likewise unmarried isn’t OK– but what, exactly, is the wife of a candidate allowed to do?
    Is Cruz supposed to have divorced her for being an investment banker?

  • @c matt “Perhaps Ted is less of one, but there is no politician who can be trusTED.”

    It there ever is a politician that can be trusted in our day and time, LION Ted Cruz is the one. If you can’t see that, that only goes to show how poorly informed you are. And that is what is wrong with our system, people have to inform themselves to defend against getting what we have been subjected to these past 8 years. Boehner’s disgusting attack of Cruz’s character is a testimonial Cruz is for real the guy who will return the power of government to the people; that is why he is hated so much by the establishment. For gosh sake, a number of them are saying they will vote for Hilary if Cruz gets the nomination. That means they care less about our country and more about keeping their establishment in tack. It is disheartening so many Americans don’t see that.

SATURDAY EXTRA EDITION

Saturday, May 14, AD 2011

The following is courtesy of ThePulp.it:

The Speaker and the Scholars – Carson Holloway, Catholic Vote

Torture Didn’t Lead Us to Bin Laden – Matthew J. Franck, First Things

The Meatless Mark of Identity Restored – Rich Leonardi, Ten Reasons

Subsidiarity, Funding, and the Arts – Jordan J. Ballor, Acton Institute

Bp. Conley on Transcendence in the Liturgy & the New Translation – Fr. Z

Addressing the Church’s Attrition Problem – Margaret Cabaniss, Crisis Mag

Playing the Bully Card – Anthony S. Layne, Outside the Asylum

Movie Fails to Capture Anti-Catholic Brutality of Spanish Civil War – CNA

A Real Person Can Truly Love – Anthony Buono, 6 Stone Jars

On The Power of Personal Witness in the Priestly Proclamation – Msgr. Pope

Comedy Movie Night – Frank Weathers, Why I Am Catholic

The US/Pakistan Tightrope – George Friedman, MercatorNet

_._

If you liked this roundup of the best posts from around the Catholic blogosphere, visit ThePulp.it for daily updates twice a day.

For ThePulp.it click here.

Continue reading...

Catholic Left (Academic Branch) Boehner Bashing

Friday, May 13, AD 2011

For many years Catholic universities and colleges have disgraced themselves by honoring pro-abort speakers.  The indispensable Cardinal Newman Society has taken upon itself the onerous task of keeping track of this ongoing betrayal of the Church and their latest report may be read here.  A prime example was Obama as commencement speaker at Notre Dame in 2009, a debacle which was covered in full by many posts here at The American Catholic.   These affairs have often drawn protests by Catholics who realize that honoring pro-aborts is no part, or rather should be no part, of what it means to be a Catholic institution of higher learning.  

Speaker of the House John Boehner, a pro-life stalwart and a Catholic, has been invited to deliver the commencement address at Catholic University of America on May 14.   81 professors at Catholic colleges and universities, organized by some CUA profs, have decided to try a little bit of payback by protesting Boehner speaking at CUA by claiming that Boehner, because he is in favor of budget cuts, is against the poor and therefore in defiance of Church teaching.

Continue reading...

44 Responses to Catholic Left (Academic Branch) Boehner Bashing

  • B.’s stock just went up.

    Whom they fear they hate and lie about.

    They are “telling” me that B. is not marching lock-step in progressives’ covert war against economic growth, rational energy policies, job creation, and the evil, unjust private sector.

    “Woe to him who calls good evil.”

    The credentialled, cath wing of the humanist lib/radical devoloution . . . infallible ignorance . . . intellectual incompetence. I am being charitable.

    Some questions:

    What evidence do you have?: Cite votes on abortion, gay marriage, infanticide, public school brainwashing in the Seven Deadly Sins, (hint: The POPE’s four non-negotiables), etc. Cite chapter and verse of the Gospels and Scriptures not your chimera compendium of socialist (economic and moral) bankrupcy for America.

    Compared to whom/what? Bernanke, Geithner, Barney Frank, Pelosi, Teddy Chappaquiddick, Jeremiah Wright, . . . ?

    Forget charity: Calumnies, detractions, heterodoxy, uncharity, . . .

  • Pingback: Catholic Left (Academic Branch) Boehner Bashing | The American … - Christian IBD
  • I’m waiting for these academia types to send a letter to Sen Bob Casey, who’s going to be the commencement speaker at Villanova this spring, to ask him to refrain from speaking because of his pro-abortion positions.

    Waiting….

    Waiting….

    Waiting….

  • the principle of subsidarity. With good reason, this is something the Catholic Left — or whatever remains of it these days — rarely mentions or grapples with, because they know that it would raise many questions about the prudence of any number of welfare programs they support.

    By the “Catholic Left”, I take it you mean the Episcopate? Have the American bishops ever once opposed a single federal welfare program based on a violation of the principle of subsidiarity? Once? Ever?

  • After the way Kurt and his ilk trashed the Bishops as misinformed, beholden to partisan groups, liars, or all of the above, for their opposition to federal funding of abortion in the health care bill, I think we can safely ignore him whenever he tries to throw the Bishops in our faces over such prudential matters as federal budgetary policy.

  • Personally, Kurt, I don’t think the bishops should oppose such programs. Nor should they support them. The principle of subsidiarity requires an application of prudence. A bishop may well have informed thoughts on such matters, as do I, but if you think their thoughts are more informed than mine you would be mistaken. The bishops should fearlessly teach Catholic teaching, but should wade in with great caution in matters of prudential application for one very important reason: most people will fail to distinguish between the bishops’ explanation of their prudential preferences versus their explanations of actual Catholic teaching. This in turn allows people like the Dishonest 81 to try to fool Catholics into conflating the two; it also harms the credibility of the Church when the bishops’ prudential preferences are later proven wrong.
    Personally, I support a robust federal role in assisting the poor, though I’d organize it differently. My views are based on years of leadership and service to organizations such as the United Way, SVdP, Catholic Charities, and the Salvation Army, Yet, I acknowledge that my opinions, however well-formed, are applications of prudence to Catholic teaching. Reasonable and well-intended Catholics can certainly disagree in good faith. Extending this presumption of good faith is something the Dishonest 81 are unwilling to do.

  • This is bad enough and really turns your stomach but when you add to it the recent news out of the “Vatican” that we simply MUST vigorously act to stop global warming you realize just how much the leftists agenda has poisoned our political theology. The bottom line is they have, with a cheering main stream media which displays its own celebrity Catholics like Pelosi, Fr. Jenkins of ND, and these academic “every day” Catholics behind them, become the more effective purveyor of our faith and its tenants than our Bishops. Where is our 21st century Bishop Sheen and will he please step forward for God’s sake?

  • There they go again! Politicizing the Gospel.

    It’s like they plagiarized a diatribe from a Vietnamese re-education camp manual or from Mao’s Little Red Book.

    It’s left-wing liberal propaganda calling itself church teaching.

  • I didn’t know the Church had a dogmatic position on the 2012 fiscal budget! I wonder if they also have a secret dogmatic position on Oscar picks, because that’s something I’d really like to get a look at.

  • Mike,

    I appreciate your thoughts. I would strongly agree with your statement that “Reasonable and well-intended Catholics can certainly disagree in good faith” about public policy questions.

    While unlike you, I tend to agree with the statements the Bishops have made on social welfare issues, as well as the statements made by the United Way, SVdP and Catholic Charities. However, I am pleased that each of them has presented their statements in a way that does not make a person like you feel excluded or disinclined to participate in the Church, Catholic Charities, SVdeP, etc.

  • It’s my up close and personal opinion, having worked for both private and public non-profit organizations, that the private non-profits work more for the betterment of those in need and do it for less money. State organizations, unfortunately tend to become first and foremost committed to helping their employees. The poor and the weak become afterthoughts.

    However, the logic of this letter writing group would put me at odds with their view of the Catholic Church because I believe that the 10-15% of my income that goes to social services programs would be better spent going to private non-profits that create more benefit with my money and serve more people.

  • So to summarize, Kurt, you disagree with the stance these CUA professors have taken. Can you now go tell the rest of the Catholic left that they are wrong on this?

  • So to summarize, Kurt, you disagree with the stance these CUA professors have taken.

    I went back and re-read the letter. Let me make three points.

    #1 — I am deeply appreciative of the fact that they in no way suggested that he be not allowed to speak or that the event be boycotted. Nor did they trash the University authorities for inviting him. Others on both the Right and the Left haven taken a different course in other cases and my hope is for this to be a model for the future. That part of the letter is very good.

    #2 — They give witness to a vision of Catholic Social action that has been consistently promoted by the Episcopate and call the Speaker to practice that same witness. Like the Catholic signatories, I concur with the Bishops witness and statement on social welfare questions,* so I view that as a good.

    #3 — I don’t see the signatories saying the Speaker is a bad Catholic or a heretic. The letter is vague about Chuch teachings and the Bishops clear and consistent application of those teachings. Perhaps that could be a bit tighter.

    Personally, I thing inviting a Catholic Speaker of the House like John Boehner is an obvious and proper choice for CUA. And I think a polite letter from faculty calling him to embrace the principles of social policy the Bishops have called for is a proper response given the Speaker has not.

    I have twice (to my memory) received the Eucharist at the same Mass where Mr. Boehner also has and I considered it a great witness of the catholicity of the Church.

    *with a few rare exceptions where I respectfully disagree, dissenting towards the position of the secular Right. For example I supported the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which the bishops opposed.

  • She is on their “side.”

    So, I won’t hold my breath until the liberats send a letter to Sister Heretic Jeannine Gramick, who blasphemed Jesus as a model homosexual, and is scheduled to lecture at so-called Catholic: Fairfield University.

  • The Catholic left (those leftover liberation theology priests and bishops) are responsible for turning the American Catholic Church’s fundamental reason for existing from the salvation of souls to one of “social justice” administered by the great utopian state on earth. They’ve largely lost their faith in God and have turned their souls over to the socialistic destruction of souls. Our bishop’s councils are not blameless in this heresy.

  • This past week the daily gospel readings have been from John chapter 6. Jesus feeds the 5000 and then He and his disciples go across the lake. The crowd awakes the next morning, and finding Him gone, follows Him to Capernaum where they ask, “Rabbi, when camest thou hither?” Jesus answered, “Verily, verily I say unto you, Ye seek me not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for the meath which endureth unto eternal life…”

    Liberal Demokrat self-described Catholics are like the crowd that Jesus fed. They want more bread and circuses, but not the bread of eternal life. And sadly, this social justice heresy has infected even many within the clergy.

    Let’s take that point a little further. In John chapter 12 Mary, the sister of Martha, anoints Jesus’ feet with costly oil. Who protests about this, saying that the oil could have been sold for 300 denarii to feed the poor? The traitor Judas Iscariot, that’s who! He was the one conscious of “social justice.” And what does Sacred Scripture say about this? “This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.” How like every liberal Democrat elected to Washington, DC who call themselves Catholic (and sadly not a few Republicans)! Every time I hear about this social justice horse manure, I recall Judas Iscariot and John 12:6. With all our science, engineering and technology, man himself has changed not one iota in 2000 years.

  • Don L and PWP are 100% correct

    Plus, these intellektuals have responded to reasoned GOP proposals (to save our nation, our children, and our grandchildren from national bankruptcy generated by runaway spending) with harsh, partisan demagoguery; and, WORST, call it church teaching.

  • I am a religious Sister serving my Congregation in Guyana. Today I was looking for a responsible Catholic Dialogue website concerning Catholic Americans. Yours was the first place I saw and the introduction looked promising. Then I saw the horribly disrespectful picture that was posted here (disrespectful regarding religious sisters) and I saw how much rancor and hostility was being touted as dialogue. In order to find a mature, intelligent and respectful dialogue I guess I will have to keep looking…

  • Best wishes in your continuing search Sister. The picture you are referring to is only disrespectful to Catholic Leftists who use the Faith as a disguise for their political machinations. As to rancor and hostility, blogs open to public comments are rarely going to be mistaken for a Platonic dialogue, especially when one person, a la Plato, isn’t writing the dialogue. The American Catholic provides a forum for Catholics to debate issues that people feel strongly about and this will sometimes produce somewhat heated comments. We at The American Catholic try to maintain some decorum, but in my experience unless there is at least a little heat there will be no light.

  • Sister,

    Thank you for giving yourself to save souls in Guyana.

  • To Donald R. McClarey. With all due respect. If I minded a little heat I wouldn’t be living here. And I also recognize that public blogs are always going to be open to a certain amount of rancor. However, as to your comment that only Catholic leftists would be offended by the disgraceful picture which was posted. I strongly disagree. The religious sisters that I know here help feed and shelter the homeless, take care of orphans and teach little kids their catechism. This caricature of a religious sister, wearing a symbol of consecration to God, is degrading, ill-thought out and lacks charity. I was hoping, in humility, that you would remove it and say sorry. Was I wrong to hope for that?

  • Yes Sister you were mistaken to hope for that for the reasons I have already explained. The picture was not intended as an attack on anyone other than the persistant misuse of the Faith by those on the political Left which has been an ongoing problem throughout my lifetime, as I think would have been clear to anyone reading my post.

  • What is very clear to me from reading your post, and what bothers me, is not so much that you have a problem with the religious left, but that you don’t mind showing disgraceful caricatures of religious women, including nuns in habit (which I am privileged to wear, Praised be God). It may not have been “intended” to insult, but it definitely did insult. It didn’t insult the religious left, it insulted religious women. You could have gotten your message across without depicting nuns in such a degrading way. As far as my desire to have this disturbing image removed from this site. I still very humbly request that you do it. I will be asking all the sisters I know to pray for that, starting now. And thank you to T. Shaw for your encouragement. Women who serve the Church, sometimes in countries very far away from their home, do so because they love Jesus and want to care for others, pure and simple. They don’t deserve to open up a Catholic website and see that.

  • The issue here involves partisan demagoguery (exaggerations, distortions, fabrications, omissions) leveled at a decent Catholic man by leftists distorting church teaching.

    Mac, “Never apologize. It’s a sign of weakness.” Nathan C. Brittles, Captain, Cavalry, U.S. Army

  • We will have to agree to disagree Sister. The picture will stay up. I would think that prayers might be better directed towards Catholic institutions of higher learning no longer honoring pro-aborts, but de gustibus.

  • Dear T. Shaw, How about demagoguery (distortions, exaggerations, caricatures) leveled at decent Catholic women serving God by religious conservatives who are mad at religious liberals? And since when is apologizing a sign of weakness? And, T. Shaw, does Captain Brittles think going to Confession is a weak unmanly sort of thing to do? It definitely involves apologizing for one’s mistakes. In fact, I think the Church definitely encourages people to apologize (and atone) for their mistakes. And, Mr. McClarey, as far as praying for Catholic Insitutions, that’s a very good idea. I can pray for them and for you, too (to take the insulting picture off the site).

  • “I can pray for them and for you, too”

    I can always use prayers Sister, even if they are requesting God to have me do something I have no intention of doing. I am happy that you have decided to stick around the blog thus far. While you are here you might wish to read some of the other posts on the blog in addition to the one which has raised your ire.

  • I apologize. Really.

    The situation re: Captain Brittles is a military maxim. Therein the officer/leader, even with regard to superiors, cannot evince weakness even if he is wrong, but ever aggressiveness and confidence. Men’s lives depend on him.

    Another military maxim: never make an excuse. “No excuse, sir.” Whatever happens, I am responsible and there is never an excuse.

    I believe in Charity and Confession. Also, and maybe this is even harder, a Spiritual Work of Mercy: “forgive all injuries.”

    There is considerable class, cultural, and political warfare being waged in this country. The left is good at it and constantly shows that it doesn’t give a darn about right or wrong.

  • First, I have the utmost respect and reverence towards those religious women – nuns and sisters – who take their vows seriously, devote their lives to Jesus Christ and work without ceasing for the Kingdom of Heaven. We should and must pray for them and contribute what we can to the good work that they do.

    That being said, the picture of the leftist socialist pseudo-nun with the commie painted on her bosom is nothing like the picture St. John gave us of similar Jezebels in Revelation 2:20-23:

    http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation2.htm#v20

    St. John was a lot more forceful.

  • Now, for good or ill (i’m sure the moderators think for ill; I’m not debating that), the signatories of the letter take the Speaker to task for public policy differences where they concur with the Episcopacy and the Speaker dissents from the position taken by the Episcopate. Again, I’m not asserting here the wisdom of the bishops’ positions on these issues, I’m just noting that the Speaker (respectfully) disagrees with the Bishops and the signatories are in agreement with the Bishops on these public policy proposals.

    So my question is, why the derogatory picture of a woman religious? Why not one of a bishop? It might be a virtue or a vice, but you know critics of your viewpoint will think this is done because conservatives find it easier or more pleasurable to pick on women. Why bait us? Just for jollies?

  • “Why bait us?” I don’t know the reason why, but by your own admission we know for certain what side you’re on. Secondly, there would be no bait if the picture weren’t so true.

    It’s amazing that the leftists claim to support wealth redistribution as social justice and codify the same into the law of the land on the supposition that that is the Christian thing to do, yet at the same time would not and do not support measures to restore a sense of righteousness and holiness throughout the land. If the leftists were so intent on Christian virtue as they claim, then they would support measures to outlaw abortion, contraception, homosexual activity, adultery and fornication. The fact that they refuse to support such measures, on the assertion that this isn’t a theocracy, points to the fallacy in their argument to codify (at least their version of) social justice as the law of the land: this isn’t a theocracy.

    Liberals want theocracy (with Obama as their messiah) when it supports redistributing wealth from those who earn to those who don’t. By so doing they can keep the non-wage earner addicted to teat of the public treasury, thereby enslaving these people and ensuring again and again the re-election of their champions of the common good where everyone is equal at the lowest common denominator except for those elite few enlightened enough by the gospel of socialism to lead society forward into a man-made kingdom of heaven.

    Here’s the bottom line: it doesn’t matter how much social justice you have, or how much you spend on the poor. As long as you allow abortion, homosexual marriage and the rest of the murder and filth to go on, there will be NO social justice. Repentance and conversion come BEFORE social justice and NOT afterwards. But liberals, wanting unlimited license to do whatever feels good without consequence, refuse the former, and thus will be denied the later.

  • the Speaker dissents from the position taken by the Episcopate

    Or, more precisely, the staff of the U.S. Catholic Conference, which no one seems to be able to control or kill.

    but you know critics of your viewpoint will think this is done because conservatives find it easier or more pleasurable to pick on women.

    I pull the wings off flies, too.

  • Kurt,

    I’m not particularly interested in defending the picture, but I think the answer to your main question is that few not firmly in the Leftist camp would accept the claim that “the bishops” are against any cuts to or restructuring of entitlements such as outlined in the Ryan budget — certainly not in a way in which disagreement could be classified as “dissent”. This in part because I think very few (except those who do so entirely for convenience) would consider the occasional murmurings out of staff in the political offices of the USCCB to be any kind of “teaching” so much as “this is what these particular staff who are hired to try to apply teaching to the issues of the day have to say.”

    At least when issues such as abortion are being discussed, there is an absolutely clear and doctrinal teaching of the Church in play which it is not hard to figure out how to apply to the political realm — certainly when discussing the scandal of supporting a politician who never found pro-choice legislation he didn’t like. By comparison, while the Church unquestionably teaches us about our duty towards the least fortunate among us, there is no Church teaching or clear extrapolation of Church teaching which informs us what the necessary growth rate or structure of specific federal programs in one country in the this particular time in history should be. (And really, when one thinks about it that way, the idea that there would be seems rather silly.)

    This is why in situations like this conservatives invariably see the sudden fuss for “fidelity” put forward by leftist Catholics as a set of theatrics in order to claim “oh yeah, you’re just the same” when the “dissent” of conservatives relates to fine details of how to allocate tax dollars and entitlements, while the very real dissent on the left involves the legalization of killing the unborn.

  • that few not firmly in the Leftist camp would accept the claim that “the bishops” are against any cuts to or restructuring of entitlements such as outlined in the Ryan budget —

    You need to sign up to get the emails they have put out asking us lay faithful to write letters on various issues. Its pretty clear the signatories and the bishops are asking the Speaker to change his position on the same issues.

    It’s amazing that the leftists claim to support wealth redistribution as social justice and codify the same into the law of the land on the supposition that that is the Christian thing to do, yet at the same time would not and do not support measures to restore a sense of righteousness and holiness throughout the land. If the leftists were so intent on Christian virtue as they claim, then they would support measures to outlaw abortion, contraception, homosexual activity, adultery and fornication.

    I don’t support wealth redistribution as social justice. While I support outlawing abortion, I do oppose laws to throw people in jail for contraceptive use or homosexuality. I welcome a chance to hear your arguement for the conservative position on those two concerns and would give a respectful response supporting my position.

  • “So my question is, why the derogatory picture of a woman religious? Why not one of a bishop?”

    The answer to that question is quite simple: the picture was avaliable. If I had encountered a similar picture of a bishop or a priest or brother I would have run with it. The picture was meant to be a symbol of the Catholic Left, and not to single out women religious. If I had wished to attack women religious, I certainly not have chosen a young woman in a habit, normally the sign these days of a member of an orthodox order. I would have picked out a picture of a sixtyish woman dressed like a social worker, the usual garb of the orders of woman religious who have gone off the rails and are now dying out for lack of young postulants.

  • Yes, the Committee on Domestic Justice and such send out fairly vague (and from a policy point of view, to my mind not very incisive) letters every so often. However, to take that as a representative of what all US bishops think is quickly belied by the fact that when you actually get all the bishops together what they can agree on in the political arena is generally both more vague and more moderate.

    Indeed, if there are two things which the bishops generally can agree on, it’s generally in opposing same sex marriage and opposing abortion — two things which the Democratic party is singularly out of sympathy with.

    (Which, incidentally, simply underscores how unprecedented it was for such a huge number of bishops to come out against Notre Dame giving Obama an award — the event which these signatories are trying to be the equal and opposite to.)

  • Yes, the Committee on Domestic Justice and such send out fairly vague (and from a policy point of view, to my mind not very incisive) letters every so often.

    You need to get on the same list I am on. The alerts are not vague, but pinpoint specific: “Please contact your Senators/Representatives and tell them to vote yes/no on S./HR. 123”

    And they are fairly frequent when Congress is in session.

    And they have been doing so for a long time..I recall getting them my postal delivery before email was an option.

    And there are letter sent to Members of Congress by the Bishops themselves again asking for a particular vote — yes or no — on a particular piece of legislation.

    I respect the right of any Catholic to respectfully disagree with the bishops on any public policy proposal. I just think people are being silly and childish to pretend the bishops pnly mean it when they argree with them and don’t really mean it when they take a position contrary to their opinion.

    The bottom line remains the signatories have done what the bishops have already done — asked the Speaker to support certainly legislative proposals.

  • Well, if this list has a news feed or website, I’d be happy to take a look.

    Maybe I just have an overly exalted view of how the bishops spend their time, but I must admit that I’m having a very hard time believing the claim that all the nations bishops routinely meet or otherwise confer, discuss the merits of specific pieces of legislation, and then ask the faithful (in their capacity as bishops) to support a yes or no vote. I remain convinced, until proved otherwise, that this is the work of a couple of staffers somewhere with at most one or two supervising bishops on a single committee providing signatures.

    And if that is the case — no, I really don’t see that I’m much more required to agree with their judgments on legislative merit than I am with the USCCB film reviews on artistic merit.

  • ask the faithful (in their capacity as bishops) to support a yes or no vote.

    I’m looking at a 2009 statement; “USCCB supports H.R.1” (the Stimulus bill). I don’t know how much more clear it could be they are asking the faithful to support (or oppose) a particular piece of legislation.

    And if that is the case — no, I really don’t see that I’m much more required to agree with their judgments on legislative merit

    No debate. I don’t think any Catholic is required to agree with the Episcopate on a matter of civil legislation. I just think it is silly to try to pretend the bishops don’t take stands on particular pieces of legislation and encourage the lay faithfull to support their position. I can accept that the bishops may be misguided but its just an objective fact they take such positions.

  • When I Google the title you give, Google tells me that no documents match it.

    And again, I’m unclear as to the mechanism which you are claiming exists for the episcopate as a body to express detailed and frequent opinions on specific pieces of legislation. The bishops only convene as a body a few times a year, and on the agendas I’ve seen I don’t recall ever seeing debates on specific pieces of US legislation. How exactly are we to know that the bishops as a body actually hold the opinions which you are to attributing to them? Do they hold an vote of some sort? How much of a majority constitutes “the episcopate” in your view?

    If I went up to my bishop with a specific one of these policy updates and asked, “Do you and all other bishops agree with this?” would he reply in the affirmative, or is it possible he wouldn’t even know that the update had gone out?

  • Kurt,

    Prudential judgments exist.

    Is this the stimulus USCCB told Catholics to push?

    Two economists quoted on Power Line:

    “Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs. State and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment. The majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs were in growth industries including health, education, professional and business services.”

    Facts not ideology . . .

    Where is Sgt. Friday when we need him?

    If the USCCB endorses legislation and tells people how to lobby or vote it could lose IRC tax exempt status.

  • “If the USCCB endorses legislation and tells people how to lobby or vote it could lose IRC tax exempt status.”

    Half right. 501(c)(3)s are not permitted to engage in partisan political activity, which includes instructing people to vote for or against candidates. Within certain limits they can endorse or oppose legislation. That said, the broader point is correct. The USCCB should be cautious about sharing its collective prudential judgments for the reasons I expressed earlier as exemplified by the econimic study cited by T Shaw.

  • Sinners. God creates the Hell too. There’s no social justice even God being nailed to dead on the cross by this type of ‘catholic’ people. SIC!

  • T. Shaw writes:

    Kurt,

    Prudential judgments exist.

    Yes. And I have tried to go out of my way to simply make the point that I am just noting the position adopted by the bishops and not suggesting any Catholic is bound to follow their stance on pieces of particular legislation.

    If the USCCB endorses legislation and tells people how to lobby or vote it could lose IRC tax exempt status.

    Mike gives a correct and accurate responses to this. The Bishops have developed and maintain a very good lobbying and grassroots action operation.

    DC,

    And again, I’m unclear as to the mechanism which you are claiming exists for the episcopate as a body to express detailed and frequent opinions on specific pieces of legislation.

    The method is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I don’t know why you are puzzled by this.

9 Responses to How Times Change

  • Joe’s good for laughs, but clearly hasn’t been right in the head since 1988 when he had a brain aneurysm and a priest gave him last rites. Every since then, he’s been on a slow march toward senility.

  • We obtain that for which we proffer remuneration.

    Vice President Biden spent most of his adult life in Congress.

    Mark Twain on Congressmen:

    Fleas can be taught nearly anything that a Congressman can.
    – What Is Man?

    …the smallest minds and the selfishest souls and the cowardliest hearts that God makes.
    – Letter fragment, 1891

    “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
    – Mark Twain, a Biography

    A majority of Americans pay zero (or minimal) Federal income taxes. Less than 1% of American citizens serve in the armed forces.

    We get what we pay for.

  • Mark Twain also suggested that Congress could be emptied in a day if each member received anonymous telegrams stating: “Flee! All is discovered!”.

  • Of course, all good liberals know that what Obama really meant to say was “No Republican President has the right to….” In fact, you could finish the sentence many different ways – “keep Gitmo open,” for instance, or “go on vacations, oh, every 3 weeks or so.” That doesn’t mean President Obama can’t do it.

    Sometimes ignorance truly is bliss. I have no doubt I slept better for 17 years because I did not realize that Ole Joe was head of the Judiciary Committee. Of course, I don’t want to ponder the fact that he’s now a heartbeat away from the Oval Office for too long. As much as I dislike Obama, I pray fervently for his continued good health.

  • “As much as I dislike Obama, I pray fervently for his continued good health.”

    You are not the only one, Donna, I assure you! 🙂

  • More proof that life is becoming indistinguishable from the Onion:

    Today’s the big day for Amtrak’s Wilmington train station. It is being renamed in honor of Vice President and former Delaware Senator Joe Biden following major renovations made possible with stimulus funds.

    One problem: the CEO of Amtrak got stuck on the train.

    ABC News Deputy Political Director & Political Reporter Michael Falcone tweeted at approximately 10 a.m. that the Acela train he was riding had been “delayed” in Baltimore and that he was sitting next to Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman.

    Falcone tweeted, “Acela to NY delayed for ‘unknown period’ Should I feel better that the Amtrak CEO is sitting next to me?”

    It quickly became apparent that the CEO’s presence wouldn’t fix the train. A subsequent tweet from Falcone noted, “BAD sign: Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman just got OFF the train to take a car to Wilmington.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/19/amtrak-ceo-ditches-broken-train-to-travel-by-car-to-ribbon-cutting-of-wilmingtons-joe-biden-station/#ixzz1HZVH6VuE

  • Try to imagine the media firestom if Cheney flacks had stuck a reporter in a closet!

  • And I note that Biden was at a fundraiser hosted by a rich liberal. Can someone explain to me why Soros, Immelt of GE and wealthy Hollyweird types can give loads of money to leftist causes and the Dem party, but when a Koch gives the Walker campaign $45,000 it’s a crime? Rich conservatives are not supposed to give a dime to support their causes, but rich leftists can?

Speaker of the House John Boehner: Pro-life Stalwart

Friday, November 5, AD 2010

 

It may not be common knowledge, but the next Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has been an ardent foe of abortion since entering Congress in 1991, and a leader in the fight.  As indicated in the video above, while accepting the Henry Hyde award from Americans United for Life earlier this year, for Boehner this is an emotional issue, and he is heart and soul on our side.  A refreshing change from Nancy Pelosi.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Speaker of the House John Boehner: Pro-life Stalwart

Why is Cardinal George Silent about Abortion in the Current Health Care Bill?

Monday, January 4, AD 2010

When Cardinal George requested that pro-life Republicans vote for the Stupak amendment to the health care bill, he was shaming conservative American legislators that they need to stand up for what they claim in public.  Cardinal George discounted reasonable Republican objections  that this was just a ploy by Nancy Pelosi to get pro-life Democrats on board knowing full well that all pro-life language would be stripped in the joint chambers conference committee.

Was Cardinal George this naive to fall for this parliamentary trick?  Can we assume he isn’t this naive?

No, Cardinal George is not this naive because why would the Vatican choose him to lead a diocese?  The Vatican certainly takes its time to make wise and knowledgeable decisions don’t they?  The Holy Spirit guides them in their work, granted that this is done primarily through the teachings of the Church.  Though we can be reasonable enough knowing that the Vatican wouldn’t choose someone who is incompetent to be a shepherd to his flock.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Why is Cardinal George Silent about Abortion in the Current Health Care Bill?

  • Well, this is no excuse for the Cardinal — but the Republicans who thought about not voting for Stupak were acting on a consequentialist impulse. For all they knew, Pelosi could have had the votes and by their miscalculation, a bill with Capps language could have left the chamber when it could have gone differently.

    You don’t vote “present” and leave the unborn undefended on the presumption that such a provision would be stripped from the final bill. That’s consequentialism. You vote for the provision because it is the morally right thing to do regardless of the circumstances. I agree with the Cardinal because the GOP was behaving according to a moral theory (one that they tend to follow a lot in my view) that is deeply flawed.

    The fact that the Cardinal has not used his position to make statements toward members of the opposite party is open and free for criticism.

    I just don’t think the Republican objections were reasonable — it was a strategy to fight the health care legislation by any means, to the point of compromising basic ethics.

  • Moreover the writer you cite — whose views obviously differ from my own — far from just being partisan in his presenation, which I have no qualms with per se, but it is obviously clear he has not done his homework.

    http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=99578

    Last I checked, the USCCB has not endorsed the final passage of the health care reform legislation. Actually, the opposite is true.

  • But I do believe the GOP was right to vote against it. The Dems simply didn’t have the votes to begin with. They went against their better judgment, but got out-foxed by Cardinal George.

  • Eric,

    I know the opposite is true, but why the silence on behalf of Cardinal George?

    What will the USCCB do if the bill passes with abortion being funded by the federal government? Will they oppose that one particular premise yet hail the rest of the bill as “good” for America? Splitting the difference, but compromising their moral authority and hence cause a scandal to the whole Church?

  • Well, I will maintain my civil disagreement. I think such a position incorrectly applies natural law norms. In fact, the angered response of pro-life organizations at the news of the GOP helping a pro-life measure sink was quite appropriate.

    The Democrats did not appear to have the votes, sure. But what if for some reason they did? And we did not forsee it? Who forsaw even after the legislation passed in the House that it would survive the Senate hurdle?

    I agree entirely with Represenative Pitts who after the legislation passed, together with pro-life House Democrats and Republicans, reiterated you do not play politics with human life. The unborn should not be subjected to some consequentialist political gamble to stop legislation that one opposes. You vote for the unborn and do everything within the restraints of the moral law to stop bad legislation. I think to act otherwise amounts to moral compromise.

  • Thanks for being civil!

    🙂

  • I have no idea. I’m not speaking in favor of Cardinal George. I am sometimes disheartened because I believe Republicans get a “pass” from pro-life Catholics often because of their opposition to abortion. So, I sometimes see such a thing as “finally.” On the other hand, when it stops for the other side that is problematic — we cannot have a double-standard, which is the very thing I oppose. So I am not defending the Cardinal in that regard — only in his initial criticism.

    The USCCB will surely speak out against the bill. I think they would actively in the Midterm elections advocate that Catholics be conscious of candidates’ position on that issue.

    If anything, the USCCB — if happy with the other provisions in the legislation — would only want the abortion language changed. In other words, roll back the abortion funding only.

  • wow, excellent post. Very revealing..and sad at the same time. If our Catholic leaders don’t stand up for the unborn, who will?

  • Eric,

    I’m with you on that.

    Though the USCCB has criticized the current bill in the Senate, so they deserve that recognition.

    I’m waiting to see the final outcome and see how they respond.

  • Chicago political blogger Tom Roeser has long asserted that the Archdiocese of Chicago is for all practical purposes a subsidiary of the Cook County Democratic Party (which he refers to as “The Squid”). Perhaps that would explain why Cardinal George saves his criticism for Republicans?

    Roeser is a very conservative Catholic (politically and liturgically) and I don’t always agree with everything he says, but he may be onto something here. Here is a recent post by him on this topic:

    http://www.tomroeser.com/blogview.asp?blogID=25127

    I note that the two staunchly pro-life auxiliary bishops he names as having voted in the Republican primary are the two most often mentioned as prospective candidates for just about every episcopal vacancy that has come up in the last few years….

  • Eric,

    I agree that one can never vote for the creation or increase of abortion funding. Moral prohibitions bind, as the latin says, semper et pro semper. But must one always vote against such funding, if one can absent oneself from voting at all? Moral exhortations don’t bind the way prohibitions do. You can never steal, but you can refrain from making a contribution to the poor at times. You can never contracept, but you don’t have to be trying to get pregnant at every moment.

    You raise an important point, and I think it’s worth discussing.

  • Strategically, the Republicans should have voted against the amendmendment. However, the bill passing without the amendment would have placed them in an ethical dilemma and I can see whey they voted for it.

    My outrage is at Pelosi and the top Democrats for using the abortion issue as a bargaining tool to pass healthcare legislation. The bishops should be more outspoken about this point.

  • I don’t see the problem. The bishops opposed the House’s expansion of abortion, and the pro-life congressmen voted against it (actually, voted in favor of the Stupak Amendment which blocked it). The bishops again opposed it in the Senate, and were unsuccessful. When the final bill comes to Congress, if it increases abortion, the bishops (and, I hope, a sufficient number of congressmen) will oppose it.

    It’s not the bishops’ duty to anticipate political maneuvers. Indeed, if the bishops denounced the Stupak Amendment on the suspicion that it would be dropped in conference, that would only weaken their voices. They’ve been clear: nay on abortion coverage.

  • Where is it written that the bishops’ consciences must be represented by the USCCB? If every bishop wrote to the representatives and senators from his district and spoke to the people of his diocese, that would certainly have more effect than the words of the [arch]bishop of Chicago. As Abp. Chaput put it neatly “bishops should not be speaking to politicians. They should be speaking to their flock and the flock speaking to the politicians”.

    Cardinal George is not a sort of American pope.

    The problem, I suppose, is that our bishops have lost much of their credibility with the sheep because of the cover-ups in the sex scandals.

    As far as morality goes, it is the personal effort that counts with Our Lord, not indirect government roles. [“I gave at the office”]. Such problems are best solved locally and one by one.

  • Gabriel,

    I am pointing out he hypocrisy of Cardinal George’s actions, or non-actions.

    I don’t have any respect, nor do I recognize the legitimacy of the USCCB.

    I agree though that if the bishops would act more like ‘bishops’ rather than being someone’s friend or a Democratic Party groupie, they would gain the trust and respect of the laity and this country would be in a much better shape than it is now.

  • Lest anyone forget the USCCB sent out flyers to parishes across the country urging parishioners to oppose any healthcare plan that included abortion coverage.

    As Eric and other posters have also pointed out, the Bishops have been adamant about Stupak being included in the bill; this is as far as they have gone, and, frankly, is about as far as they can (and probably should) go, politically speaking. Questions about the intricacies of actual healthcare policy (will a public option work or not, etc.) are not “do or die” moral questions like abortion and euthanasia, but fall to the expertise of individual politicians to decide. It is best for the USCCB to remain nuetral on such matters while insisting that the allowance of any moral evil in the bill (abortions, etc.) impels a legislator to vote against it – which is exactly what they’ve been doing!

    Where is their any proof that Cardinal George is either for or against the House healthcare bill as passed? This article has nothing but speculation – where are the words of C. George himself that imply he supports the Pelosi bill? Did he ask parishioners to unconditionally support a bill that included the Stupak amendment? No. He merely asked that the lives of babies and their mothers take priority over political victories – hence the strong support for Stupak. Eric, Pinky, and Rep. Pitts are right. To vote “no” on Stupak as an amendment is to vote against the unborn – it’s placing a potential political victory ahead of the lives of the unborn.

    I have personally congratulated many people in the Chicago Archdiocese who worked with the Cardinal on this and I asked them to forward my accolades and gratitude to him. I find his actions to be heroic, not cowardly – partisan shill C. George is not, and this article is at best misinformed, at worst a calumny.

  • Andy K.,

    It’s interesting that you accuse me of speculation.

    I made a concerted effort to only report the facts, withholding my opinion.

    He was vociferous in demanding pro-life Republicans vote for the health care amendment, though he is dead silent when it gets revised in the Senate.

    And yes, you are correct, Cardinal George has been conspicuously silent about the bill.

    My speculations are reserved for the commbox. And I will only say he has continued to do nothing at all.

    And having the USCCB send out flyers is not the role of a bishop, ie, hide behind a bureaucratic organization.

    Where are our shepherds?

    Where is our Saint Ambrose?

  • Tito’s final question reminds me that we need to be *praying* for courageous bishops. Frankly, I think that’s the most effective avenue available to the vast majority of us.

  • Chris B.,

    I wish I could have said that.

    You’re right, lets pray for our bishops.

  • I’m with Eric and the Stupakites on this one. It’s hard to say what the result of trying to play it strategically would have been, but gutting the bill of a clearly-worded rejection of abortion would have been a recognized defeat for life.

  • These so-called health care bills are so horrible and anti-Christian and anti-American that abortion is not the only reason to oppose and destroy them. Since abortion is an intrinsically evil act it must be opposed no matter what political ploys are being used.

    To be in favor of these monstrosities is to discount the massive evil perpetrated by every government that has ever entered into this arena. It is foolish to think the National (oh, how I wish it were actually federal and respected subsidiarity) government we are burdened with will be any less evil.

    Cardinal George needs our prayers and it is prudential for us to ask our own bishop to condemn these bills with the politicians he shepherds. Cardinal George is one bishop he is not he bishop of the USA. The USCCB is useless organization.

  • I’m sorry, but this post is ridiculous.

    I don’t have any respect, nor do I recognize the legitimacy of the USCCB.

    OK? So? Good thing for Holy Church that Tito Edwards or Ryan Haber (me), despite all we know, aren’t heads over the Catholic Church.

    The simple fact is, as Eric pointed out, that to vote “present” on the Stupak Amendment would be a reprehensible parliamentarism worthy of our esteemed president. A rep can vote YES on Stupak and then NO on the final bill. That’s no problem, and no contradiction.

    Why hasn’t Cardinal George spoken out? I don’t know? I don’t have a bat phone to his office. Why does American Catholic seem to be so much more concerned with him than with some other bishop? What’s their deal? What has Cardinal George ever done to aid or abet abortionists? Where’s benefit of the doubt? Where’s Christian charity in interpreting others’ actions?

    Where’s a sense of deference to the men that GOD, not men, has ordained to lead his flock?

    Good grief. I’m gettin’ pretty tired of everybody knowing just how the Catholic Church should be shepherded. It’s really easy to do somebody else’s job. How armchair quarterbacks actually think they are actually helping anybody is entirely beyond me.

  • Ryan,

    Thanks for your charitable comment concerning my post.

    I have no deference to Cardinal George because he is not my shepherd, Cardinal DiNardo and Pope Benedict are my shepherds, but I do have deference to him as a leader of the flock. I hope he understands what his actions look like when he speaks out. He seems more as a vibrant supporter of health care as an ardent Democrat rather than a Catholic concerned for the well being of his flock.

    Plus Cardinal George spoke up, the only one of all the bishops that said anything to cajole the GOP to vote for the Stupak amendment.

    God bless you my brother in Christ,

    Tito

  • withouthaving seen,

    I guess avoiding parlimentarianism is good if the Supak language stays in the final version. The way the bill is being dealt with now I wouldn’t be so sure. And who’s to say that legislation down the road won’t put it in.

    As far as shepharding is concerned, teaching moral principles is properly the role of the bishops, applying it to the world is the proper domain of the laity. I think some criticism of the USCCB and, possibly, Cardinal George is warranted.

  • Lol, Tito, it doesn’t matter if he were the bishop of Timbuktu, he’d still be successor to an apostle and worthy of the respect of the likes me and you!

    I know that Cardinal George, much like the Church in general, gets trashed by all sides. That, in my opinion, wins him the benefit of the doubt from me.

    To clarify, when I wrote “this post is ridiculous,” I did not mean your comment in particular, Tito, but rather the initial article and the whole thread of follow-ups.

    Stupak and a number of others are threatening to kill the bill altogether if they can, rather than let it pass with abortion funding. Remember, reconciliation and closed-door meetings aren’t the final step. The suits on the hill still have to vote again and both houses have to pass it, and I see no reason why it will be a perfunctory vote in the House of Reps, where the Democrat coalition is shaky, to put it mildly.

    Phillip,

    The USSCB might very well need criticism, as might H.E. Francis Card. George. I know far less about their affairs than they do, and if I knew as much, I still would have a hard time seeing how Christ has ordained me to criticize his ordained ministers.

    Ryan Haber
    Kensington, Maryland

  • Ryan,

    Thanks for the clarification 🙂

    I was careful to point out what Cardinal George did in the post without offering an opinion.

    I placed my opinion only in the commbox because I still don’t know where Cardinal George’s heart is. Is it with the Democratic Party or is it in the Bride of Christ?

  • withouthavingseen,

    Criticize in a constructive way as the non-ordained Catherine of Sienna did the Avignon pope. Truth is truth. The laity has a better sense of the secular order. If there is a problem that the laity discerns in the prudential judgments of the clergy as relates to the secular order, they are within their licit Catholic rights to criticize those prudential judgments of clergy.

  • Thank you for this good commentary. I have been contemplating some of these questions, too. I have written to my Bishop and the USCCB, but there is only silence. Our Parish has sent out a FAX to all the Bishops with our concerns of the health care reform. To my knowledge, only one Bishop responded to the Fax. I have pondered why there is only a handful of bishops who have spoken on the the Church’s teachings of subsidiarity in regards to the health care bill and government take-over. The Stupak Amendment is not 100% pro-life and there is more than abortions which is very troubling in the House and the Senate health care bills. Should not the Bishops be concerned with all the life issues in the health care reform i.e. abortions, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, rationing, sterilization, teen clinics run by planned parenthood, contraceptions, cloning, or any injustice? Certainly, health care can be improved, but it does not require a government take over with individual mandates and loss of freedoms. Any health care reform should do no harm before doing any good. With all the haste, bribery and lack of transparency, I would certainly think this 2000 page plus health care reform is to be avoided. September 2009 I went to a town-hall meeting and my Congressman said this was not about health care but about government take-over and control. I believe he is right.

  • Pingback: USCCB and John Carr In Denial « The American Catholic

Pro-Life Republicans

Sunday, November 8, AD 2009

pro-life gopLast night all but one, who voted present, of the House Republicans voted in favor of the Stupak Amendment in spite of knowing that its passage made likely the final passage of ObamaCare.  Here is a statement of the House Republican Leadership issued last night before either the Stupak amendment or ObamaCare was passed:

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH), House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN) issued the following statement in support of an amendment offered by Representatives Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joseph Pitts (R-PA) that would prohibit federal funding of abortions under the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) health care plan: “We believe in the sanctity of life, and the Stupak-Pitts Amendment addresses a moral issue of the utmost concern. It will limit abortion in the United States. Because of this, while we strongly and deeply oppose the underlying bill, we decided to stand with Life and support Stupak-Pitts.

Continue reading...

43 Responses to Pro-Life Republicans

  • It is an easy decision when you are genuinely pro-life; however, political pragmatism would be very tempting in this situation. It must have been difficult to know that you are voting to create the climate that will pass the Obamanation assault on health care.

    Nevertheless, we may credit them with taking the correct moral stance and pray for the Senate to kill the bill.

    What the heck is with Cao? Is he another Dede?

  • Cao is very liberal for a Republican but also absolutely pro-life. I am sure no political calculation entered into his head and that he voted for ObamaCare simply because he thought it was the right thing to do, especially since he probably assumes he isn’t coming back to Congress no matter what he does. He was elected from an intensely Democrat district in New Orleans simply because his opponent is a crook and it would take a major political miracle for him to win re-election.

  • They receive it from me, Don. I really was expecting a “present” vote from them, to assure the defeat of the health care bill… but they really surprised me. My hat is off to them.

  • I have been struggling with this all night. Keep in mind I am no a Republican and I think over the years they have done much damage to the cause of liberty. I also find many to pander to religion and actually employ political pragmatism.

    Part of me wants to be mad at them for giving the Demoncrats cover to pass this monstrosity. Stupak will likely be removed or the rules developed in darkness, behind closed doors by unelected officials will create a work around to kill babies. Nevertheless, we are to always pray, “Fiat voluntus tua” – Thy Will be done. We have to trust God and even if some Republicans voted for this ammendment knowing that it would allow the assualt on health care to pass and perhaps just to fool us into voting for them in 2010 – it is still a principled victory.

    Life is the most precious gift and all other rights, both human and civil are derived from the right to life. The defense of life has been marginalized so much, even by Christians, perhaps especially by Catholics. I am so sick of being called a one-issue voter – I am not, neither are most pro-lifers I know. It is the primary issue and that cannot be avoided no matter how severe the mental gymnastics employed may be. So long as killing the innocent is legal and even encouraged this country is heading toward extinction.

    This is a principled victory and we must give thanks even if we are tempted, as I am, to see it as hollow becuase God’s ways are not our ways.

    Mary, Mother of Life, ora pro nobis.

  • “Cao is very liberal for a Republican but also absolutely pro-life. I am sure no political calculation entered into his head…”

    If he were “absolutely” pro-life, wouldn’t the rationing, contraception, and other nasty provisions come into play for him? Evidently not.

    Also, I’d be more likely to believe no political calculations entered his head if he didn’t wait until the Dems secured the necessary number of votes to win before he voted.

  • Here is what Cao says about this on his webite.

    “Tonight, Congressman Anh “Joseph” Cao (LA-2) voted in favor of the comprehensive health reform bill, H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

    Of his vote, Cao said: “Tonight, I voted to keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortion and to deliver access to affordable health care to the people of Louisiana.

    Cao said: “I read the versions of the House [health reform] bill. I listened to the countless stories of Orleans and Jefferson Parish citizens whose health care costs are exploding – if they are able to obtain health care at all. Louisianans needs real options for primary care, for mental health care, and for expanded health care for seniors and children.

    The bill passed the House at a 220-215 vote.

    Cao said: “Today, I obtained a commitment from President Obama that he and I will work together to address the critical health care issues of Louisiana including the FMAP crisis and community disaster loan forgiveness, as well as issues related to Charity and Methodist Hospitals. And, I call on my constituents to support me as I work with him on these issues.

    Cao said: “I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents.”

    http://josephcao.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=154007

    Needless to say I disagree with Cao profoundly on this, but I do not doubt his sincerity.

  • Seems to me this is just a brief side trip along the road of the decline of western civilization.

    Reelection is usually what matters most to folks, if it means maintaining power, influence and a “comfortable” standard of living. I am grateful not to be a politician.

    Nothing surprises me. I have come to “lean on” no institutions and very, very few people. We are each capable of the worst choices and these days those choices are made with ever increasing frequency, I regret to observe.

    We pay “lip service” to moral absolutes, finding all manner of “justifications and rationalizations” to find cover for our decisions which are made in support of the “Culture of Death”, although we try to wash our hands of these as did Pilate when he handed Jesus over to pay for OUR SINS, FOLKS.

    MINE AND YOURS.

    Some things never change.

  • It was also the political expedient thing to do. Can you imagine the outrage had they voted against the Stupak Amendment?

  • This seems to be good news for the pro-life cause—so why does it taste like poison to me?

  • “It was also the political expedient thing to do. Can you imagine the outrage had they voted against the Stupak Amendment?”

    The politics aren’t that simple restrainedradical. A strong majority of Republicans oppose abortion. Almost all Republicans oppose ObamaCare. I am seeing plenty of opposition on Republican sites to this move:

    “As I responded to Daybrook, I appreciate the answer but this is horrible strategy. The NRLC should have been adults about this. They are going to save this amendment and ensure final passage. Then it’s going to get struck in conference and a chance to kill this will have been lost.

    Right now it’s passing with 63 Dem votes and 170+ Republican votes.

    The GOP leadership got rolled on this by Pelosi.”

    http://ace.mu.nu/

    Long term I think this will work out well for the Republicans, but short term there is a political price to pay for this move by the Republicans in the House.

  • Donald,
    You are not thinking clearly. Of course it was the politically expedient thing to do. The logic is impeccable: Republicans are not really pro-life and will do whatever is politically expedient; Republicans voted in favor of this pro-life measure; ergo, the vote must have been politically expedient. Hope that’s clear now.

  • 🙂

  • “short term there is a political price to pay for this move by the Republicans in the House.”

    I don’t think so. Voting against the bill gave them the cover they need. There may be some opposition, but I think the vast majority of their constituents will support this move. It’s a win-win for both sides. The Democrats get to vote pro-choice and for universal health care and the Republicans get to vote pro-life and against socialized medicine.

  • I see that some people in this thread are more partisan Republicans than Catholics. I’ve met Joseph Cao. My wife has been to numerous fundraisers for Joseph Cao. Joseph Cao is a highly honorable man, a true Catholic public figure. He promised that he would support healthcare reform if the Stupak amendment was included, simply because he knew it was the right thing to do. Joseph Cao is a hero. If only a few Republicans would follow him.

    And to Donald – yes, I very much appreciate GOP support for the Stupak amendment. The cynic in me would say they were caught between a rock and a hard place, and could not be seen publicly opposing a pro-life measure on tardy political grounds. But let’s give them some credit. And now that we have a decent bill with ironclad abortion protection, I would like to see some Republicans start supporting this bill – just a few Catholic Republicans would make a difference here. So where were they last night? Are they willing to support a pro-life universal health insurance plan that actually reduces the deficit, or are they instead enslaved to a rigid free market ideology and to insurance company money?

    I don’t know what is going to happen in conference. But with enough GOP support, we can get this bill passed withe the Stupak amendment.

  • Somebody mentioned “socialized medicine”. Sigh. This reform twins an individial mandate with community rating-style restrictions on what insurance companies can do (you know, refusing coverage, dropping people, charging exhorbitant premia based on “pre-existing condition”). For everybody in empoloyer-insurance, hardly anything changes. For those in medicare and medicaid, hardly anything changes. For those in the individual markets, they will purchase insurance on a regulated exchange, which will include a public option that will be wholly funded by premia and which cannot use medicare reimbursement rates. And those below a certain threshold will receive subsidies to help they purchase the insurance.

    How is any of this “socialized medicine”? You know, people on the right would perhaps had a better ability to shape this debate if they actually delved into the issues, instead of relying on slogans.

  • We agree that Cao is an honorable man Tony. As for the bill I think it is atrocious and I pray it is buried in the Senate, although from my partisan perspective it would be better if it passed since I believe that it would ensure the GOP taking the House back in 2010. At any rate if a bill does get out of the Senate it will bear as much relationship to the House bill as a bat does to a spider.

  • Please Tony. Your whole goal has been a single payer, socialized medicine, system. The intent of this bill is to drive private insurers out of business and to force people to become health wards of the state ultimately. Fortunately this bill has as much chance of ever becoming law as Madonna, the strumpet and not the Mother of God, does of becoming a spokeswoman for the Eagle Forum.

  • A good AP story explaining why the House bill is DOA in the Senate.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

  • We have to be careful not to confuse Catholic intentions (ends) with practical methods (means). Yes, it is true that we, as Catholics, are to provide for all those in need and that includes health care; however, the Church does not demand that we use the government for that purpose. Does government have a role? Yes. Not always at the federal level. In fact as seldom as possible should the federal government be employed.

    Furthermore, Charity is what we as individuals are called to do, when government forces one of us to provide for another then it is theft and not charity.

    This bill is a disaster. Anyone who supports it has either not read it, doesn’t understand it, has no concpet of basic enconomics, is extremely naive, or has sinister intentions to make us all slaves of the state.

    I haven’t read this entire thing, it is over 2,000 pages!!!! The parts I have read are frigtening. We will be left with one, two or three enormous insurance companies with their market secured by government force. I doubt we will get to government provided health care. What we will probably get is government protection for a few insurance companies at the expense of all the other insurance companies and the people.

    Even if the Stupak ammendment makes it into the spider or the bat version that Donald is referring to, that does not guarantee that abortions will not be increased under this mess. Bills become laws and laws become regulations. Regs are not written by elected reps, they are determined by government agencies behind closed doors and always further the expansion of government and aid the corporate interests that fabricated the legislation in the first place.

    The murder of the per-born, the elderly, the disabled, you know the same old targets Eugenecists have always had is firmly set in the minds of many of those in power and any and all means to achieve this will be utilized. Those on the Left and the Right, the Libertarians (of all stripes), the Republicans and the Democrats all need to realize this NOW. If we play ‘wait and see’ it will be too late to stop it. We’ve been killing babies for almost four decades and this is going to be just another step toward more death and the destruction of what this nation can be.

    Combine this mess with Cap and Trade and you have a recipe for how you make the USA into China. No Catholic in their right mind can want that.

    I am confident that this will die in the Senate; however, these are dark times and anything is possible. Pray.

  • Suz,

    I’m with you.

    This’ll disappear in committee *IF* the Senate passes the health care bill.

    But in the end this violates the rule of subsidiarity.

    Technically speaking, why bother giving money to Catholic hospitals, or any other Catholic Charity, if the government is going to provide it to you at the expense of your children having to pay off this monstrosity of a debt in the very near future.

  • How is any of this “socialized medicine”? You know, people on the right would perhaps had a better ability to shape this debate if they actually delved into the issues, instead of relying on slogans.

    1). As someone that follows politics, one should be able to safely assume you are aware that Republicans have offered, in recent years, several reform proposals. Agree or disagree, there is substantive opposition. And slogans are necessarily a part of all debates.

    2). The label “socialize,” and the ensuing slogans, are correct. This House proposal is a large-scale federal government intrusion and cash influx (which is sickening for those of those of us that can’t stand the quite brazen A. Stern and SEIU). In this context, “nationalize” is an incomplete but usable description. And to “nationalize” is to “socialize.” These two words, in the political context of advanced liberal democracies, are synonyms. (In fact, feel free to go right ahead and make a case for any one time in 20th Century American history where this was not the case – I’ve had people try and it’s pretty difficult.) This is why I have for some time now found the supposedly “Catholic anarchist” arguments for this particular brand of reform to be quite strange.

    3). As an advocate for health care reform, I applaud the efforts of Rep. Stupak and also hope the Democratic efforts, for far too long the pawn of public sector unions, trial lawyers, and the abortion lobby, go down in flames. Any reform efforts need, at minimum, three things: a). strong protections for the unborn b). a serious appraisal of the demographic impact of baby boomer entitlements, senior care – including discussion of some manner of what could be termed ‘rationing,’ and illegal immigration (I favor a halt on all immigration, especially with double digit unemployment and until such time as the number comes much close to 3 or 4 percent – the wage destruction of the past few decades has been terrible) c). measures that make trial lawyers furious.

    All Catholics must agree on the first point. The Senate Democrats and the president are horrible on that score, especially compared to the always running for re-election House, but let us hope for a surprise.

  • In regard to Representative Cao, this article is in accord with my view of him:

    http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/08/defending-cao

  • Cao is a good guy. Part of the problem here is the LSU Charity hospital that was destroyed by Katrina and still has not been rebuilt.

    It was pretty clear to a lot of us on Obama’s visit to New Orelans and his elusive answers on Federal finds for this that he sending a message to CAO. I think CAO doid what he had to do

  • This is NO victory. This is a political public stunt, & abortion was used as a red herring.

    This is the Stupak Amendment:

    Page 154, after line 18, insert the following new section (and conform the table of contents of
    Division A accordingly):

    SEC 265. LIMITATIONS ON ABORTION FUNDING.

    (a) IN GENERAL.–No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act

    (or any amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion

    or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage

    of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder,

    physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician,

    place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including

    a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy

    itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of pregnancy or incest.

    The last clause: “unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of pregnancy or incest,” places in law a class of human beings that has no protection of life and is jeopardy of loss of life through no fault or responsible action of their own: those who have been conceived by the sins of rape or incest and have not yet been born. This is NOT a pro-life amendment.

    I got this from a friend in regards to the Rep who voted present:

    “Well, Shadegg had a plan to throw sand in the gears and likely ruin the political machinery grinding out a victory for the government takeover of health care. He was rounding up the votes to kill the pro- life amendment (by voting “present”) and thereby killing the whole bill and quite possibly the entire effort. This would have caused such a train wreck, it is doubtful the liberals could have
    recovered, i.e., Waterloo.”

    http://prop207az.blogspot.com/2009/11/with-friends-like-right-to-life-who.html

    I wonder if Rep Shadegg’s-(AZ) strategy actually would have killed the bill?

    Because of the USCCB encouraging lay faithful to call their Rep to add the Stupak (anti-life) amendment to the bogus health “care” bill, we could possibly have a socialistic country. Thanks USCCB! Next time you want to do something dramatic, have the pastors read & stuff the bulletins with
    Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

    Faithful Catholics NEVER have & NEVER will support socialism!!!

  • Faithful Catholics will never support socialism? Indeed, if you define socialism correctly and not as a mere slogan. But remember, Catholic social teaching tells us that faithful Catholics should also eschew the ideology of free market liberalism. Pius XI referred to both as the “twin rocks of shipwreck” – extreme individualism and extreme collectivism.

  • “Combine this mess with Cap and Trade and you have a recipe for how you make the USA into China. No Catholic in their right mind can want that.”

    China has neither universal health care nor cap-and-trade. Did you mean the UK?

  • Or did you mean that no Catholic in their right mind can want to make the USA into Malta which does have universal health care and cap-and-trade.

  • Pope Pius XI:
    “No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist”

    Every Pope, beginning w/ Leo XIII to our current Pope Benedict, condemns socialism. The main underlining reason is that socialism ultimately denies the central truth of Christianity, that man needs GOD.

    The bill does not deal only w/ “health care.” There are other issues in the bill such as, the bill will create a government home visitation program, with federally funded bureaucrats giving out parenting advice, and nothing in the bill makes it clear that these programs must be voluntary.

    I take it you support the bill, because my previous post started w/ the wording on the Stupak amendment, showing how it is NOT pro-life & as well, to Shadegg’s plan. “But remember” the Catholic Church is pro-life. However, you don’t discuss these items, instead you zero in on socialism, because in your mind you think the USCCB was right. Well, they weren’t & now they are regretting their decision. They DON’T approve of the bill.

    Get it in your head – Americans want health care REFORM – not govt. take over.

  • The Stupak Amendment–if it stays in after the Conference sausage making (and I think it will, all things considered)–certainly removes the deal killer aspect of the House plan for me. And the Amendment also greatly diminishes the problems with the conscience clauses, which were pretty iffy beforehand.

    As much as it may grate folks here, MM is unimpeachably correct–health care is a right. In the absence of any other moral objections, it isn’t a bad day for Catholics. Far from it.

    Now the kicker is to see what the Senate does, and to make sure the Amendment stays in.

  • NY Times: Dems Banking on Later Squeezing Pro-Life Language Out of Bill in Committee
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110705.html

    Abortion in or out of the bill was a ruse. If Stupak’s Amendment stays in, which I highly doubt, don’t think for one moment that Planned Parenthood & other abortion activists will not be plotting how to bring this bill to court in three years to say it is unconstitutional.

  • If it stays in, they instantly lose the Court challenge on stare decisis. Hyde survived the Supreme Court.

    A “ruse”? Maybe that’s what the pro-aborts were hoping, but I don’t think that’s fair to the overwhelming majority who voted for Stupak.

  • Actually I think one can argue from Catholic Social Teaching that this is a failure for Catholics. Starting here:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/08/AR2009110817808.html

  • rradical: “China has neither universal health care nor cap-and-trade. Did you mean the UK?”

    Sure, UK, China, whatever. It is just the difference between socialism and communism. A little bit less of a bad thing doesn’t make it good.

    Control health care (HR 3962), life (Roe v. Wade), food (FDA), money (the Fed) and energy (Cap and Tax) and you have slaves not citizens.

  • Just becuase health care is a right doesn’t mean the government has to directly provide it. Our rights come from God and are secured by government. Government can secure the right to health care by allowing a market of businesses to provide medical services and insurance services as well as allowing overall wealth to increase by not confiscating it so that we can take care of the indigent with Charity instead of theft.

    Why would anyone who is remotely Catholic want the government to start providing our tangible rights directly. Health care includes food, water, exercise, medical treatment, shelter, clothing and love – should the government provide all that as well?

  • “Why would anyone who is remotely Catholic want the government to start providing our tangible rights directly.”

    Because an uninsured friend of mine died at age 33 because of cancer that wasn’t diagnosed in time. Because there are plenty of folks “enjoying” long stints of unemployment here in Michigan who can’t afford COBRA. Which runs out in 18 months anyway.

    Actually, I don’t want the government to *directly provide* free coverage for everyone. I just want it to make sure that coverage is *available* for everyone. I’m all ears as to viable alternatives, which haven’t been proffered.

    I am also cognizant of the problems with the Pelosi bill apart from abortion, specifically the costs and regulatory problems which will likely result.

    However, at least it does provide coverage for those who need it. Which, alas, the Republican plan didn’t, despite the fact it contained some long-overdue reforms.

  • Dale,

    I’m sorry to hear about your friend. You should know, though, that cancer survival rates in the United States are higher than in Europe and Canada (where the government plays more of a role), and one of the reasons is that we actually do *more* screening than do other countries, and treatment comes faster once there is a diagnosis.

  • Exactly BA, which is why one may find varied reasons as a Catholic to be bothered by this.

  • BA:

    Yes, and I recall reading somewhere that overall cancer treatment in the US is the best in the world, by a wide margin. God knows I don’t want to see that lost with any reform.

  • Some cancers yes, some no. I seem to recall the evidence is mixed. But in general, there is nothing wrong with the quality of US healthcare. It’s just that a lot of people can’t get it, and it’s incredibly expensive.

  • MM,

    I think you’re missing BA’s point, which is that the facts suggest that even given the fact that number of people in the US do not have health insurance, people _still_ overall get cancer screenings more and survive cancer longer.

    Frankly, I think in this case it’s probably a wash since the pending legislation will probably only increase the number of insured nominally — you aren’t simply “given” health care, you need to pay for insurance, and paying a fine for not having insurance is cheaper than paying for insurance (even after subsidies), so those who can’t afford insurance now mostly still won’t have insurance. The main people helped by this will be people with lots of money who nonetheless don’t have employer insurance and can’t get individual insurance because of some pre-existing condition.

  • MM — since you’re here, you might want to correct your constant misinformation and lies about how often private insurance covers abortion. A quote from yesterday’s NY Times: “A 2003 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that 13 percent of abortions were billed directly to insurance companies.” Note, that’s billed, not paid.

    This refutes your dishonest attempts to claim that “most” people are contributing to private insurance policies that pay for abortion.

  • Pingback: A Tale of Two Votes « The American Catholic