Rank Amateurs

Tuesday, September 10, AD 2013

I didn’t think the Syrian fiasco could get much worse.  Now it has.  Fearing the near certainty that Congress would not authorize an attack on Syria, Obama has supported a Russian proposal to have Assad turn over his chemical weapons to an international agency, presumably all of this to be supervised by Russia.  Actually the proposal first came out of the mouth of the Metternich of this administration:  John “Reporting for Duty!” Kerry, sans any Russian involvement, in an off hand response to a question. What is wrong with this:

1.  Assad will Cheat-Assad is fighting a life and death struggle to hang on to power.  The idea that he will not hang on to, and use, any chemical weapons he deems necessary to prevail is rubbish, and is a tribute to policy-as-make-believe that infests this administration and its supporters.

2.  Putin-Yeah, we can always rely upon this ex-KGB thug to act in the best interests of America.

3.   War Goes On-The Syrian opposition will not stop fighting until they are all dead or Assad is a corpse or fled.  Chemical weapon use is a symptom of a desperate civil war and that will go on.

4.  Russian influence in the Middle East-Obama has opened the door to renewed Russian influence in the Middle East, helping to ensure that future conflicts in the Middle East will have the possibility of a US-Russian clash.

5.  Paper Tiger-Mao in 1956 on the US:  “In appearance it is very powerful but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of; it is a paper tiger. Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain. I believe that is nothing but a paper tiger.” 

In a very dangerous part of the world Obama is making sure that our enemies treat with complete contempt US threats and warnings, at least so long as he is President.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Rank Amateurs

  • Obama to his credit never really wanted to fundamentally transform the Middle East; he reserves that for the US. If the proposed attack on Syria is really to send a message to Iran, why don’t Krauthammer and the AIPAC advocate attacking Iran and see how that flies. The very clever McNamara lost the war in Vietnam by sending bombing messages that North Vietnam refused to read. I must say I enjoy immensely the sight of the Russians employing jiu-jitsu against the war-mongers. Marvin Heir even brought in the ever serviceable Holocaust story. At the end of this ideally all WMD including those possessed by Israel and Iran should be on the table.

  • Rubbish from start to finish Ivan. Obama’s weakness as a leader invites a major war in the Middle East and Putin is only too happy to take advantage of his fecklessness in order to prop up the Russian client state of Syria which supplies the Russians with their naval base in the Mediterranean. The idea of Iran being convinced diplomatically to give up its quest for a nuclear weapon is absurd, along with your bizarre equation of Iran’s bomb lust with Israel’s defensive nuclear arsenal. Whenever people look to Russia as a solution to a crisis I know I have entered Cloud Kookooland.

  • 2. No, really! I place greater reliance on Putin than Joe, Barry and Kerry to act in America’s best interests.

    I’m with the majority (Onion polling) of Americans that believe that 535 Washington-based, Capitol idiots, and Barry and Joe need to get their boots bloody dusty in Syria.

    Ivan’s correct. The war (to save America from fundamental transformation) is to be fought in Washington not Afghanistan, Syria or the Mid-East.

  • Anyone who trusts Putin for a nano-second T. Shaw is a total fool. I oppose the Syrian intervention because I see no advantage for the US in it. That does not mean that I do not perceive Assad as an enemy of this country along with Putin. Obama and Kerry are idiots who are weakening this country, but those who think we have no stake in what occurs in the Middle East are also idiots.

  • How many Iranians do you personally know Donald? I’ve known a few, Muslim and peaceable. The Iranians have a new president, its no longer the Mahdi man in charge if he ever was. This is a nation of seventy millions that we are talking about, patriotic to their own country who have a natural right to defend their own when attacked. As to the big bad Iranian nuclear arsenal, the NIE way back in 2007 assessed that the Iranians are not pursuing one, so far that has proved accurate. In my rebound from the lies of the Likudniks, I’d take the NIE’s word over that of pundits both in Israel and America, who have popped up every few months or so from 2006 to the present assuring us that an Iranian bomb was around the corner. Israel finds itself is in a part of the world that is unstable and riven by tribalism and religious discord. It is has to do what is necessary to secure peace. My concern, for what it is worth, is that all American interference has achieved since 2003 is to destroy the fragile Christians communities who have their own modus vivendi with the Muslims. The spectacle of some pundits enjoying from their “Villa in the Jungle”, the sight of Arabs slaughtering each other leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

  • “How many Iranians do you personally know Donald?”

    That sounds precisely Ivan like those idiots in England who could not believe that Nazi Germany was a threat because they had met Germans who were so nice and polite. (I have known several Iranians, all over here because the Iranian government would persecute them if they could.)

    “This is a nation of seventy millions that we are talking about, patriotic to their own country who have a natural right to defend their own when attacked.”

    And whose leaders routinely talk about using nuclear weapons.

    ” As to the big bad Iranian nuclear arsenal, the NIE way back in 2007 assessed that the Iranians are not pursuing one,”

    Rubbish:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2011/nov/09/iran-nuclear-programme-iaea-report

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSBRE9880B620130909

    http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=109723&frid=19&seccatid=32&cid=19&fromval=1

  • Ivan, what is the basis for your first statement that Obama does not want to bring about change in the middle east?
    After his Cairo speech and his peace prize he stated his support for the creation of a Palestinian state. His and announced that his job is to make peace with muslims, and seems to cast doubt on our long time friendship with Israel.
    His approach to the factionalized muslims makes his approach and intentions very hard to read.
    His “after the election I will have more flexibility” statement also indicates that he does have some intentions for action of some kind.
    Ivan your tone is a bit smart alecky: if Krauthammer thinks this could have an impact ultimately on Iran why does he just advocate attacking Iran. Please.
    Saying that you enjoy the jujitsu of Putin on the world stage is like a gawker in the depth of the crowd at a tragic event, mocking and ridiculing and jeering without understaning the weight of what is going on.

  • Pingback: Oops, I Wonder if They Will Give Back the Donations? | The American Catholic
  • Donald, either the Iranians are too stupid to duplicate in a decade what the US achieved in four years in WWII, in which case there is little to worry about, or their programme has been sufficiently disrupted that it poses little threat. Iran is not Nazi Germany which could work on weapons of the future whatever the difficulties the Allies imposed. Apart from Israel, the Iranian Shiites have to deal with the ambitions of the Turks, Saudis and the Pakistanis all Sunnis. There is clearly little love lost between them. When I was a 110% supporter of Israel, I had welcomed the idea that these people should kill each other. The fact is peace in the Middle-East require sacrifices from all, and this includes poor, helpless, powerless, land-grabbing, nuclear-armed Israel.

    Analyze, I have followed Israeli news from the time I was a boy in the early seventies – the Yom Kippur War onwards, and I know that the Obama, his meaningless rhetoric aside, is the one president whom the Israelis have to fear the least. This is not to say that there was a conspiracy afoot. There was none. It is not Obama’s fault that brain-dead Christian Zionists, myself included, had tagged him as a crypto-Muslim. Obama has done nothing to undermine Israel in any way, in any forum, hell there isn’t even the usual make-believe shuttle diplomacy between the Israelis and the Palestinians which is obligatory for second-term presidents.

    If I were a Likudnik, I’d worry not about Obama, but how ineptly the AIPAC and such like have handled this, in the middle of a poor economy, battle fatigue and resurgent isolationism. For the apogee of Israel’s support in the US has passed, the numbers may hold for a while, but the general perception that the US is being inveigled into another war for Israel in the name of WMD, will definitely mark down any support for action against Iran should that prove necessary.

  • Mac,

    Trust? I’m highly uncertain whether Puting’s hatred of America is less than Barry’s.

  • “Donald, either the Iranians are too stupid to duplicate in a decade what the US achieved in four years in WWII, in which case there is little to worry about,”

    Apples and rock salt. What the Iranians have been doing makes absolutely no sense unless they wish to attain nuclear weapons.

    http://www.irantracker.org/nuclear-program/zarif-timelines-data-estimates-july-10-2013

    http://blog.rizwanladha.com/2012/05/iran-nuclear-weapons-not-energy.html

    Iran at any time could call a halt to this. That they have not indicates that nuclear weapon possession is the main goal of Iranian foreign policy.

  • I don’t speak for brain dead anybody, or political party. Neither did I indicate any thought of a conspiracy. I say that Obama is still largely. Mystery, an unknown . Unlike you I can not clAim to KNOW his thoughts and policy plans in the Middle East ,

  • “Anyone who trusts Putin for a nano-second T. Shaw is a total fool.”

    I trust Putin – to do anything that advances whatever Putin wants at anyone else’s expense.

    That said, I don’ t think we should go to war in Syria. Let Assad and the rebels fight it out. Both sides are using chemical weapons and both sides are evil. Sadly, it is the innocent who are suffering and dying.

    🙁

  • Apples and rock salt. What the Iranians have been doing makes absolutely no sense unless they wish to attain nuclear weapons.”

    Correct. Why does everyone talk about Iran’s gas centrifuges being used to enrich U-235 to weapons grade, but nothing about Iran’s heavy water reactor that is being used to breed Pu-239 from U-238 by the U-238 absorption of a neutron, becoming U-239, which beta decays to Np-239 which also beta decays to Pu-239. If Iran does it right, then it can extract the Pu-239 and make a bomb, or at least a very dirty (radiologically speaking) weapon. No centrifuges needed. Iran is using a two-pronged approach to a nuclear weapon, one a U-235 bomb and the other a Pu-239 bomb.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR-40

  • Paul, you are indispensable for this blog when nuclear issues arise!

  • I am against intervening in Syria because there is no up side for the US in intervening. I rather hope that Putin as a result of this debacle caused by Obama decides to pour weapons and money into Syria in support of Assad, as I suspect that Assad, eventually, will be on the short end of this conflict no matter how much material Putin gives him.

  • I think Obama is just trying to uphold the honor of his Nobel Peace prize: if a leader doesn’t start a war or two—Libya, Syria—people won’t think he is really serious about peace.

  • Pingback: Syria - BigPulpit.com
  • 7. Putin and Assad questionably give up the use of poison gas in exchange for avoiding a pin prick but substantial response, or something, from our ego wounded warrior Obama. Poison gas is not a strategic weapon like a nuke (such as is the goal of Iran) and is only a useful tactical weapon when delivered through artillery for bombardment on massing troops as was done in the Iran Iraq war, or as a terror weapon to be used on innocent civilians as was done by Iraq against the Kurds.  Conventional weapons like napalm, frac and cluster bombs are far more effective tools of war not dependent on weather and wind conditions, etc.   As a weapon in a civil and guerrilla war, gas has almost no tactical value at all making it less likely that assad had any preference for the use of gas—it simply does not make sense.   So the day after Putin checkmates Obama, Assad launches a massive offensive and is being re-supplied mightily by Russia.  In the meantime, the Turks, Jordanians and Saudis recognize that Obama abandoned his pledge to aid their surrogate Sunni terrorists.    And finally, Iran now recognizes with absolute certainty that Obama is indeed a paper tiger, and thus is proceeding with its strategic nuclear ambitions while Russia supplies Iran with its advanced missile defense system to ward off an attack by Israel while at the same time using the court of low information world “leaders” to advance a condition that the US back off from its tour de farce in the Med. In the meantime, Obama is gutting the military in armament, preparedness, morale, and even purpose.

    Bottom line—Assad and Putin gave up nothing. The world is now becoming exponentially more dangerous due to our mastermind POTUS….and the obamabots march on.

Take it out of Petty Cash

Wednesday, July 28, AD 2010

 

Thurston Howell III John Kerry agreed yesterday to pay 500k in sales tax  on  his yacht Isabel, which, as I detailed here, he had previously moored in Rhode Island in a transparent attempt to avoid these taxes.  Of course, I and the flying pig below are both convinced that Kerry would have paid the taxes even without the resulting furor when his tax avoidance scheme surfaced.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Take it out of Petty Cash

  • In addition, this tone deaf ‘Hero of the Libolution’ had the tub built in Panama (I think). Next time he’s screams about globalization . . .

    Nice support for the American working person!

  • I didn’t know champaign socialism was so expensive.

    Wonder how much you could do “to save the planet” with 7.5m USD.

    I reflect that both he and the little gore could have become President of the United States and I know that Providence is at work.

  • Hey!

    Even if your wife has $700,000,000 lying around, $500,000 is a lot of do-re-me!

    And, he saved a lot of jobs in New Zealand where the tub was built.

    E.G., your carnalic social justice politician at work.

Only Little Yacht Owners Pay Taxes

Friday, July 23, AD 2010

 

Thurston Howell III  John Kerry (D. Taxachusetts), is drawing flak for mooring his 76 foot sloop Isabel in Rhode Island rather than in Massachusetts.  By keeping his ship in Rhode Island, Kerry is avoiding paying taxes to his home state of an estimated $437, 500 in sales tax and $70,000 a year in excise tax.  Go to the Boston Herald here to read all about it.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Only Little Yacht Owners Pay Taxes

  • Sen. Kerry is such a hypocrite. He wants every other “rich” person to pay exorbitant taxes but he’ll do anything he possibly can to avoid paying high taxes.

  • This kind of tax planning is pretty typical, and not immoral at all in my view. But it is hard to square with Kerry’s political views on taxes though.

  • Do as I say, not as I do.

  • Its definitely a rort. They claim its being kept at Newport for long term maintenance, upkeep, and charter puroposes.

    Now charter purposes I will concede – but beautiful New Zealand build yachts need no upkeep, and almost no long term maintenance. 😉

  • Normally I’d agree with you Don, but with Captain “Both ways” Kerry at the helm, I pity the poor Kiwi yacht!

  • I apologize for this outburst. I am really tired of all the charade and deception.

    The law of (Obama Land) now is the “Ruling Class” in America (congress and their financial friends and lobbyist), especially those associated with the progressive socialist movement, gain and maintain their cherished power and control through “entitlement” programs benevolently granted to their humble and obedient “Subjects” (constituents) and these have become more and more the sustaining source of income for nearly half of the population. The remaining subjects by necessity must be “encouraged” to continue producing the wealth needed to operate the system in order to complete the fundamental changing of America.

    That’s why some see Johnny’s tax tactics as “normal” and accept his logic and return to their love of labor for the liberal philosophy of divide the people and conquer the wealth.

    Therefore, the honorable John Kerry, loyal traitor, devout and highly regarded by the clergy Catholic In Name Only, merciful champion of abortion and gay rights, and our finest congressional example of a kept man (he knows he’s so handsome) appears as an icon for the American business man and the “little people” with little faith but who have placed it in his ability to maintain his glorious image and ‘keep the entitlements coming’.

How to Reverse the Catholic Exodus

Saturday, June 12, AD 2010

Let us pray for all those change agents that are striving to bring back the authentic Catholic culture inside parishes, chanceries, and apostolates.

To view RealCatholicTV click here.

For RealCatholicTV’s The Vortex click here.

For the RealCatholicTV YouTube Channel click here.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to How to Reverse the Catholic Exodus

Adios Heretics, Hello Orthodoxy!

Wednesday, December 2, AD 2009

With the recent scandals rocking the Catholic Church here in America as in President Obama receiving an honorary degree at the University of Notre Shame to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claiming that abortion is an open-ended issue in the Church, we have seen a reemergence of ecclesial leadership on behalf of our shepherds.  Many bishops have awoken to the fact that being “pastoral[1]” has been a remarkable failure in resolving the deviancy emanating from Catholics and Catholic institutions.

The upsurge of young adults rediscovering their faith to the excellent parenting of Catholic families in raising fine orthodox Christian children, we have seen what is only the beginning of a Catholic renaissance here in America.  And let us not forgot the ever faithful cradle Catholics among us that have contributed in keeping the faith in the tumult arising from the Second Vatican Council to today.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Adios Heretics, Hello Orthodoxy!

  • Gates are not an offensive construct, they are purely defensive.

    It seems to me that Hell’s defenses are weak and rather than sit back and hold off Satan’s attack we should be taking the offensive. Christ has assured us that if we attack Hell’s gates, they cannot prevail against us.

    How do we attack Hell? We must seek virtue.

    Thanks for posting this. Will our orthodoxy increase the attacks against us individually in spiritual warfare? I don’t know about you, but the current situation, both in the Church and the secualr world; think more and more Tridentine Masses and mantillas as well as Tea Party Protests, is pusing more and more of us to conservatism and orthodoxy. Will that cause a step up in demonic attacks – it sure feels that way.

    Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio. . .

  • I wouldn’t have said “Goodbye, Liberals” as the title to Michael Voris piece, but “Goodbye, Heretics” which is more accurate in my opinion.

  • It sure is inspiring to see young people be proud of their faith. When my 16 year old daughter came back from an A.C.T.S. retreat, she inspired me to be closer to Jesus and proud to be Catholic. I was supposed to teach her and she ended up teaching me.

  • protestantism=institutionalized dissent….it also bleeds into Holy Mother Church members as well unfortunately.

  • Diane,

    I agree on some levels. It’ll be a generation or so until most (unfortunately not all) dissidents and heretics leave or are purged form Holy Mother Church.

    Ora pro nobis!

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians and the Church

Wednesday, September 9, AD 2009

Pro-abort Catholic PolsFather Roger J. Landry concludes here that the strategy of the Church to privately persuade Catholic pro-abort pols of the errors of their ways has been a flat failure.

“Let us take an honest look at the numbers. When we survey the long list of pro-choice Catholic politicians from both parties — Kennedy, Kerry, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Leahy, Mikulski, Pelosi, Delahunt, Capuano, Markey, McGovern, Meehan, Granholm, Sebelius, Pataki, Richardson, Cellucci, Cuomo, and Biden to name just a handful — is it possible to say that the strategy has worked with any of them? Over the last three and a half decades, can we point to even one success story?

Another way to assess the results of the education-alone strategy is to measure the direction that pro-choice Catholic politicians have moved over the years. Even if they haven’t experienced a total conversion, have they moved closer toward limiting abortions or toward making abortions easier to access? The facts show that the vast majority of personally opposed, publicly pro-choice Catholic legislators have become far less personally opposed and far more publicly in favor over the duration of the strategy.

In the initial years after Roe versus Wade, publicly pro-choice Catholic legislators generally whispered their support for abortion. They displayed a palpable sense of shame, letting their abortion position out just enough so that it wouldn’t cost them the votes of abortion supporters. That discomfort began to dissipate after Governor Mario Cuomo’s 1984 pro-choice defense at Notre Dame. We’ve now come to a situation when pro-choice Catholic legislators vigorously curry the favor of Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Emily’s List;  scores of Catholics in Congress have the chutzpah to co-sponsor the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate almost every abortion restriction ever passed at the federal or state level; and 16 out of 25 Catholic Senators vote against conscience protections to prevent their fellow Catholics in the medical field from being forced to participate in abortions and sterilizations.”

Father Landry ends by suggesting a new approach, perhaps we might call it the “more than hot air” approach:

“Jesus spoke of a different way in the Gospel (Mt 18:15-18). It involves not merely general educational statements that we hope offenders will apply to themselves in conscience, but the type of one-on-one instruction traditionally called fraternal correction. If that fails, and fails repeatedly, Jesus enjoined us to regard the offender as someone who no longer belongs to the community, who is no longer a member in good standing. This may seem harsh, but we should remember that Jesus always seeks nothing but the best for his Church and for individual sinners, even obstinate sinners. Implied in Jesus’ strategy is that education involves not just information, but formation, and that you can’t form disciples without discipline. This is a lesson that, after four decades of the undeniable failure of another approach, we need to consider anew.”

Hattip to my friend the ever vigilant Jay Anderson at Pro Ecclesia,  and please go here to read his comments on Father Landry’s argument.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians and the Church

  • Finally, someone has the courage to state what must be done.

    Thanks
    Paul

  • Yes, I agree with the idea of not considering them part of the community anymore but I think we need to voice that more. We need to let our congregation, the nation and the world know that we do not tolerate abortion support….and that Catholics who support and advocate it are excommunicated. We need to literally stand up and state what our Catechism says:

    “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.”

  • Well stated Simon. I was disappointed that Caroline Kennedy was pro-choice, repulsive, it’s incompatible with Catholic beliefs. Isn’t their someone in the Kennedy clan who bolts from this philosophy and ideology? Isn’t it good to know, of course, that Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s niece is pro-life.

    I have never wavered being pro-life though I have considered the question in full when younger, I respect an argument. Now, I consider how central and pivotal of an idea is it for the Church to be pushing.

    It was an interesting editorial in the UK, by a spokesman for the Tories I believe in the Daily Telegraph that grilled Ted Kennedy for voting for the partial birth abortions. England, can’t speak for the total UK because abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland like the Republic of Ireland, but one would think England is a bit like the USA in this regard. However, many in England find our “partial birth” abortions very evil. Okay, I would find fault with all abortions but I have met others from England who do not accept the late terms abortions that occur in the USA even though they are pro-choice. The Tories by the way in the above articles did not want Ted Kennedy to get Knighthood since basically, he’s had long term ties to supporting the IRA or something of this nature. I apologize for any of this being offtopic.

  • Don:

    Totally agree with your post and the comments of Jay Anderson and the good Father. People forget that there were even limits to Christ’s spirit of charity and inclusiveness such as when he tossed the money changers out of the temple.

    That being said how can one justify actions by other “Catholic” laity and politicians in promoting other activity that runs contrary to Catholic teaching, i.e. torture, pre-emptive war, the death penalty, divorce? How can one be a “Catholic” divorce lawyer? How can one be a “Catholic” judge or prosecutor that encourages or enforces the death penalty? How can one be a “Catholic” public official that allows or attempts to justify torture and pre-emptive war?

  • Like most things in life awakaman you deal with each issue on its own merits. The Church has spoken with one voice on abortion since the time of Christ.

    On the issue of preemptive war on the other hand, well, I assume some of the popes have had interesting discussions on that topic in the next life. For example John Paul II and Urban II on the First Crusade. I would love, and I mean that sincerely, to listen to that discussion.

    On divorce John Paul II seemed at one point not to want Catholic attorneys involved in them, but then in a clarification said that Catholic attorneys could be involved if their aim was to secure a good custody outcome for any minor children involved. That is one area where I personally would like some clarification since, although it makes up a miniscule portion of my practice, like most small town attorneys I am confronted with these cases from time to time.

    In regard to the death penalty we have the problem of Church teaching basically being reversed on that question under John Paul II, with a great deal of confusion now as to when the death penalty is licit and when it is not.

    I have no problem with holding the feet of Catholic pols to the fire on any number of issues, but I believe that Church teaching is the clearest on abortion, it is the issue that involves the greatest death toll each year for the innocent, and for me, as it has been since 1973, abortion will always be the overriding moral issue of our time.

  • Don:

    In regards to the 1st Crusade it is debatable as to whether it truly was pre-emptive war. First, it went beyond its initial objective of defending the Byzantine Empire and the West from the expansion of Islam and became more of a war of aggression with the reconquest of Jerusalem. Secondly, saying the 1st Crusade was fought by those exclusinvely seeking to protect Christainity is like saying the Civil War was fought exclusively over the issue of Slavery – total nonsense. It was extremely interesting that Jerusalem was a major trading center as well as an important city to Christians – just as it was an amazing coincidence that Iraq happened to have a lot of oil as well as a nasty dictator. Finally, even if we regard it as a pre-emptive war to prevent the spread of Islam given the current status of Islam in the middle east (and Europe) I would hardly say that it speaks well for pre-emptive war.

    In regard to the Death penalty did church teaching on the death penalty reverse or did it develop as a result of the growth or evolution of the modern prison system? Your argument reminds me of those offered by the Church of Christ as to why they do not have instrumental music at their services – because the early Christians did not – of course they didn’t have air conditioning or heating either. As prisons have become relatively “escape proof” and we have developed systems of rehabilitation (as I assume you agree that it is our Christian duty to do) the death penalty has become less necessary unless you want to engage in pure retribution. I know, I know . . . the deterance argument . . . but given that countries and states without the death penalty generally have less crime then those with the death penalty this is not a very good argument.

    Finally, given that JPII was rather adament in his denunciation of Catholic lawyers being involved in divorces “Roman Catholic lawyers should refuse to handle divorce cases, Pope John Paul has said.
    He said divorce was ‘spreading like a plague’ through society, and lawyers should refuse to be part of the ‘evil’.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1787106.stm

    Yes, one can engage in some self rationalization such as one is doing some good such as getting children into a good custody situation, but isn’t that the type of rationalization used by pro-choice politicians and those who vote for them, i.e. ignoring the great evil you are doing by pointing ut the small amount of good that may result.

  • well, we as catholics are so stupid. If you work, for example for Pepsi, but you don’t like Pepsi, and talk the whole day about the wonders of Coke, and try to sell Coke at every chance you have … what would your boss do? Fire you!!

    Off course, if you were coherent and a normal and rational person, you would leave Pepsi and move to Coke asap.

    This is how ratio works, this how the world is, this is how everybody in this planet feels. And what does the hierarchy do, not only in the States but anywhere else, without some honorable exceptions? They are SCARED, because the sheeps will leave the flock.. so WHAT?

    It is better to be fewer but real,rather than have many who disturb, who don’t leave us do the work of our Heavenly Father!

  • I believe the Catechism [2383] expresses well the Church’s position. Separation [divorce] is not immoral. Indeed it may be for the benefit of both parties.

    It is remarriage which is wrong.

  • Exactly, Gabriel. No off the cuff statement, even by a pope, even by a saint, can change that.

  • TomSVDP,
    The late Eunice Kennedy Shriver was notable for her pro-life advocacy within the Democratic party and her activism outside it. Her passing several weeks ago was noted on this blog and elsewhere, though there was little mention of her pro-life associations outside pro-life sources.

  • Awakaman in regard to divorce cases and Catholic lawyers this is where the ambiguity enters in:

    “Lawyers, as independent professionals, should always decline the use of their profession for an end that is contrary to justice, as is divorce. They can only cooperate in this kind of activity when, in the intention of the client, it is not directed to the break-up of the marriage, but to the securing of other legitimate effects that can only be obtained through such a judicial process in the established legal order (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2383). In this way, with their work of assisting and reconciling persons who are going through a marital crises, lawyers truly serve the rights of the person and avoid becoming mere technicians at the service of any interest whatever.”

    http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264xh.htm

    In this area I wouldn’t mind at all if the Pope told me that I could never take such a case again as it would give me an excellent reason not to do so when clients press me for my services in these types of matters. These cases are time consuming, emotionally draining, and, as I noted in my earlier comment a miniscule portion of my practice, and the only reason I get involved with them now is when a client convinces me that the kids would be better off with them, or they are being denied visitation, or they want an increase in child support, or they wish to attempt to change custody because the kids are begging to live with the client, etc. I would cheer a papal ban as giving me a good conscience deafness to their pleas, but I do not think the Pope has done that yet.

    More on your other points in a day or so when I am no longer shackled to my desk in my law office.

  • But how can civil divorce really be “contrary to justice” in cases where an innocent spouse is merely trying to remove herself or himself and any children from a situation that gravely endangers their physical, mental, or spiritual health or safety?

    I don’t think even JPII would have argued that it was “evil” for a woman to divorce a husband who was beating her or molesting their children, or a man to divorce a wife who was shooting up drugs and prostituting herself to get the money for them, or had taken up witchcraft or Satan worship, etc.

  • On the other hand, if it’s just a case of a man or woman having fallen in “love” with someone else and wanting to divorce their spouse to marry their partner in adultery, that’s another story, and a case in which I would think no observant Catholic lawyer would want to get involved.

  • You can also add into the complexity mix Elaine that clients are often less than forthcoming in this area of the law, and will frequently tell their attorney all about the misdeeds, real or imagined, of their spouse while not mentioning their own. Not infrequently this is being done in a high state of emotion, especially when the custody of children is at stake, and quick decisions often have to be made by the attorney. In hotly contested custody cases sex abuse allegations regarding the kids not infrequently enter into the case, and often the attorney has no way of knowing if the allegations are true. This is a difficult area of the law for an attorney concerned about following a moral path, and, unfortunately, not difficult at all for an attorney completely unconcerned with the morality of what is going on.

  • Pingback: digg » Blog Archive » Roundup: Obama’s Speech on Health Reform
  • Elaine,

    I don’t think even JPII would have argued that it was “evil” for a woman to divorce a husband who was beating her or molesting their children, or a man to divorce a wife who was shooting up drugs and prostituting herself to get the money for them, or had taken up witchcraft or Satan worship, etc.

    divorce is still an “evil”, but it is the guilty party who is culpable. In the same sense, war is an “evil”, and the unjust aggressor is culpable.

  • And what of Catholic priests and bishops who encourage divorces when they know that one of the parties is opposed to the divorce and they, the Catholic priests and bishops, flatly refuse to listen to them as they plead for action to support their marriage? What when this goes on for twenty years and the Holy see has completely ignored the same please?

    Some of us have seen this and have chosen to leave the Catholic Church over this. Why is there no support among “rank and file” Catholics for the plight of abandoned spouses who have to defend their marriage against both civil courts and marriage tribunals? And why, when one has defended one’s marriage before the highest courts in the Catholic Church, and watched those courts uphold that marriage, is their no action on the part of priests, bishops and the Roman Curia to canonically hold to account a spouse who has abandoned, wrongly, a faithful spouse, when the evidence is clear and in the possession of the Catholic Church(and has been for twenty years) that the marriage was usurped with the full cooperation of priests(to this day) and bishops(to this day)with mostly complete disregard for the valid, sacramental marriage?

    I think the politicians should receive a bye on this divorce/annulment issue while the Catholic Church tends to the clergy whose actions are far more harmful in this regard. Only after the Catholic Church has tended to its own, in house, facilitators of adultery and all the crimes that unjust divorce entails should it take the time to attempt to call to order catholic politicians. the house should be in order before that house attempts to call others to order.

    Just my two cents.

41 Responses to Remember Catholics for Kerry?

  • Donald,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Donna,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Donald,

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

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

  • Mark,

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

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

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

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

  • John Henry,

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

    Mark,

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

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

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

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

    God Bless,

    Matt

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

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

  • Donald,

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

    God Bless,

    Matt

  • Matt,

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

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

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

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

  • Mark,

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

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

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

    God Bless,

    Matt

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

  • Incorrigible One,

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

    Sophia,
    Mark

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

  • John Henry,

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

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

  • Mark,

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

    Sleep well and God Bless,

    Matt

  • Pingback: Top Post Wordpress « ATer: Criação de Sites Empresa (5511) 2527-3032. Sites Dinâmicos!
  • Matt,

    You are such a daunting opponent, I must say.

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

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

    In awe,
    M

  • Mark,

    you really are pathetic.

    I will pray for you.

    God Bless,

    Matt

  • Matt,

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

  • Matt,

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

  • Mark,

    Courage, Prudence and Temperance for good measure…

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

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

  • Donald,

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

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

  • Pingback: Mission accomplished, Catholycs in Alliance for the Common Good folds « A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics